Sovereignty levees breached?

Townhall ^ | 9/13/05 | Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

[Crackingham]

Since it seems the only news that is fit to print (or air) these days has to do with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, finding a related angle to call needed public and leadership attention to something else happening in the world requires a little ingenuity. Since the stakes associated with another, largely unremarked story – involving a drama that will reach its denouement at UN headquarters this week – may be nothing less than the future sovereignty and character of the United States, however, a way must be found.

As it happens, the answer lies in the toxic liquid now being pumped out of New Orleans into waterways that will, inexorably, contaminate the international reaches of Gulf of Mexico, and perhaps beyond. The United States has unilaterally determined that this potentially huge environmental damage is justified by the need to recover and restore a major American city, its population and economy.

Interestingly, shortly before Katrina precipitated this crisis, a gaggle of former senior government officials wrote Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist demanding that he swiftly effect the ratification of a controversial accord known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST). The authors dismissed concerns expressed by conservatives that LOST would impinge upon U.S. sovereignty and vital interests.

If the United States were a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty today though, it is very likely America would be enjoined from dumping New Orleans’ toxic stew into Lake Ponchartrain and the Mississippi River. For one thing, this action would violate the Treaty’s environmental obligations to protect marine life and its habitats, obligations whose sweep makes those of the Kyoto Treaty seem modest by comparison.

For another, the Law of the Sea Tribunal – the sort of multilateral legal institution whose tendency for politicization and anti-American actions has prompted the Bush Administration to reject the International Criminal Court – has already established a relevant precedent. In a case brought by Ireland against Great Britain, the Tribunal has established that its jurisdiction extends to activities on sovereign member states’ soil that can arguably affect international waters. (An important question for Senators to put to Chief Justice nominee John Roberts would be whether, like some other justices, he would regard such an internationally dictated injunction to trump America’s domestic jurisprudence?)

Unfortunately, since Ronald Reagan’s day, American governments have tended to pay too little attention to sovereignty-sapping treaties and institutional power-grabs by the United Nations and other multilateral organizations. To his credit, Mr. Reagan recognized the Law of the Sea Treaty for what it was intended to be by the World Federalists and so-called non-aligned movement types who had a significant hand in shaping its supranational International Seabed Authority and related entities: a highly precedential, and undesirable, vehicle for establishing world-government mechanisms to control the “international commons” (in this case, the oceans) at the expense of sovereign states.

[gondramB]

When areas flood, the water is often contaminated and flows back into the rivers and oceans. I wonder if the author has examined what happened to the flood waters from the 15 typhoons that hit China so far this year?

[Nateman]

The thing that scares me about awful treaties like this is you only need one lousy president with a compliant congress to make it happen and then we are stuck with it forever.

[Nathan Zachary]

China probably hasn't signed this LOST treaty. They aren't as stupid.
Frist should be reminded that he swore an oath to uphold and protect the constitution of this country. Signing treaties at the UN violates the constitution and soveriegnty of the nation.

[Nathan Zachary]

And also the Tsunami that washed all the garbage from indonesia and India, and other places into the sea.

[ozzymandus]

Signing a treaty and actually observing it are 2 very different animals. Bismarck was right when he referred to treaties as "a scrap of paper".

[gondramB]

"Signing treaties at the UN violates the constitution and soveriegnty of the nation."


I'm with you except for this part - since honoring treaties as part of the supreme law of the land in in the constitution.

[SAJ]

An excellent point, eloquently made, and -- no -- this author hasn't an effing clue on that subject.

(Applause for you all 'round!)

[The Red Zone]

and so? until the international marine tribunal or whatever it is can enjoin tsunamis and typhoons, non sequitur.

[Graymatter]

Mile-long sentence alert. You could break for intermission in that last one.

[lentulusgracchus]

I'm with you except for this part - since honoring treaties as part of the supreme law of the land in in the constitution.

In a pinch, I think we could still abrogate the treaty if, say, the Law of the Sea Tribunal suddenly announced they had jurisdiction and administrative control of the Mississippi River or the federal Outer Continental Shelf with all its oil fields. IOW, if the U.N. got pushy, unreasonable, and altogether began to resemble the collection of one-armed republics and dictatorships that it mostly is, we could walk, as long as our Navy was big enough to make it stick.

But I still like better the idea of not walking into dark alleys with $10 bills hanging out of our pockets in the first place. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, etc., etc. -- all the cliches apply.

[marsh2]

A Treaty that is not self executing and requires implementing legislation has the same standing as any other law. Congress may pass a law superceding treaty provisions at will. When a duly enacted law conflicts with a Treaty, the Court enforces the latest version.

[Roccus]

I brought up this exact same point last week.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1477780/posts?page=48#48

[lentulusgracchus]

A Treaty that is not self executing .....

What would be an example of a self-executing treaty?

Wouldn't Law of the Sea Treaty be self-executing for purposes of U.S. law if it were enforced by an international federation or power like the U.N.?

Eventually we'll have to defend ourselves against the U.N. as it devolves into a wolfpack of criminal-terrorist parastatal enterprises operating through statal corpses like what Colombia and several West African states are becoming, alternately cooperating and competing with organized regional power centers like the U.S. and China.

[Tom Thumbs]

Eventually we'll have to defend ourselves against the U.N. as it devolves into a wolfpack of criminal-terrorist parastatal enterprises operating through statal corpses like what Colombia and several West African states are becoming, alternately cooperating and competing with organized regional power centers like the U.S. and China.

---

Europe is reconciling itself to its future as the Continent of "Eurabia", and trying to pre-appease their coming rulers.

China is planning on eating our lunch -- and having us pick up the tab for them.

Russia is hedging its bets, dithering between China and the USA, waiting to decide which side to suck up to.

The USA is apparently dedicated to the proposition that The Constitution really IS a "Suicide Pact".

The UN will be the rabid feral mongrel that scavenges whatever loose flesh the rest of the predators leave hanging on the carcass.

What a mess. If ONLY a measure of sanity would prevail in this country.

[gondramB]

I would hope and assume you are right - surely we would not sign a treaty agreement that we could not leave later if we chose.

[gondramB]

Thank you. It's amazing the number of times the united States winds up on the negative side of someone's double standard.

[Little Ray]

The PRC would sign the treaty, then ignore it. If caught, they would dare anybody to enforce it against 'em.

[American_Centurion]

I despise how they keep referring to the water in NOLA as "toxic". The word conjurs images of causing instant illness and probably death soon after.

It would be more correct to use polluted or contaminated, but that wouldn't be scarry enough now would it? Sensationalism? No........

[Paul Ross]

Europe is reconciling itself to its future as the Continent of "Eurabia", and trying to pre-appease their coming rulers.
China is planning on eating our lunch -- and having us pick up the tab for them.
Russia is hedging its bets, dithering between China and the USA, waiting to decide which side to suck up to.
The USA is apparently dedicated to the proposition that The Constitution really IS a "Suicide Pact".
The UN will be the rabid feral mongrel that scavenges whatever loose flesh the rest of the predators leave hanging on the carcass.
What a mess. If ONLY a measure of sanity would prevail in this country.

Submitted for popular approval,

BEST RANT OF THE MONTH!