Posted on 07/26/2006 3:54:18 AM PDT by Trupolitik
After missing a deadline, the U.S. Department of Commerce finally has granted a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain complete disclosure of a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that critics say could lead to a EU-style alliance in North America.
The plan is being implemented through an office within the Department of Commerce called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," under the direction of Geri Word, who is listed as working in the agency's North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, office.
As WorldNetDaily previously reported, the White House has established executive branch working groups documented on the Commerce website SPP.gov. The Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, was issued as a joint press statement by President Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005.
Granting of the FOIA request comes after the Commerce Department missed a statutory requirement to respond within 20 businesses days.
The request was filed by author Jerome R. Corsi on June 19.
Corsi said the Commerce Department's compliance with the request is a major breakthrough.
"We're now going to get the documentary evidence to determine if the working groups in SPP.gov are creating new memoranda of understanding and trilateral agreements that under our Constitution should more appropriately be submitted to Congress as new treaties or laws," he said.
Corsi added that if this turns out to be the case, "we're going to present that evidence to the American people and let them make up their own minds."
Freedom of Information Act Officer Linda Bell mailed the "first interim response" yesterday and promises more response as batches of documents are processed, according to Brenda Dolan, a departmental officer.
Robert McGuire, attorney for Corsi, e-mailed Commerce July17, notifying the agency of the statutory violation in its failure to respond. He then received an e-mail from Dolan indicating the request was being processed. But McGuire asserted the response was unacceptable, saying the department "skipped a deadline required by law."
I guess a link backing up your assertion would be too much to ask for?
The dots are pretty big, and they're not very far apart...
Because of the mandatory arbitration and decision making process without recourse to American courts you can also include WTO, UNESCO, and NAFTA.
Yeah, posting facts to back up your assertions is such a bother.
Nonetheless, under the U.S. Constitution, the power to interpret the law and treaties "is vested in one Supreme Court" he said.
OMIGOD!! You're right, that's unconstitutional!! ROFLOL!
In other words, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if a particular treaty will be allowed to supersede the Constitution.
I think you meant to say it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if a treaty is constitutional.
So if a NAFTA arbitrator decided that America couldn't place tariffs on Canadian lumber, we'd have to go along?
When I opened a brokerage account, I had to sign a binding arbitration agreement, does that also supersede the Constitution?
An INTERPOL arrest warrant can only be executed by the authority in the jurisdiction where the "fugitive" is located. For example, if the U.S. issues an arrest warrant for a suspect in the U.K., Scotland Yard executes it regardless of whether an INTERPOL arrest warrant exists or not. In fact, seeing that the U.S. and the U.K. are signatories to another threaty (whose name escapes me at the moment), there would be no reason add another layer of paperwork, and the U.S. and the U.K. will likely work things out on their own.
INTERPOL arrest warrants are used when the suspect is "country-hopping" to avoid the law, or when one of the states involved is not a signatory to an extradition treaty with the other. In other words, say the suspect is believed to be in the U.K., but may have fled to France. Instead of waiting for the suspect to be located before an arrest warrant can be issued in the local jurisdiction, an INTERPOL warrant is used as a spring-board to get the process rolling, by providing a centralized location/database where the two (or more) law enforcement agencies can cooperate.
In your italicized hypothetical above (I'd love to hear you identify a case where it has actually happened), presumably you speak of a case where an American suspect is under an arrest warrant from [insert banana-republic hellhole here]. In such a case, even if that hellhole managed to get an INTERPOL warrant issued (not easy, since INTERPOL assiduously protects its independence for the reason it does not wish to be seen as an arm of the "hellhole police"), INTERPOL itself would be powerless until the U.S. executed the warrant.
In sum, your hypothetical U.S. citizen, if he is arrested and extradited, has a beef with the U.S. Departments of Justice and State, and can take his dispute to U.S. Federal Court (and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court), most likely the one that issued the U.S. arrest warrant to initiate the process. Thank you for letting me share.
I must admit, the image of uniformed INTERPOL officers executing warrants in the U.S. independently of U.S. law enforcement is rather humorous.
Just one will suffice. Thanks in advance.
The ICC would definitely screw-up my analysis, and as you certainly know, the biggest debate concerning the ICC concerns its authority.
I really don't plan on "genociding" anyone soon, nor if I did, would I expect the U.S. to fail to prosecute me, and it's not likely the ICC will come after me for my unpaid parking tickets, so my BP concerning this issue is still rather low.
I hear what you're saying. At my age, I sure don't have any concern. But, where will mission creep take this?
I've watched mission creep trample the Constitution too many times to believe the ICC will be limited to war crimes.
Was that your only example? I thought you had dozens?
You think?
You don't?
Little as possible...Don't want to get a brain sprain.
Keep making those unsupported assertions. They require very little brain power.
I'm not at home Todd, so I don't have access to my collection of references and links.
Take your time. Post some good ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.