Posted on 10/10/2007 8:24:52 PM PDT by jeffgr1776
Thanks for the PING.
Once the details come out, I will increase Hillary’s! odds to 85% that she will be the next POTUS.
But till then, I hold her at 80%
I certainly doubt that the Oregon democrats would sign onto this.
So do I.
Treaties do both.
If we never signed treaties, we would still be fighting a lot of battles that should have concluded a long time ago. If we don't have a treaty that defines our 200 mile exclusive economic zone, then we would have to send a gunboat out whenever another country wanted to challenge it. With a treaty this should hopefully be less frequent. Without a treaty other countries could claim arbitrarily large areas of the sea and the sea floor around their borders and we would have to fight over this too.
Wake up. Nobody is sending out gunboats to protect our 200 mile limit. There is no problem to be solved; and the lies pretending there is one reveal this to be yet another scam to promote world government and destroy our Free Republic, or what’s left of it.
And if treaties prevented armed struggles, WWII would never have happened—remember the Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact?
It seems that the only thing GWB is passionate about is his commitment in the uniting of the US, Canada and Mexico into one country and the destruction of our Constitution and Sovereignty!
Please show me where I’m wrong.
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/10102007a.shtml
Bravo! You tell em’.
This treaty is scary- and the timing of this coincident with the mexican rapist murderer defense by bush makes me wonder if the mexican thing isn’t just a sh!tstorm to obfuscate this treaty. The mexican thing is a done deal as far as we are concerned, no amount of protest on our part is gonna affect the decision of the Supreme Court, and there is no legislative action regarding the decision, but action of the Senate will be required here. It’s up to them to sign I believe, don’t really know if the House has any say on treatys.
Bump for Oregon!
There are several vital economic reasons to oppose United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as an unprecedented redistribution of wealth to oligarchies. However, I want to stress the lethal potential for our Naval forces.
Treaties provide illusions of protection from unreasonable maritime challenges; illusions quickly dispelled by lack of forthright action. Concerning the showdown between U.S. (UNCLOS signed) and P.R.C. (UNCLOS ratified) over the Navy EP-3E, China saw no problem in provoking, and we had no strategy for responding to the incident, notwithstanding UNCLOS and prior treaties defining freedom of the seas. Further antidotal evidence emerges from taking of British (UNCLOS ratified) hostages by Iran (UNCLOS signed). In this day of instantaneous communication, the fact the British captain did not fight his command means senior commanders and politicians, including some masquerading in military uniforms, failed miserably when exerting the authority they had confiscated to protect freedom of the seas. Since Iran is a terrorist state, the first evolutions practiced by Coalition task force units should have been the continuum of actions opposing anticipated Iranian provocations in the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz. One should have expected vigorous resistance to boarding of Iranian vessels in Iraqi waters. This and other Iranian intrigues should have elicited timely, consistent, practiced, lethal and non-lethal military responses. The provisions codify flaccid senior military/political responses by allowing shelter within prospective rulings from an international tribunal, thereby avoiding authorization for immediate, direct action to confront challenges.
The world-changing tragedies of September 2001 make imperative resolution of problems for treaty interpretation against us. Examples would be Articles 19 and 20 defining innocent passage, while within territorial seas, and Article 39 covering duties of ships while transiting straits used for international navigation. Acts prejudicial to peace of a coastal state include launching and landing aircraft, and using undersea craft for mine detection. Also a hostile reading of Articles 19 and 20, says using any electronic device other than navigational radar and Fathometer would be considered an act of propaganda or act aimed at collecting information. In regard to transiting straits used for international navigation, the same devices we need to protect our ships and insure freedom of the seas would be considered threats of force against sovereignty by totalitarian states seeking legal shelter for the piracy and terrorism used to dominate nearby international waters. State Department may assure friendly government relations (remember the U.S.S. Cole), but how many nations can and/or would provide practical sea, air and undersea supremacy guarantees allowing our warships to forgo defensive measures provided by aircraft, boats, sonar, and tactical radars and communication nets?
Supposedly, a “military activities exemption” would allow us to maintain adequate defenses in territorial waters, and straits used for international navigation, and not allow an international tribunal to frustrate Navy operations. Advocates such as Rear Admiral (Retired) W. L. Schachte and Dr. Scott C. Truver provide these assurances. However in their U.S.Naval Institute Proceedings comments, they refer to undefined protocols and not to treaty articles. Substantive, unambiguous protection for our naval operations does not reside within nuanced interpretations of passages or appendices subject to endless legal banter. If meaningful legal protection existed, the treaty would contain priority articles saying such statements as, “notwithstanding subsequent provisions, military activities that naval ships deem necessary to ensure freedom of the seas, and to deter or repel attacks are authorized”.
A new, hostile Council (not the Security Council) should have no problem defining terms to place our ships at risk of terrorism. For every Great Britain and Poland, which might hold one of 36 Council seats, I can name a Mozambique, Syria, Iran or Burma struggling through a new Dark Age where we are described as an economic predator and/or regime threat. We should not rely upon supposed friends either, when Donald Rumsfeld, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet are considered war criminals in Germany, Canada, and Belgium. The Security Council is cut out of the loop, so the veto we needed during the Cold War is not available for issues found within the treaty.
In reading this treaty, I believe you will find latitude in article language allowing this Council to write a massive body of implementing regulations directed against our ships and planes. These articles and regulations will bind our Sailors as they go into a “harms way” largely undefined in this era of violent peace. When something goes wrong, operators on 285 commissioned ships will pay the price, while 290 plus flag officers, Pentagon lawyers, and politicians in Washington D.C. express profound sorrow and outrage, as all bullet proof their resumes.
It’s even worse than I thought. But then everything that comes out of D.C. seems to be.
I sent a letter to the editor covering economic as well as military issues. Here is the section dealing with economics:
At 322 articles and annexes U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) resembles covert “comprehensive immigration reform”, including too many disturbing points to mention, while excluding our Security Council veto.
Provisions favor state owned and large private corporations, raising barriers against small companies and proprietors vital for free societies. For example, Articles 156-161 discuss governing/managing structure, and article 170 U.N.’s own revenue entity called Enterprise. UNCLOS Annexes 1982-Part 1, Annex III, Article 5,5 say Enterprise shall obtain needed seabed technology on “fair and reasonable” commercial terms, as judged by the governing structure creating the entity. Proceedings become show trials when individuals and companies holding patented technologies plead lacking powerful advocates.
Yep, it’s scary.
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.