Skip to comments.Senator Calls Treaty a "Disaster" For America
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 ...
During Congressional hearings -- State Department "experts" resort to lying to garner support....
One has to wonder, exactly which "State" our State Department represents!
When you have a navy like our Navy, the “law of the sea” is already nine points on your side.
Then, a “Treaty” is inappropriate...
Unconditional Surrender should be the operative document...
Be nice.....It’s WAY past my bedtime...
I’m sure the adult beverages had nothing to do with my spelling.....
There’s no excuse for misspeeling.
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?
Condoleeza Rice is the only State Dept. employee I trust. The department seems pinko.
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.
“Condoleeza Rice is the only State Dept. employee I trust.”
Then you might care to read this;
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?????
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.
United States Senator
Condi is part of the problem now. She’s been completely subverted by the career Communists within DOS.
And some good background information:
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.
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.
This treaty is one of the many reasons I viewed the 2006 election results as such a debacle.
You must be from Michigan?
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.