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.
OK. Try this.
Type a few sentences, separating them with a blank line where yuo want paragraphs. Add at least one misspelling (like yuo at the left.)
Click the Spell [] BEFORE you submit. After changing the misspelled word, you will see the formats for < p > and < /p > (without the spaces) in the posting.
A few hints:
< b > is to start bold; < /b > is to end bold.
< i > is to start italics; < /i > is to stop italics.
< br > is to make a line break (carriage return).
< p > is to make a paragraph break.
Bill
Richard Lugar is such a son of a bitch.
< b > is to start bold; < /b > is to end bold.
I already know that......in the preamble post above I put them before and after the last full sentence. As always, the preview shows the full post (including the OT part) as one sentence.
This happens every time I try to bold, whether the post is a copy/paste fron another site, my typing, or a combination. I think it might be a browser setting or something like that.
Rarely, a simple copy/paste from elsewhere will do the same (without me even trying to bold any part of it), but I have learned to (in the preview/edit function) remove all HTML tags in such instances......
Only once or twice in 3 years at FR has it ever worked right for me. OTOH, posting pics has worked OK every time since I learned to do it.
Lugar....yep! Sponsored the most recent DREAM Act reintroduction, last week. Him, Durbin and Hagel.
If you add any HTML tags, an automatic conversion to HTML that would otherwise retain paragraph formatting is not performed. Instead, you have to manually insert the HTML for the effects you want, including paragraphs. It's all or nothing.
I'm pretty sure there's a tutorial around here somewhere . . .
I have contacted my two Senators, the President and the Vice-President regarding this matter.
I hope they are listening and can see some validity to all the negative feedback they are getting on the LOST Treaty.
D1
bttt
What I do is open Outlook Express. I type what I want to type the way I want to type it as if I am writing an email. Look down at the bottom. You will see 3 tabs. Click on the middle one for “Source”. That will convert anything you’ve written to html. Then copy and paste that to your comments box on FR. FR will do the rest.
The honorable Senator Isakson from Ga. opposes this bill and voted against it in committee. I thanked his staff.
Senator Chambliss has taken no position on it.
I did NOT thank him, but rather reminded him where his votes and funds came from and what we expected from him.
That’s odd. I had it the other way around a couple weeks ago.
Chambliss’ office said that he opposed and Isaakson had no position. I called Isaakson yesterday and found out he voted no, so I thought we were ok.
*Scurries off to nag that weasel Chambliss some more....*
I just called his office and they said he was opposed.
Which office did you call?
800 965-4701 Senate office.
I hope the response to you was the latest(correct) one.
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.