Look, I gave you the link to the official document, it's in legalese. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be, are you? But if several U.S. Congressmen are publicly saying that this "managed trade agreement" authorizes UN tribunals, than I believe they are probably telling the truth.
You say that this document does NOT authorize tribunals, I believe it does. The onus is not entirely on me to prove my point anymore then it is on you to prove yours.
Here's what I see in the official language, if I'm wrong then I apologize, for my misunderstanding the bureaucratic language.
This is from 10:19 of official CAFTA document:
http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm
1. Unless the disputing parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties. 1. Unless the disputing parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties.
2. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section. 2. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section.
3. If a tribunal has not been constituted within 75 days from the date that a claim is submitted to arbitration under this Section, the Secretary-General...
A final note to you.
Your bold highlighting, with emphasis on words like *you*, and etc, indicate you're getting angry. Take a chill pill, FRiend....
I'm not personally attacking you. I'm merely stating what has been brought up by several Republican Congressman, including Rep. Tancredo. I know you don't like him; that's fine. But he has a 100% ACU conservative voting record.
If that so upsets you, then well, let's just discontinue this *conversation*.
Take care
Look, I gave you the link to the official document, it's in legalese. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be, are you? In other words, I was wrong.
If that so upsets you, then well, let's just discontinue this *conversation*.
And now I'm running away. LOL!!
You say that this document does NOT authorize tribunals, I believe it does. The onus is not entirely on me to prove my point anymore then it is on you to prove yours. I said nothing of the kind. Your opinion that these tribunals will grant foreign corporations some yet-unsubstantiated "super-rights" is flat-out incorrect, regardless of what some politicians say.
As for the "onus" of proof, it is yours, unless you admit that your reply #41 was mere speculation. Let's review it, shall we?
. CAFTA contains over 1,000 pages of international law, establishing property rights for foreign corporations.
You should have stopped right there. . Chapter 10 of CAFTA outlines a tribunal system under which foreign corporations, operating in the United States, are granted greater property rights than U.S. law provides for U.S. citizens.
False. See my reply #48, specifically the section containing "[CAFTA will] not provide greater substantive rights [to foreign investors]."
. CAFTA empowers foreign corporations to go to the United Nations, and World Bank tribunals to challenge both state laws, and U.S. federal policies.
False. See my reply #48, specifically the section containing "[CAFTA grants] no authority to order the [U.S.] government to modify any law, regulation or practice."
. Through international tribunals, foreign owned corporations can demand compensation, (funded by American taxpayer dollars) for the losses caused by complying with the policies and regulations that apply to all U.S. citizens and businesses.
False. See my reply #48, specifically the section containing "existing state laws are specifically carved out of key provisions of the investment chapter."