[taxesareforever]

It appears that President Bush is intent on turning this country into a globalist country before he gets out. If he was pulling this stunt two years ago he just might not be President today.

[processing please hold]

Good for Oregon.

[Paperdoll]

Good for the Oregon Republican Party, of which I was a central committee for many years, for this resolution against L.O.S.T.. I would like to see this resolution passed by the Republican Party of every state in the union.

Bush is going to push this and his comprehensive amnesty policy for illegal invaders hard. This is the “capital” he spoke of after being re-elected to his lame duck term. He has nothing to lose so he will do all he can to further the One World Government goal of the globalists.

He has even called in the World Court to intervene in the execution of an illegal alien convicted and condemned in Texas for the gruelling rape and murder of two teenage girls there! The president of the U.S. is actually appealing to a foreign court to influence the judicial decision of an American court!!!!! What else will he not do?!!!!

[Salvation]

Oregon Ping

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.

[Cold Heart]

BTTT

[wideminded]

I was listening to the hearings about the LOST on C-SPAN. Many current and former top Navy people were testifying that it is in our interest to sign the LOST, principally because it will clarify many things which are very ambiguous under the framework of prior treaties. They said that there are many rumors about the treaty that are not true, a lot of them concerning UN powers granted by the treaty. They said that the only way the UN is connected with the treaty is that the UN organized the meetings of countries where the treaty was negotiated.

They said that we are establishing our own rights and not only granting them to foreign countries and that on balance this is in our favor. They said that they are satisfied with language in the treaty concerning the free movement of military ships.

These guys did not seem like traitors to me.

Here's the Wikipedia article on the LOST.

[DesScorp]

Wow, who knew there were still real conservatives on the West Coast?

[matthew fuller]

I really don’t know anything about this yet, but IF I accept anything coming out of Oregon as even halfway true, then there seem to be sizeable problems with this. Given Bush’s recent track record, I believe that he needs to be stopped. I will be checking with my Senators on this.

[TigersEye]

I’m with ORP on this. Bush is lost. Supporting this is as enigmatic as his open borders policy. It’s not American.

[Paul Ross]

Bump for Oregon!

[Retain Mike]

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.