Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lentulusgracchus
Under a provision of the treaty, member nations can expand their jurisdiction over marine resources from the current 200 nautical mile limit to up to 350 nautical miles _ more than 400 standard miles - from their coasts if they can prove that their continental shelf extends that far.

So why can't the Congress pass a law extending the US territorial waters to 350 nautical miles? In the past "international law" simply meant mutual agreement between nations- there was no implied loss of sovereignty. There was no supervising authority. The new definition of "international law" is "submission to the UN and/or the International Court". Bolton has rejected this notion. Congress should back him up. If other nations are (via this treaty) claiming 350 nautical miles, then so can we. Passing such a law would remove one of the main justifications for LOST. The current crop of UN scandals should make it easy for Congress to pass such a law and reject LOST again.
29 posted on 03/29/2005 6:35:21 AM PST by Ragnar54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Ragnar54
If other nations are (via this treaty) claiming 350 nautical miles, then so can we. Passing such a law would remove one of the main justifications for LOST. The current crop of UN scandals should make it easy for Congress to pass such a law and reject LOST again.

IMHO this qualifies as The Good Idea of the Week.

The people who need to hear about this right now are our senators. Lugar's all for it, and he has lots of push. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, a state where people are rumored to know something about oil and gas, is blocking it.

I'm afraid Texas's senators would be inclined to go along with anything Bush wants, just because he wants it -- and because his people totally control the Texas GOP.

Anent which, an obscure column in a recent number of the wretchedly liberal-turning Houston Chronicle (the editor is driving the paper to the left, and admitted it at a dinner in which he was quoted in his own paper) informs us that, after her strong rebuff by El Paso-area businessmen in her fund-raising campaign to test the waters concerning a run for the governorship of Texas against Bush protege' Rick Perry (whom Bush and Karl Rove are said to privately despise as "not the sharpest knife in the drawer"), U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has suddenly turned up with a pair of important new Senate committee assignments overseeing NASA and other matters of interest to Texans.

IOW, there will be no Kay Bailey Hutchison challenge for the Texas governorship this year. Perry is to be protected, and all the Bushbots and bag-bearing businessmen are lined up to defend him. The El Paso millionaires basically and publicly told a very shocked Kay, they have too much money and time invested in Perry, and they want their money's worth!

So she's being paid off to go away, basically, after getting the rebuff. That's the way I read it.

She would be a very tough vote to get, in such an environment, against anything that Bush has put the word out that he wants. Hutchison's junior colleague is even more supine. I'd cite a recent example, but he isn't worth the memory expenditure.

33 posted on 03/29/2005 6:49:59 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson