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

Skip to comments.

Senator Calls Treaty a "Disaster" For America
Acuracy in Media ^ | Oct 05, 2007 | Cliff Kincaid

Posted on 10/07/2007 12:47:54 AM PDT by river rat

Liberal Senate Democrats and the U.S. State Department are desperate to get the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty ratified. But Senator David Vitter, a conservative Republican, keeps getting in the way. Through skillful questioning during Thursday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, the Louisiana Republican got a leading treaty supporter to acknowledge that America's enemies can manipulate the process of mandatory dispute settlement under the treaty so that the United Nations Secretary-General plays the key role in the outcome. Vitter called this a "recipe for disaster" for America and urged more hearings into the treaty's flaws.

(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: baddeal; betrayal; communistgoals; davidvitter; democratparty; gramsci; lawofthesea; lawoftheseatreaty; lost; sovereignty; treason; treaty; un; unclos; unitednations
The "Law of the Sea Treaty" appears to be a plot by our own State Department and the U.N. to surrender sovereignty to the thugs who run the U.N.

During Congressional hearings -- State Department "experts" resort to lying to garner support....

One has to wonder, exactly which "State" our State Department represents!

1 posted on 10/07/2007 12:47:55 AM PDT by river rat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: river rat

When you have a navy like our Navy, the “law of the sea” is already nine points on your side.


2 posted on 10/07/2007 1:00:18 AM PDT by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: river rat
Acuracy in Media

lol

3 posted on 10/07/2007 1:01:39 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie

Then, a “Treaty” is inappropriate...
Unconditional Surrender should be the operative document...
Right?


4 posted on 10/07/2007 1:02:11 AM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Be nice.....It’s WAY past my bedtime...


5 posted on 10/07/2007 1:02:57 AM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I’m sure the adult beverages had nothing to do with my spelling.....

G’Nite guys..


6 posted on 10/07/2007 1:04:21 AM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: river rat

There’s no excuse for misspeeling.


7 posted on 10/07/2007 1:35:37 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: river rat
"The "Law of the Sea Treaty" appears to be a plot by our own State Department and the U.N. to surrender sovereignty to the thugs who run the U.N. "

Sounds repugnant to me. Not in pursuance to the supreme law. Time to put the Enumerated Powers Act on the front burner and settle this once and for all. We didn't give congress the power to yield our sovereignty or surrender our Constitution to a foreign power.

I'm sure the supreme court would toss this treaty, right?

8 posted on 10/07/2007 2:47:58 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: river rat
Liberal Senate Democrats and the U.S. State Department are desperate to get the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty ratified.

Condoleeza Rice is the only State Dept. employee I trust. The department seems pinko.

9 posted on 10/07/2007 3:43:07 AM PDT by JoeGar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

tinyspell.com


10 posted on 10/07/2007 3:57:29 AM PDT by RetSignman (DEMSM: "If you tell a big enough lie, frequently enough, it becomes the truth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: river rat

Both my senators are hard-core Marxists, and asking them to oppose this treaty would be like asking Kim Jong-il to serve his slaves steak and potatoes.


11 posted on 10/07/2007 4:39:06 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Tofu burgers are the last gasp of a dying society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeGar

“Condoleeza Rice is the only State Dept. employee I trust.”
__________________________________________________________

Then you might care to read this;

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/feb05/psrfeb05.html


12 posted on 10/07/2007 4:47:22 AM PDT by Roccus (Hillary........brought to you by the PRC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

i get a continuous case of bewilderment when i read all this crap...how can anyone of any conservative bent, feel there is anything worthwhile in this surrender document?????


13 posted on 10/07/2007 5:01:47 AM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: river rat
For what good it I wrote to both of my Senators Casey and Spector, and so far only Casey has responded, with this bit of drivel:

Dear [VR]:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted in 1982 with the goal of managing the use of our ocean resources, while promoting cooperative arrangements among countries with conflicting claims to oil exploration, fishing rights and other commodities such as diamonds and tin. In 1994, the Convention was modified to address outstanding U.S. concerns and the United States has subsequently been in voluntary compliance with the entire Convention; accession to the treaty would not result in any changes to current U.S. domestic or foreign policy.

Some of my constituents have reservations about the United States ratifying the Law of the Seas treaty, and I take those concerns seriously. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I pledge to study this issue carefully and listen to my colleagues and legal experts before voting to send the treaty to the full Senate for consideration.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to frequently visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. In the months ahead, I will continue to develop the site in order to allow you to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington. If you wish to e-mail me, you can do so on the web site.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

14 posted on 10/07/2007 5:17:48 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeGar

Condi is part of the problem now. She’s been completely subverted by the career Communists within DOS.


15 posted on 10/07/2007 5:26:39 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: river rat
Here's a partial list of FR threads on this subject:

And some good background information:

See text of UNCLOS/LOST at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm.

The treaty touches on many various subjects and areas of concern, e.g., sovereignty issues, environmental restrictions, royalties (taxes) to be paid to the Seabed Authority, redistribution of wealth to undeveloped countries, sharing of technology, resolution of disputes, and more.

One aspect of the treaty that peaked my interest but has received virtually no attention is the "Enterprise". The treaty would create the "Enterprise", a multinational corporation, wholly owned by the Seabed Commission, to engage in exploration and mining operations for the benefit of the Authority and funded in part by the royalties paid by member states. This is the first time that I can think of that the UN has sought to create a business enterprise that would actually compete with businesses of its member states.

16 posted on 10/07/2007 5:49:54 AM PDT by foxfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxfield

Yeah, and the UN’s “business” would be subsidized by us and private enterprise. They’d end up putting everyone else out of business, because they would not have any overhead(we would pay it) and they would never lose money.


17 posted on 10/07/2007 5:56:47 AM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: river rat

This treaty is one of the many reasons I viewed the 2006 election results as such a debacle.


18 posted on 10/07/2007 6:05:36 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

You must be from Michigan?


19 posted on 10/07/2007 6:14:49 AM PDT by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: foxfield; backhoe; Cindy; Jim Robinson

BUMP


20 posted on 10/07/2007 9:08:41 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: eeevil conservative; Gvl_M3; txroadkill; i_dont_chat; Southside_Chicago_Republican; JoanneSD; ...
PING!!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

FReepmail to be added to the Congress Watch Ping List.

Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self-control and, therefore, religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge, well-being.- Lord Acton

21 posted on 10/07/2007 9:22:21 AM PDT by Politicalmom (Of the potential GOP front runners, FT has one of the better records on immigration.- NumbersUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free; foxfield; hedgetrimmer; nicmarlo

Don’t forget that the UN makes the rules and the UN can change the rules anytime.


22 posted on 10/07/2007 9:37:15 AM PDT by texastoo ((((((USA)))))((((((, USA))))))((((((. USA))))))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JoeGar
Condoleeza Rice is the only State Dept. employee I trust. The department seems pinko.

Employee? Isn't she in charge? They follow her lead.

23 posted on 10/07/2007 10:17:42 AM PDT by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

bttt


24 posted on 10/07/2007 11:46:10 AM PDT by Guenevere (Duncan Hunter...President '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: texastoo
Instead of signing anymore treaties, Congress Should Investigate the United Nations Tsunami Relief Effort
25 posted on 10/08/2007 6:33:59 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: river rat
During Congressional hearings -- State Department "experts" resort to lying to garner support.... One has to wonder, exactly which "State" our State Department represents!

Pure BS. The State Department works for the WH. It is not an independent actor. The State Department represents what the WH wants. If State is trying to "garner support," it is because the WH wants it. I am always amazed how many times people try to make the State Department the scapegoat when they disagree with a WH decision on foreign policy.

26 posted on 10/08/2007 6:44:03 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Condi does what the WH wants her to do, not what State Department career employees have brainwashed her into doing.


27 posted on 10/08/2007 6:46:52 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kabar
"The State Department works for the WH. It is not an independent actor."

Now, THAT'S the purest BS...

You need to get out more....

28 posted on 10/08/2007 8:12:30 AM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: river rat
Now, THAT'S the purest BS...You need to get out more....

I am a retired Foreign Service Officer who worked for the State Department for 28 years. You haven't the slightest clue about how the foreign policy of the United States is formulated and implemented.

29 posted on 10/08/2007 8:26:13 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kabar
"I am a retired Foreign Service Officer who worked for the State Department for 28 years. You haven't the slightest clue about how the foreign policy of the United States is formulated and implemented."

That explains a LOT....

This original exchange began when I questioned which STATE the State Department represented.

You responded that the State Department "works for the White House".

The MISSION STATEMENT of the Department of State, reads:
Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.

It doesn't say be a rubber stamp for the President - whoever that loony sonuvabitch might be...
I would like to think that they have MORE than a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the best interests of AMERICANS are first best served.

30 posted on 10/08/2007 2:17:03 PM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: river rat
It doesn't say be a rubber stamp for the President - whoever that loony sonuvabitch might be... I would like to think that they have MORE than a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the best interests of AMERICANS are first best served.

The State Department, like DOD and the CIA, is part of the Executive Branch, which is under the authority of the WH. The State Department is just one of the foreign affairs agencies. It does not have the final or greatest say on the formulation of foreign policy. In fact, the NSC, DOD, and the CIA usually have more influence on foreign policy than State. And the buck stops in the WH Once the policy is determined, State implements it and defends it.

The idea that the State Department is autonomous or can oppose the President publicly is sheer nonsense. In that regard, they are just like DOD. The President is an elected official accountable to the people. And he appoints the top level people confirmed by Congress to run the Department.

31 posted on 10/08/2007 9:19:11 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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.

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