Posted on 10/29/2007 8:09:19 PM PDT by processing please hold
When State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III gave a controversial June 6 speech on the subject of "The United States and International Law," he mentioned that the Bush Administration had "put forward a priority list of over 35 treaty packages that we have urged the Senate to approve soon, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea."
The latter is now up for Senate ratification, with a vote scheduled on Wednesday, and one of its many controversial provisions is the regulation of land-based sources of pollution. This treaty covers the water and the land. But now we have discovered that the Bush Administration has asked the Senate to ratify a treaty that defines one of those land-based sources of pollution as toilet flushing. No kidding.
It is amazing but true. The Bush Administration wants the Senate to ratify a treaty that will invite international inspections of what you flush down your toilet.
We are talking about Annex III of the “Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, with Annexes.” You can read it for yourself here.
Annex III is titled, “Domestic Wastewater,” which is defined as including “all discharges from households, commercial facilities, hotels, septage and any other entity…” These discharges are defined as encompassing (1) toilet flushing, (2) discharges from showers, wash basins, kitchens and laundries, or discharges from small industries, provided their composition and quantity are compatible with treatment in a domestic wastewater system.
Lawrence A. Kogan of the Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development uncovered the dangerous details of this agreement and has termed it the “Toilet bowl treaty,” noting that it constitutes a sort of mini-Law of the Sea Treaty. The protocol, he says, is one of 11 “regional seas” agreements. It is on an October 1 State Department list of “Treaties Pending in the Senate.” (Not all of these treaties are currently being pushed by the Bush Administration).
Our major media were, as usual, asleep at the switch. It turns out that the White House issued a press release about submitting this treaty to the Senate for ratification. President Bush's statement was quite specific. He noted that “It is estimated that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities,” and that parties to the treaty “are required to ensure that domestic wastewater discharges meet specific effluent limitations, and to develop plans for the prevention and reduction of agricultural nonpoint source pollution.”
Bush claimed that “The United States would be able to implement its obligations under the Protocol under existing statutory and regulatory authority.” In other words, he thinks this is supposed to affect others, not us. But this may not be the way some activist judges and international lawyers see it.
Bush's admission that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities is directly relevant to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which has provisions relating to prohibiting pollution from such sources. That is why many observers have concluded that the Law of the Sea Treaty can serve as a back-door way to implement the (unratified) global warming treaty. Foreign judges and lawyers could easily interpret greenhouse gas emissions as contributing to pollution of the oceans. As a result, under UNCLOS they could order cuts in energy use.
Since the State Department submitted the protocol for ratification, along with the Law of the Sea Treaty, it's a certainty that Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III knew all about the potential for regulating land-based pollution sources and activities, including toilet bowls, when he testified before the Senate about UNCLOS on September 27. But not only did he deny that UNCLOS had any such potential, he said it had no such provisions. When pressed, he claimed the provisions were “hortatory” and had no practical legal impact. This is why Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch and I have asked for a formal review (PDF) of his testimony. He clearly misled the Senate.
But now we find out that it's worse than we thought. The State Department had previously submitted another treaty that specifically and explicitly defined a land-based source of pollution as being a toilet bowl. Ratification of this treaty, in conjunction with ratification of UNCLOS, would literally invite U.N. inspectors to review and manage discharge from your toilet bowl. Why didn't Bellinger tell the Senate about that during his UNCLOS testimony?
Bellinger seems to be far more open and honest with international audiences that he is trying to appease and impress. In his June 6 speech to a group at The Hague, for example, Bellinger boasted about using his own staff of 171 lawyers to “integrate” international law “into the decision-making process” of the U.S. Government. He defended the President's order to Texas to comply with a ruling by the U.N.'s International Court of Justice on giving convicted Mexican killers another hearing. Bellinger called this compliance with “an international obligation.”
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on UNCLOS on Wednesday. UNCLOS is the first order of business and if it passes, as seems likely, Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid could call it up for a quick Senate floor vote.
Before the committee votes, it should recall Bellinger as a witness and determine why he has been less than open and honest about the “obligations” of the U.S. under UNCLOS. Then he should be asked to explain why we need a treaty targeting toilet bowls and showers. If he claims the need to adhere to “international obligations,” he should be laughed out of the hearing room, along with his treaties.
How many more months do we have to deal with Bush and his stupidity? How many????? Just when you thought he COULDN’T get any more ridiculous,,,a new day dawns and Bush sinks to another level.........
>>>Foreign embassies, perhaps?
If you are right about that, that would include matricula card holders.
Where'd we hear that before, Guenevere?
Guess asking that kind of question's the trouble of having a decent memory, huh.
I've been concerned with the selection of candidate we on the Right have been presented the past few elections. The main question being, "Is this the best we have?".
That question's getting mighty old.
"Sadly, as I told my husband this morning, I wonder if we'll be fortunate to even get through the next year with the present administration without loss of complete sovereignty."
Good question, or are we only delaying the inevitable?
Between the carpet-bombing of lies and a trickle of truth, who can honestly say anymore?
"Every day...every day!...[b]there is one more thing to deal with.[/b]"
Uh-huh, right you are.
A deliberate plan, or, is it really a duck?
"We continue to get gut-punched...and we're suppose to 'take it'."
Seems so.
At least 'til one day we die, burnout, walk or otherwise just go away.
Sounds like a plan, to me. ;^)
"God bless & help and sustain our military...we sure owe them a debt...God help them."
Amen, I'll second your sentiment.
Let's pray their sacrifices haven't been a waste.
...& in vein.
Just emailed Norm Coleman urging him to vote against this affront to our sovereignty.
Nothing, of course. The "confrontation" will still be supersonic at the time of impact.
They'll try. They won't succeed unless we let down our guard or get complacent. We have to stay ever vigilant and on our toes.
Let's see if he shows up.
(10/15/07) Is Norm pissing off the hardcore conservative voters? Might they stay home? A blogger at The Conservative Voice argues that Norm is endangering himself. This blogger claims that hardcore conservative voters might just stay home in protest of Norm trending leftward.
Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman has a tough re-election fight in 2008 and his Democratic opponent could be obnoxious left-wing comedian Al Franken. But Coleman, who chaired important hearings in 2005 into the United Nations oil-for-food scandal, is starting to make conservatives nervous. He skipped two important hearings on ratification of the controversial United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) but found enough time for a photo-op with rock star Bono.
It is a tendency of many Republicans to move left when they are in tough re-election fights. They end up losing, rather than gaining, voters. They don’t get the liberal votes they’re seeking and they lose conservative voters, who decide to stay home in protest. In Coleman’s case, he could alienate many conservatives by casting the deciding Senate vote for UNCLOS.
(The Conservative Voice)
He damn well better.
Uh-huh.
That's sure how it looks.
...doesn't it.
We’ll find out later today I guess.
We’ll find out later today I guess.
Sorry for the dp. All these proxy errors are really starting to bug me.
Sorry for the dp. All these proxy errors are really starting to bug me.
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.