Posted on 10/31/2007 7:15:20 PM PDT by Delacon
The More People Know About Sea Treaty, The Less They Support It
Senate Committee Approves Treaty, But With Sharp Increase in Opposition
Statement of David A. Ridenour, Vice President, The National Center for Public Policy Research on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on the Law of the Sea Treaty this morning:
The more people learn about the Law of the Sea Treaty, the less they like it.
That's the message from this morning's vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Although the Committee voted to send the treaty to the full Senate for consideration, there was a marked increase in opposition to it from just three years ago. In 2004, it was approved 19-0. This morning there were four nay votes.
The tide is turning against the Law of the Sea Treaty. The full Republican Senate leadership opposes it as well as presidential candidates Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Senator Fred Thompson, Governor Mike Huckabee, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Duncan Hunter.
This explains why its supporters - including Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) - are in a rush to push it through before their colleagues can be alerted to the treaty's fatal flaws. They rejected a very reasonable request this morning by Senator David Vitter to delay the Committee vote for one week to allow additional expert testimony from those with concerns about the treaty. Senator Vitter wished to correct the nearly 6 to one imbalance in favor of treaty proponents during the Committee's hearings.
So desperate was Chairman Joe Biden for an affirmative vote for the treaty that he misrepresented both the treaty and President Ronald Reagan's position on it during the Committee's meeting today. Biden asserted that President Reagan's only objection to the treaty was the deep seabed mining provisions and that these provisions have been corrected.
Not a single word of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been amended since Ronald Reagan was president nor were these provisions his only objections. As President Reagan noted in his diary on June 29, 1982, "Decided in NSC meeting - will not sign 'Law of the Sea Treaty' even without deep seabed mining provisions."
It seems the only person Mr. Biden can quote correctly is Neil Kinnock, from whom he lifted a speech during a previous presidential run in 1987.
The treaty is a bad deal for the U.S. because it would...
* Complicate our efforts to apprehend terrorists or weapons of mass destruction by subjecting our actions to review by an International Tribunal that is unlikely to render decisions favorable to the U.S.
* Make our ships more vulnerable to terrorists or rough states by extending surfacing requirements for unmanned underwater vehicles used to detect mines when our ships exercise their rights of innocent passage through the territorial sea of another nation.
* Threaten the U.S.'s ability to set its own environmental standards. The treaty requires us to "adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources" and shall endeavor to "harmonize" it regulations. As Greenpeace notes, ""The benefits of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea are substantial, including its basic duties for states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to conserve marine living species."
* Give control of a substantial portion of the ocean to a U.N.-style body, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), that will likely be less accountable than the U.N. The ISA was established to be self-financing, deriving revenue not only royalties. The U.S. will have even less leverage in pushing for transparency and accountability than it does with the U.N. as threats to withhold contributions will be less meaningful.
* The treaty permits amendments without requiring nations to re-ratify it - even if the changes are substantial. This not only is a blank check, but a stunning abdication of the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities.
This goes against Ronald Reagan's advice, "trust, but verify."
For more information, contact The National Center for Public Policy Research at (202)543-4110 or visit http://www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org.
I could hear the loud sigh of Ronald Reagan as I read this.
Congress Critter ping!
Also, I want to point out that the fact that President George W Bush is for this and got advice from his Dad on it makes me sick to the core.
The NWO continues.
Good post over on the Corner by Murray:
All Not Lost on LOST [Iain Murray]
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote in favor of ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty is disappointing, but grassroots opposition is still building against the treaty. The strong statements against LOST in recent days by the Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee campaigns are an indication that their campaigns have already felt this movement against the treaty. The opposition of the Senate’s Republican leadership is another good indication. If Majority Leader Harry Reid brings LOST to the floor for a vote, it is going to be a real fight.
For those not up-to-speed on the issue, here are the main points to remember about LOST:
1. LOST threatens U. S. sovereignty. Not just a little or around the edges, but fundamentally. Once the U. S. became a party to the treaty, any number of issues could be adjudicated by a LOST tribunal. It is not clear what the limits are on the issues that could be taken up by LOST. Jurisdiction over anything that affects the oceans directly or indirectly could be asserted. The majority of members of the tribunal adjudicating any particular issue are almost certainly going to be hostile to U. S. interests. Tribunal decisions cannot be appealed. Unlike every other country in the world, those decisions could be enforced in U. S. federal courts against the federal government.
2. LOST would be a big step toward United Nations global governance. The treaty’s reach extends far beyond international issues and disagreements into nations’ internal policies on a wide array of issues. The treaty’s structure is designed to replace national decision making with UN decision making on these issues.
3. For the first time, the United Nations would have international taxing authority through LOST. Enough said.
4. LOST would accomplish backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and far beyond. A claim before a LOST tribunal that industrial CO2 emissions are leading to increasing acidification of the oceans and thereby threatening the world’s marine ecological resources would almost certainly be decided in the affirmative. Other nations could decide how to respond to such a decision. In the U. S., a private party, such as an environmental pressure group, could file suit in federal court to force the federal government to implement the tribunal’s decision. This is because in the U. S., ratified treaties have the same status as the Constitution. This is not true of any other country.
More on LOST here.
What is the Senate bill number?
John McCain's name is glaringly not mentioned. The damned GOP needs to be advertising and calling attention to this travesty of a treaty. If this treaty passes, it is crystal clear that pimps are in charge of our government in Washington.
Phone your congressmen. This is as bad as the illegal amnesty bill, possibly worse, because of the precedent it sets, putting fake international law above our sovereignty.
Do we want to have to ask permission for everything we do at sea from the likes of China, Libya, and Sudan?
CONGRESSCRITTERS TOLL-FREE @ 1-800-965-4701
Call your Senators starting tomorrow!
Get the groundswell going..
This is a giveaway. Shooting wars have started for less.
Don’t bother calling your House reps. Only the Senate votes on treaties.
I can’t find it. Do treaties get bill numbers?
The (UN) Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, its functions and activities
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm
LOST is also Global Warming in stealth mode:
Oceans and the law of the sea
Report of the Secretary-General, 31 August 2007
(snipped from the index to this report)
XI. Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg58
A. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg59
B. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg62
C. Developments in other forums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg63
XII. Settlement of disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg64
A. International Court of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg64
B. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/494/09/PDF/N0749409.pdf?OpenElement
Good grief. I might have known it.
First I heard of that. Thanks. It just keeps getting better and better.
It might not have an actual Bill # until it is actually introduced on the floor.....probably just some committee designation at the moment.
But one need only read the UN stuff, because that is what the end outcome.......The US subjects itself to the treaty or not.....all or nothing, I think.
From Ian Murray’s post:
4. LOST would accomplish backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and far beyond. A claim before a LOST tribunal that industrial CO2 emissions are leading to increasing acidification of the oceans and thereby threatening the world’s marine ecological resources would almost certainly be decided in the affirmative. Other nations could decide how to respond to such a decision. In the U. S., a private party, such as an environmental pressure group, could file suit in federal court to force the federal government to implement the tribunal’s decision. This is because in the U. S., ratified treaties have the same status as the Constitution. This is not true of any other country.
Americans need to start thinking about our second amendment. Bullets contain lead. The un can go after our guns by claiming lead runoff is polluting our oceans. Think about. They already made several grabs at our guns. This lead run off angle will give them another battle to fight.
The treaty provides the UN with the power to tax. This must never happen. The UN must exist at the expense of its member nations, never upon its own resources.
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.