Ratification of sea treaty essential

The Sedalia Democrat ^ | Monday, August 30, 2004 | The San Diego Union-Tribune

[hedgetrimmer]

The international Law of the Sea Treaty has been approved by 145 nations and is unanimously supported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The proponents of this eminently sensible accord include the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, the State Department, the Commerce Department, the President Bush-appointed U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, every major ocean industry, the National Foreign Trade Council and a slew of environmental groups.

The treaty sets forth comprehensive rules governing the use of the oceans, including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below. It guarantees each nation control over its coastal waters extending 200 miles offshore. It enhances the rights of our military to travel the high seas in order to protect U.S. interests. It strengthens U.S. economic interests by securing rights of passage for more than $800 billion worth of American imports and exports. It also bolsters our maritime industries and helps preserve the marine environment.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is preventing a floor vote on the accord. He contends that more committees should take another look at it.

[hedgetrimmer]

Its baaaaaaaaaack!

[hedgetrimmer]

LOST again...

[GeronL]

Kill it and kill it dead.

[hedgetrimmer]

Kill LOST
Sunday, August 29, 2004


Majority Leader Bill Frist has bottled up the Law of the Sea Treaty in the U.S. Senate. Keep it corked, Sen. Frist.
The one-worlders, including perhaps a majority of senators, contend LOST is a neutral codification of the law of the sea. It is not. It is ceding by the world's largest economy -- and, by far, most potent naval power -- freedom of the seas to the United Nations.

Where self-interested treaties between nations and maritime custom once ruled comes the new sovereignty of world government.

Consider this:
The Seabed Authority would regulate mining the sea bottom for "the benefit of mankind" under a redistributionist model.

The Seabed Authority itself could compete with private companies for rights to extract resources and thus encourage them to provide sufficient incentive for the authority to withdraw.

The United Nations authority could impose taxes on oil and natural gas extractions.
The power of taxation is the keystone of sovereignty. And so is the power of taxation the cornerstone of corporatism.

With the understanding that "private" business can profit by the government's power to grant and enforce monopolies or give relief from its power to impose crushing taxes, it makes sense for corporatists -- many in this country -- to seek a unity with government. Most efficiently, one-world government that will reward its favorites and punish the disfavored.

All for "the benefit of mankind," of course.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/archive/s_245267.html

[Sacajaweau]

200 miles off shore???

[GeronL]

It gives the rest of the ocean to the UN

The UN should never have any legally recognized 'sovereign' anything. They will start taxing international trade, communications and money transfers.

It will be the way towards a world government. Imagine the UN banning US ships from their oceans....

Stupid idea.

[taxesareforever]

If the U.S. signs on to this the war on terror is over. We will have our hands tied and the terrorists will have control.

[B4Ranch]

That is to satisfy Chinas claims on the islands.

[FairOpinion]

Senators hear how UN Law of the Sea Treaty will cripple national security
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105398/posts

1) the treaty will hand control of seven-tenths of the Earth's surface to an unelected supranational buracracy, (2) that supranational bureaucracy would have the power to levy taxes on US interests, (3) those taxes would finance the supranational organization, removing any leverage the US would have against it, (4) the new organization would control the world's ocean research and exploration, (5) it would create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments, (6) it would force the US to share billions of dollars' worth of underwater mapping and other exploration crucial for the US Navy to dominate and control the seas, (7) it would gravely harm US intelligence collection at sea, and (8) it would establish precedents for weakening US control of space, where such control is vital to the nation's economic and military well-being.

[hedgetrimmer]

They're running more of the world than you care to imagine:

Court tells Barbados to give T & T info in maritime row

BRIDGETOWN, Barbados - The Barbados Government has until Monday, September 6, to submit written information to Trinidad and Tobago relating to their maritime boundary dispute, which is now before an international tribunal on the Law of the Sea.

The information was requested in a "disclosure application" by Trinidad and Tobago when the first formal procedural hearing by the arbitrators on the maritime delimitation row between the two Caribbean Community states took place in London on Monday this week.

Both the attorney general of Trinidad and Tobago John Jeremy, and Barbados' Mia Mottley, were unavailable for comment yesterday.

But the Observer was reliably informed by sources involved in the arbitration process that the requested information relates to letters Barbados had written to oil companies bidding for operations in areas the Barbados has traditionally regarded as part of its territorial waters.

In the legal tussle to settle rules of procedures and terms of appointment, the arbitrators have also determined, unanimously, to proceed strictly with the case of the boundary delimitation dispute to the exclusion of "any other matter", such as the fishing rights controversy between the two countries, as raised by Barbados.

Barbados in February this year took the dispute to international arbitration after the collapse of negotiations with Trinidad and Tobago over resolution of their old fishing rights dispute that had resulted in strained relations.

There have been no resumption of fishing rights negotiations since both sides agreed, six months ago, to the arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) process.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20040827T000000-0500_65279_OBS_COURT_TELLS_BARBADOS_TO_GIVE_T___T_INFO_IN_MARITIME_ROW.asp

[hedgetrimmer]

And yet, my senator, Barbara Boxer wrote to me and told me ratification would have no effect on the US whatsoever. I meant to post that letter, but hadn't got to it yet.

My other senator never wrote back on this topic at all.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

The international Law of the Sea Treaty has been approved by 145 nations and is unanimously supported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Uhhuh. What they don't state is that it effectively gives the coasts of the United States to the UN. We won't even be able to defend ourselves without their approval.

Fire the government. Vote them out of office.

[hedgetrimmer]

that it effectively gives the coasts of the United States to the UN

And since Santa Cruz County sold out to that devil years ago, we might not even notice it here.:-(

[B4Ranch]

Let's put somebody in the White House who is sure to sign this! ///////strongest sarcasm possible!///////

Freepers:When this is signed, if the troops should ever ask you what country they are fighting for while President Bush is in the Office, the correct answer is the United Nations and the UN Charter.

Remember Republicans are in charge of the Congress, the Senate and the White House now.

What difference could Kerry make when we Republicans are trying to give the U.S. of A. to the U.N. in broad daylight right under our noses! Am I ticked off at the President and the promoters of a New World Government? You bet I am.

[B4Ranch]

I have been attempting to educate these emotionalist Republicans for 3 1/2 years about what was happening, but because I am criticizing the President and favored Republicans they have put on Party blinders and will only listen to the approved headphone speaches.

Maybe someday they will have a decent lie to tell their children about why they sat on their asses and didn't object to this treasonous behavior.

[flashbunny]

(1) the treaty will hand control of seven-tenths of the Earth's surface to an unelected supranational buracracy,
(2) that supranational bureaucracy would have the power to levy taxes on US interests,
(3) those taxes would finance the supranational organization, removing any leverage the US would have against it,
(4) the new organization would control the world's ocean research and exploration,
(5) it would create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments,
(6) it would force the US to share billions of dollars' worth of underwater mapping and other exploration crucial for the US Navy to dominate and control the seas,
(7) it would gravely harm US intelligence collection at sea, and
(8) it would establish precedents for weakening US control of space, where such control is vital to the nation's economic and military well-being.

But other than that, what's the downside to it?

[Arkinsaw]

The US will sign on to this treaty at some point. They will bring it back, and bring it back, and bring it back, over and over until one time it slides through and then there is never any going back. They won't be deterred by defeat on this one, ever.

[Happy2BMe]

"The United Nations authority could impose taxes on oil and natural gas extractions."

"The power of taxation is the keystone of sovereignty. And so is the power of taxation the cornerstone of corporatism."

_______________________

Well, I guess since we have no land border sovereignty there is no reason to have any sea or coastal land sovereignty either then. What a golden opportunity for the UN to finally get it's paws direclty into our back pockets (without having to filter our money through various congressional monetary grants and "loans").

COALITION AGAINST REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ

>

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

"But it was the weasels who scuppered any return to business-as-usual. Messrs Chirac and de Villepin barely paused for breath before moving on from their pre-war sabotage programme to a revised post-war sabotage programme."

"Do you think his lawyers will speak French?"

Don't sweat it Saddam, your lawyers on his way, and your punk Chirac has already said he's willing to post the bail.

"Within France and its client states!!"

~ ~ ~

* * * *

The United Nations Wants to TAX you!

"Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali ... urged the [UN] to consider imposing its own taxes to become less dependent on the United States...."

-Washington Times, January 16, 1996

Are you concerned that...
...numerous taxation schemes to finance the UN are being considered?

Economist James Tobin proposed in 1972 that the UN be the recipient of a tax of 0.05% on foreign exchange transactions. In 1993, the Ford Foundation produced Financing an Effective United Nations, a report containing recommendations that the UN tax airline traffic, shipping, and arms sales. In 1995, the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance suggested that the UN collect levies from those who use "flight lanes, sea lanes for ships, ocean fishing areas, and the electromagnetic spectrum." Ultimately, of course, the burden of all taxation falls on consumers.

Are you concerned that...
...a State Department study specifically proposed giving the UN taxing power and, ultimately, control of the world?

In 1962, the State Department financed a study entitled "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations." The report outlined what would be needed for such a total world government: "a mandatory universal membership," an ability to use "physical force," and "compulsory jurisdiction" of its courts. One of the UN's "principle features," stated the report, would be "enforceable taxing powers." (Emphasis added.)

Are you concerned that...
...no matter how much our nation gives, the UN will never be satisfied?

In addition to hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid, our nation has provided the UN with tens of billions more for its programs since 1945. Currently, U.S. contributions make up 25% of the UN's annual budget. But, in his May 2001 speech at Notre Dame University, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan complained with a typical anit-American attitude, "It is shameful that the United States ... should be one of the least generous in terms of helping the world's poor."

Are you concerned that...
...taxing authority would fuel an unaccountable UN Superstate?

Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said of a UN tax: "We would no be under the daily financial will of member states who are unwilling to pay up." UN Founder Harlan Cleveland made the same point in Futures: Rather than relying on "the worn-out policy of year-to-year decisions by individual governments" (about how much to give the UN), "what's needed is a flow of funds for development which are generated automatically under international control." And there would be no Congress to limit the UN's appetite for your tax dollars!

The United Nations Wants to Take Your Land!
"Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."

- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976

[Quix]

FLUSH THE TREATY.

FLUSH IT'S SUPPORTERS.

HIDEOUS BENCH MARK ON THE WAY TO TOTALITARIAN GLOBALISM.

Remember, REFUSE TO BE SLAGGED if you really wish to spend eternity in Heaven!

[Bikers4Bush]

Jeses ceasar salad will this thing never die?