Posted on 09/16/2007 11:40:42 AM PDT by processing please hold
A move by the Bush administration in May of this year which fell under the radar is soon to come to the Senate. On September 27th the Senate will debate and vote on the full ratification of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Seas or in short The Law of the Seas Treaty. The treaty in essence gives the United Nation legal jurisdiction over the planets ocean and sets up a tribunal to govern all legal claims to territorial waters, mineral rights and mining and other uses of the worlds oceans, including navigation.
The treaty which has been in existence since the first Conference dating from 1973 - 1982 has never been ratified by The United States. When first presented in 1983 President Ronald Reagan categorically refused to even sign the treaty because he felt that it impugned on United States sovereignty.
Certain portions of the treaty have been beneficial and the United States abides by these terms as a matter of international law. For instance the treaty sets basic territorial waters and prevents nations who wish to push these territorial limits from over extending the recognized waters around their shore line borders. In other words in accordance to treaty limitations a nation cannot stretch its sovereign waters to a limit of say 250 miles and expect all other nations to abide by those unreasonable limits. Yet even with the treaty some countries have over extended their territorial waters without consequence. China and North Korea are among those.
The main contention that The United States has had to the treaty is Part XI which gives the UN full legal control in all mineral rights on every seabed found on the earths oceans. Without treaty ratification if a nation finds, for instance an mineral deposit in international waters and wishes to mine it then they are free to do so. Also ratification of the treaty would place United States fishing interest under the jurisdiction of the UN. U.S. fisheries would have fishing limits set by UN control and if those limits were exceeded they would be required to turn surplus catch over to distribution by the UN.
The Treaty would also require the United States to plead any case which questions the treaty before a non - elected United Nations Tribunal which then would decide in favor or against the United States. In light of the way every UN vote is conducted in recent years and the way that the United States is treated by that vote, this tribunal would be a disaster for U.S. interests. The UN after all loves U.S. money but hates U.S. interests.
In May the Bush Administration at the behest of career diplomats in the State Department urged the United States Senate to ratify all provision of the Treaty and the vote for this ratification begins on September 27th. In the past either a Republican President like Reagan or a Republican Majority in the Senate has blocked any ratification of the treaty. Now with a Democrat Majority who favors all UN control provides a distinct possibility of fully ratifying this treaty.
The dangers for the U.S. in this ratification are as follows:
1. The U.S. would be answerable to a UN unelected tribunal for all matters which involve the Seas and ocean borders of our nation.
2. Other countries environmental regulations could be forced on the United States through the UN and our surrounding waters by international law and mandate. The harvest of our fishing waters would also fall under UN mandate which will set limits and require fishing only in certain areas and relinquishing the surplus harvest to UN distribution. The requirement would also mandate over fishing in these particular areas.
3. The treaty would mandate recognized navigation rights. This provision is not only not necessary but not wanted by US interests because these UN mandated navigational lanes are not threatened by any international law and there is not a nation who has the capability of dictating to the US where we may travel, including the Navy in the world oceans.
4. The treaty gives a blank check to the UN on the spending of money supplied by the U.S. without ANY U.S. oversight.
5. The treaty gives eminent domain rights to the UN over intellectual property. In other words the UN would have the power to seize technology.
This treaty, if ratified, would allow the United Nations a free hand over all of the worlds oceans and any mineral actions taken in the oceans would not only come under UN jurisdiction, but would be taxable to the UN without ANY outside oversight on the spending of the monies acquired. All navigational lanes would be set by UN mandate and any country traveling outside of those mandated navigational lanes, including Navy's would be subject to action by the unelected UN tribunal.
This treaty, if ratified, would transfer wealth and technology by UN mandate from industrialized nations to third world countries. In other words a world wide socialized redistribution of wealth forcing the financial equality of all nations. This treaty would create a huge United Nations bureaucracy with legal jurisdiction over the worlds oceans. The UN has failed in the past in every instance where they have been allowed to run, oversee or control any program. Remember the Iraq Oil For Food Program. Now the US Senate is poised to ratify a treaty that dwarfs the Oil for Food Program both in scope and jurisdiction.
Since the treaty was written the opposition by the U.S. has caused many nations to not sign on to the treaty. The first Bush administration and the the Clinton administration proposed provisions that supposedly corrected the flaws and the Clinton signed the treaty in 1994 which caused some Nations to follow suit and others to ratify. The GOP controlled Senate stopped ratification and many nations who had signed the treaty have not ratified in accordance to the U.S. lead.
Now the present Bush administration is backing full ratification and a Democrat Senate who back the UN and adhere to socialist policies could very likely ratify the treaty. There are 34 no votes needed to prevent ratification. Call, write or e-mail you Senator and urge them to vote against ratification. Time is short. September 27th is just around the corner. This treaty will place vital United States interests under UN control and threatens our sovereignty as a nation which cannot be allowed.
We stopped the Senate Amnesty Bill and with a similar concentrated effort by the people we can prevent the ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty and save American sovereignty and interests.
This and countless other matters of importance are happening while we are fed "human interest" stories that merit about 5 minutes out of every 30 minutes of news.
Montclair, NJ public schools have all turned into UN approved classes.
http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php
A must read testimony in opposition from Jeane Kirkpatrick in '04, pdf HERE
And from William Middendorf II pdf HERE
Nic, do I remember you having some kind of access to EagleForum? Poster or something?
I’ve not seen this link Processing found.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1897455/posts?page=49#49
Our attention is diverted.
Lord have mercy on our beloved country - for as long as he can tolerate it.
>>>Funding approved by OBL in 1999? 2000?
I think it was before 1999. OKC bombing was 1995. That was planned with Abu Sayyaf. The plans for Oplan Bojinka were found in the Phillipines where Abu Sayyaf was HQ. Test runs for Bojinka were being run back in 1994. So they must have had an idea for budgets and contacts then.
REf: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1521072/posts?page=77#77
http://www.oja.moj.go.th/data/document/download/THAI%20PRESENTATION%2012-2-05.ppt
Terrorism in the Middle East
Law Enforcement Sensitive
New Trends in Financing (continued)
* Human trafficking
o Middle East (Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics)
+ Linked with organized crime—Russian Vory
o Cambodia, and Philippines
+ Linked with madrasas in Southeast Asia (children)
+ Linked with organized crime—Yakuza
+ A word about Abu Sayyaf
* Kidnapping and extortion
o Links to Hezb’Allah
o Links to FARC and ELN
As an example, look at OJ being arrested. Over 360 replies.
The last thread about this got about 8 posts. I would be totally surprised if too many even visit this. Being an ostrich has its merits. You can just pretend you knew nothing about it.
Now I could call Richard Lugar. His handlers would tell me to go suck an egg like they did the last time I contacted him.
I’ve sent them emails, and several times they have responded to me. No one in particular, however.
Eagle Forum DOES have information on their website about the Law of the SEA Treaty....what is it that you were wondering about, specifically? Are they missing this information there?
This is the first time I saw this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1897455/posts?page=49#49
I’ve seen info at the CFR on the NAU. I’ve never seen that though.
“OKC bombing was 1995.”
Agreed. The op Bojinka was named in 1995 by the US. “Bojinka” means big bang.
Do you remember when the Gorelick Wall went up?
Or what $$ Khalid Mahfouz funnelled to Clintoon/Gore?
I know but I have to try. I have to keep pushing.
Being an ostrich has its merits. You can just pretend you knew nothing about it.
It may comfort some to say, 'I didn't know.' But I won't have that luxury. All about priorities I guess.
Anyway, I'll keep posting about it until JR tells me to knock it off. :)
Ovrtaxt might! He had a great ping list going on able danger for a while. The Gorelick Wall came up often on those threads.
You should not “knock it off”. God love ya. Even Frank Gaffney knows this is a dangerous thing. Am I crazy, or just this spring we, including JR, were fighting this? Is this FReeRepublic? or is this RINORepublican? I am having trouble telling the difference these days.
Keep up the good work. You are a patriot!
Opportunity Knocking: Defeat Law Of The Sea Treaty
Of course, Bill Clinton is for the LOST; he signed it in 1994. The LOST meshes perfectly with his speech to the United Nations in September 1997, in which he boasted of wanting to put America into a "web" of treaties for "the emerging international system."There's also this March 2004 article, We Should Drown Law Of The Sea, where she sends you to thomas.gov link: Law of the Sea TreatyOf course, Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar is for LOST. Like Clinton, he is a Rhodes scholar and an internationalist who never saw a United Nations treaty he didn't like.
Vice President Cheney is an advocate of LOST. He doesn't have to listen to American voters because he will never again run for office....
...The real purpose of LOST is to force the United States to use our wealth and technology to mine the riches of the sea and turn them over to a gang of Third World dictators who are consumed with envy of America. Opportunity is knocking for a Republican Senator or Governor who will lead the charge against the LOST.
We thought we were rid of Bill Clinton (thanks to the 22nd Amendment), but his love affair with UN treaties and global integration has come back to haunt us. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) is now trying to get the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty that Clinton signed back in 1994.I could send Eagle Forum an email, with the link you're referring to, and see if they are aware of it, or if it's in an article (which I haven't yet seen refer directly to it...that I can tell).
Amen!
The treaty has never come to the Senate floor for a vote because of strong opposition from conservatives. Senator Jesse Helms, longtime chairman of the Foreign Relation Committee, blocked it for many years. Then-Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist also kept it away from the Senate floor, insisting that its flaws be exposed and studied by the Senate. The liberal Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 moved the measure up for action. Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and his advisor and staff director, Antony Blinken, a former Clinton Administration official, have decided that now is the time to act.Biden is also being pressured to move the International Criminal Court treaty forward.
Sure. Seems kind of childish, but countries are a lot like three-year-olds. Look at me!
Thank you so much. I know how much of a patriot you are as well. God bless you.
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.