Senator Calls Treaty a "Disaster" For America

Acuracy in Media ^ | Oct 05, 2007 | Cliff Kincaid

[river rat]

Liberal Senate Democrats and the U.S. State Department are desperate to get the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty ratified. But Senator David Vitter, a conservative Republican, keeps getting in the way. Through skillful questioning during Thursday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, the Louisiana Republican got a leading treaty supporter to acknowledge that America's enemies can manipulate the process of mandatory dispute settlement under the treaty so that the United Nations Secretary-General plays the key role in the outcome. Vitter called this a "recipe for disaster" for America and urged more hearings into the treaty's flaws.

[river rat]

The "Law of the Sea Treaty" appears to be a plot by our own State Department and the U.N. to surrender sovereignty to the thugs who run the U.N.

During Congressional hearings -- State Department "experts" resort to lying to garner support....

One has to wonder, exactly which "State" our State Department represents!

[pawdoggie]

When you have a navy like our Navy, the “law of the sea” is already nine points on your side.

[Lancey Howard]

Acuracy in Media

lol

[river rat]

Then, a “Treaty” is inappropriate...
Unconditional Surrender should be the operative document...
Right?

[river rat]

Be nice.....It’s WAY past my bedtime...

[river rat]

I’m sure the adult beverages had nothing to do with my spelling.....

G’Nite guys..

[Lancey Howard]

There’s no excuse for misspeeling.

[Eastbound]

"The "Law of the Sea Treaty" appears to be a plot by our own State Department and the U.N. to surrender sovereignty to the thugs who run the U.N. "

Sounds repugnant to me. Not in pursuance to the supreme law. Time to put the Enumerated Powers Act on the front burner and settle this once and for all. We didn't give congress the power to yield our sovereignty or surrender our Constitution to a foreign power.

I'm sure the supreme court would toss this treaty, right?

[JoeGar]

Liberal Senate Democrats and the U.S. State Department are desperate to get the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty ratified.

Condoleeza Rice is the only State Dept. employee I trust. The department seems pinko.

[RetSignman]

tinyspell.com

[sergeantdave]

Both my senators are hard-core Marxists, and asking them to oppose this treaty would be like asking Kim Jong-il to serve his slaves steak and potatoes.

[Roccus]

“Condoleeza Rice is the only State Dept. employee I trust.”
__________________________________________________________

Then you might care to read this;

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/feb05/psrfeb05.html

[raygunfan]

i get a continuous case of bewilderment when i read all this crap...how can anyone of any conservative bent, feel there is anything worthwhile in this surrender document?????

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

For what good it I wrote to both of my Senators Casey and Spector, and so far only Casey has responded, with this bit of drivel:

Dear [VR]:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted in 1982 with the goal of managing the use of our ocean resources, while promoting cooperative arrangements among countries with conflicting claims to oil exploration, fishing rights and other commodities such as diamonds and tin. In 1994, the Convention was modified to address outstanding U.S. concerns and the United States has subsequently been in voluntary compliance with the entire Convention; accession to the treaty would not result in any changes to current U.S. domestic or foreign policy.

Some of my constituents have reservations about the United States ratifying the Law of the Seas treaty, and I take those concerns seriously. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I pledge to study this issue carefully and listen to my colleagues and legal experts before voting to send the treaty to the full Senate for consideration.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to frequently visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. In the months ahead, I will continue to develop the site in order to allow you to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington. If you wish to e-mail me, you can do so on the web site.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Condi is part of the problem now. She’s been completely subverted by the career Communists within DOS.

[foxfield]

Here's a partial list of FR threads on this subject:

• Global Taxation Treaty (UNCLOS, LOST) Comes Before U.S. Senate
• Will Senator McConnell Take on the U.N.'s Seasick Lawyers? (unCLOS)
• LOST and found (u.n. law of sea treaty)
• An Administration LOST at Sea
• LOST At Sea
• Paradise LOST

And some good background information:

• Forest Warden at The Conservative Voice provides a very good summary of the current status of LOST in in his article UN given authority over US Navy.
• Web site Reject The Law Of The Sea Treaty that really nails down all of the problems and concerns.

See text of UNCLOS/LOST at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm.

The treaty touches on many various subjects and areas of concern, e.g., sovereignty issues, environmental restrictions, royalties (taxes) to be paid to the Seabed Authority, redistribution of wealth to undeveloped countries, sharing of technology, resolution of disputes, and more.

One aspect of the treaty that peaked my interest but has received virtually no attention is the "Enterprise". The treaty would create the "Enterprise", a multinational corporation, wholly owned by the Seabed Commission, to engage in exploration and mining operations for the benefit of the Authority and funded in part by the royalties paid by member states. This is the first time that I can think of that the UN has sought to create a business enterprise that would actually compete with businesses of its member states.

[Scotsman will be Free]

Yeah, and the UN’s “business” would be subsidized by us and private enterprise. They’d end up putting everyone else out of business, because they would not have any overhead(we would pay it) and they would never lose money.

[samtheman]

This treaty is one of the many reasons I viewed the 2006 election results as such a debacle.

[GoldenPup]

You must be from Michigan?

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

BUMP