Skip to comments.Obama Seeks Sovereignty Surrender Via LOST Treaty
Posted on 05/21/2012 6:59:58 PM PDT by EagleUSA
Sovereignty: Even if he's not re-elected, the president hopes to leave behind a treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and to which we'd be required to give half of our offshore oil revenue.
The Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST) has been lurking in the shadows for decades. Like the Kyoto Protocol that pretended to be an effort to save the earth from the poisoned fruit of the Industrial Revolution, LOST pretends to be an effort to protect the world's oceans from environmental damage and remove it as a cause of potential conflicts between nations.
Like its Kyoto cousin, LOST is an attempt at the global redistribution of power and wealth, the embodiment of the progressive dream of the end of the nation state as we know it and the end of political freedom by giving veto over all of mankind's activities to a global body in this case something called the International Seabed Authority, located in Kingston, Jamaica.
The ISA would have the power to regulate 70% of the earth's surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights, deep-sea oil exploration and even the activities of the U.S. Navy under control of a global bureaucracy. It even provides for a global tax that would be paid directly to the ISA by companies seeking to develop the resources in and under the world's oceans.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Won’t it take 67 Senators to approve it?
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
“...Wont it take 67 Senators to approve it?”
I sure hope so. This America-hater needs to be defeated at every turn. And where are the voices of the Repubs in Washington??? Nutless bastards!
” Obama continues to destroy American soverignty and give away our hard-won freedoms and liberty while compromising our strength. He remains the worst enemy of America and its people. “
I guess Dick the RINO can pull out all the stops now. His last primary is behind him.
The article discusses several vital economic and political reasons for opposing 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 protective illusions 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 preventing or 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 authority to protect the freedom of the seas they had confiscated from operators on site. The treaty provisions codify flaccid senior military/political responses by allowing rhetorical shelter within prospective rulings from an international tribunal. They thereby surrendering sovereignty and avoiding authorization for immediate, direct action needed to confront challenges.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 should signal future sophisticated, extravagantly violent innovations demanding we repudiate a treaty easily interpreted 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 the sovereignty by feral states seeking legal shelter for the piracy and terrorism they need to dominate nearby international waters. The 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 that allow 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 U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings comments. However, these undefined protocols are not treaty articles. Substantive, unambiguous protection for our naval operations does not reside within the nuanced interpretations of passages or appendices subject to endless legal banter. If meaningful legal protection existed, the treaty would contain priority articles with 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 lethal attack. 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.
False Flag Operation on LOST
U.N. Law of the Sea Convention
If the senate DOES approve it, and I wouldn’t be surprised, couldn’t a future president and congress tell the UN to stick it?
No. It takes "two thirds of Senators present" to ratify a treaty. It's been done by voice vote with no record of a quorum or a committee vote.
Worse, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (a treaty on treaty law we never ratified), a treaty is effective on signature of any representative of the (UN) member governments, and has been so respected (illegally) by the United States for thirty years. This is why Bush rescinded Clinton's signature on the treaty governing the International Criminal Court.
Thats ok we can just renig on the deal...
We can say that Obama is a Traitor and We no longer recognise anything He signed....
and To Hell With the UN.
We need to kick those Bastids out of OUR Country.
What a country! (for now anyway..)
Thanks very much for the info.
So George HW Bush and Sarah Palin are traitors as well?
You are welcome.
Obama had no problem getting more than 2/3 of the senators for his START treaty that was a tragedy.
The START Treaty: Undermining National Security
Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix
Wiki: Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and laws made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land."
It can't be contrary to the nature or intent of the Constitution, and it's subject to amendment or repeal by Congress.
There's also serious doubt that it is subject to UN treaty law, which was adopted as a part of another treaty. Such layered fiascos send lawyers into leg-kicking bliss like a splayed dog, but have little connection with the original Constitution.
On the other hand, most of what passes for American law these days has little to do with the original Constitution.
As Franklin remarked about our system: "It's a Republic - IF you can keep it.
Yes It would, But what Makes you think there are not enough Rinos to get it Passed?