Administration Lying About LOST

Forums Home | The FireWire | Breaking News

Posts 1-8 of 8 | Latest Post
October 1, 2007 02:23 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
May 24, 2007

The administration is lying through its teeth trying to stuff this monster down our throats!

Senator Vitter Leads Assault on UN’s Sea Treaty

By Cliff Kincaid

October 01, 2007

Editor's note: Learn about the LOST in this 8-minute presentation.

 The media have been pummeling conservative Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana for apologizing for sexual indiscretions. But America should be grateful he stayed in the Senate and did not resign in the wake of the media assault. The senator demonstrated on Thursday, during a hearing into the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, that he is going to continue to do the job he was elected to do. Vitter’s performance was so effective that he left State and Defense Department officials either speechless or caught up in embarrassing contradictions about the impact of this international agreement on America’s security and sovereignty. It should now be perfectly obvious that Bush Administration officials, in collusion with liberal Senators, are trying to bamboozle the Senate into quickly ratifying a very dangerous pact.

One area of concern is how other nations and international lawyers could use the treaty against the U.S. in a back-door effort to implement the (unratified) global warming treaty, with the result being higher gas prices for the American people and perhaps even energy rationing. The Law of the Sea treaty creates a tribunal and various bodies, including dispute resolution or arbitral panels, to resolve conflicts which may arise. Major parts of the treaty mandate international regulation of U.S. economic and industrial activities on land. Greenhouse gases, for example, could be viewed under the terms of the treaty as contributing to pollution of the oceans.

Negroponte Caught in Falsehood

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told the Senate committee that the U.N. body established by the treaty has “no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources.” He said, “that’s just not covered by the treaty.” Negroponte’s sidekick, State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III, said, “It clearly does not allow regulation over land-based pollution sources. That would stop at the water’s edge.” But Vitter shot back, “…why is there a section entitled pollution from land-based sources?” Not only is there a section by that name, Vitter pointed out, but there is a section on enforcement. The section is Article 207, “Pollution from land-based sources.” Anybody can look it up. But apparently our top officials and lawyers have not. Either that or they are trying to mislead the people about the ramifications of this treaty. In either case, we are sunk if this treaty goes through.

It was absolutely clear to anyone paying attention that Negroponte and Bellinger either had no real understanding of what was in the treaty or didn’t want to tell the American people what was really in it. In the end, under withering fire from Vitter, Bellinger insisted that the controversy was too “technical” to discuss at the hearing and that he would submit something in writing. Senator Jim Webb, chairing the hearing, suggested he do so, attempting to save Bellinger from further embarrassment. Our liberal media favoring this treaty will, of course, not bother to point out that one of the top brains in the State Department had been caught in the act of trying to mislead the U.S. Senate.

This wasn’t the only exchange in which Vitter caught Bush Administration officials saying things that were untrue. He caught them in evasions and obfuscations over the claim that U.S. military and intelligence activities on the high seas cannot be restricted by the treaty. U.S. officials are making that claim in a declaration in the Senate resolution of ratification. It is one of 24 declarations or understandings being made by the U.S. for a treaty that administration witnesses repeatedly claimed would provide “legal certainty” about what nations can and cannot do on the high seas.

If the treaty is so definitive and clear, then why is there a need for 24 declarations and understandings? To make matters worse, these declarations and understandings have no legal validity under the treaty.

Click Here for the Rest of the Story




"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." ~William Pitt, 1783
October 1, 2007 02:41 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
June 8, 2007
Great article, I read about this treaty and it is very bad for the U.S.  I think it was Reagan that refused to sign it. 


Common Sense and Persistance. Do not shoot from the hip, read and learn.
October 1, 2007 02:44 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
May 24, 2007
Yes, it was Reagan who flatly refused it.


"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." ~William Pitt, 1783
October 1, 2007 03:06 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 16, 2007
There is another thread going on LOST. Please contact your senators about stopping it.  It is under Law of the Sea Treaty! National Survival at Stake! Another hearing is scheduled for Thursday, October 4.  Senator Vitter had one of the first hearings last week.  He needs to be contacted and thanked for what he is doing, and  other senators need to be contacted about voting against it.
October 1, 2007 03:19 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
September 9, 2007
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13851/


"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad." -- James Madison
October 17, 2007 11:13 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
August 3, 2007

With sadness--I will clip below, the response I got from Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia. I have believed that he was for the people, his cooperation with Ted Kennedy on amnesty was a blow to me, now this:

 

 

Dear misterbill,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Law of the Sea Treaty. I am glad I have the chance to respond.

          During the 108th Congress, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar held two hearings on the Law of the Sea Treaty, and during the 109th Congress, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice strongly endorsed the Law of the Sea Treaty at her confirmation hearing. I will continue to monitor the discussion surrounding issues associated with ratification of the treaty. Recently, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held two hearings on the Law of the Sea Treaty during which I questioned the witnesses. Rest assured that I am actively studying the Law of the Sea Treaty, and I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues to consider this treaty.

          Thank you again for contacting me, and I hope you will not hesitate to call on me in the future if I can be of assistance to you. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.

He may not know it, but to me this appears a typical political answer when you do not want your constituents to know you are for something they are against.
Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

October 17, 2007 11:56 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
September 12, 2007
World News
See other World News Articles

Title: SUPREME COURT CASE PREVIEWS DAMAGE OF LOST! [Law of Sea Treaty]
Source: Eagle Forum
URL Source: http://eagleforum.org/blog/2007/10/supreme-court-case-previews-damage-of.html
Published: Oct 15, 2007
Author: Phyllis Schlaffly
Post Date: 2007-10-15 16:04:30 by OKCSubmariner
Ping List: *Sovereignty List*

SUPREME COURT CASE PREVIEWS DAMAGE OF LOST!

Tell Your Senator to vote NO on the Law of the Sea Treaty!!

Just this week, the United States Supreme Court gave us an important look into what kind of global power grabs we face if the Senate ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). On October 10, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Jose Medellin, an illegal alien rapist-murderer now on death row in Texas. Medellin, a citizen of Mexico who lived illegally in the United States, was convicted and sentenced to death after he confessed in 1993 to the brutal rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston.

Long after Medellin had received the full due process of the American legal system, in 2003 the Mexican government sued the United States in the International Court of Justice (known as the "World Court"), an agency of the United Nations which sits at The Hague in The Netherlands.

In 2004 the World Court ruled in favor of Mexico and ordered the United States to give Medellin another hearing, or perhaps another trial, at which he could receive the assistance of Mexican consular employees.

A 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention, which both the United States and Mexico have signed and ratified, provides that aliens who are accused of crimes in a foreign country are entitled to request the assistance of consular officials of their home country. Medellin never requested such assistance until long after he was tried, convicted and sentenced, and after all his appeals were denied.

Of course, Medellin did receive the assistance of competent American legal defense lawyers throughout the process, and there is no reason to think that the presence of a Mexican consul could have made any difference in the outcome.

Incredibly, the Bush Administration has knuckled under to the World Court and tried to order the Texas courts to give Medellin another hearing. The Texas courts properly refused to honor this unconstitutional interference, and the Texas decision was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

This case shows why the U.S. Senate should not agree to diminish American sovereignty by ratifying another UN treaty called the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

LOST would be a form of world government with power to decide all matters relating to the two-thirds of the earth's surface covered by the oceans. All disputes arising from man's use of the sea would be heard and decided by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a 21-member international court that sits in Hamburg, Germany. There is no appeal from that court, which has the power to disregard or override U.S. laws and even the U.S. Constitution.

President Ronald Reagan opposed the treaty because it would erode U.S. sovereignty. Read more about that here: Another U.N. Power Grab by William P. Clark and Edwin Meese .

Take Action

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee could vote on LOST any time! Tell your Senators to reject this give-away of our sovereignty and to vote NO on ratification!

Members of the Foreign Relations Committee: Biden, Boxer, Cardin, Casey, Coleman, Corker, DeMint, Dodd, Feingold, Hagel, Isakson, Kerry, Lugar, Menendez, Murkowski, Nelson (FL), Obama, Sununu, Vitter, Voinovich, Webb

Call Your Senators Today!

Capitol Switchboard: (202)-224-3121




"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
October 18, 2007 12:32 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
September 12, 2007

Law of the Sea Treaty on Fast Track to Ratification

By Lt. Col. Oliver North

Washington, D.C.In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”

Members of both parties and Houses of Congress applauded. But if the U.S. Senate votes to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea — known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or its appropriate acronym, LOST — he and his successors are going to need lots of permission slips.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan, concerned about the treaty’s implications for our sovereignty and national security, formally rejected LOST because it did “not satisfy the objectives sought by the United States.” In 1994, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, anxious to appease One World Government advocates in his own party and at the United Nations, negotiated a parallel “Agreement” that purported to address Mr. Reagan’s concerns — and urged ratification. Since then, LOST has gathered dust in the bowels of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. All that may be about to change. The deeply flawed, Soviet-era agreement giving unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats control over 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is now on a fast track to ratification.

Advocates for LOST — among them Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) — claim that the Clinton-negotiated parallel “Agreement” eliminates concerns about empowering international organizations to collect heavy fees or interfere with U.S. military or intelligence collection. Yet, a careful reading of LOST’s 202 pages — and the so-called “Agreement” — proves that’s not true.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has already created a Byzantine array of international organizations to administer the provisions of LOST. Everything from compliance with global environmental agreements, to the collection of “User Fees” from private companies, to disputes over military operations above, on or under international waters are subject to mandatory dispute resolution by one or more of these international bodies.

According to the U.N., the purpose of LOST is to preserve international waters for “peaceful purposes.” But Articles 19 and 20 of the treaty would proscribe the U.S. Navy from training with weapons, collecting intelligence or interfering with enemy communications in the territorial waters of other states without their expressed permission. Military aircraft are specifically prohibited from taking off and landing in these waters, and severe limitations would be imposed on loading and unloading “any commodity, currency or person” including military equipment. Submarines are required to travel on the surface and “show their flag in territorial waters.” Article 30 states that warships not complying with the laws of a coastal nation can be forced to leave. Disputes over these issues would be adjudicated by international lawyers. Right.

LOST’s proponents discount these concerns by claiming the U.S. will simply exempt “military activities” from the treaty’s compulsory dispute resolution requirements. However, the “opt out” clause in Article 298 fails to define such operations. In our own Congress, intelligence functions are not considered to be military activities, so there is far from certainty that the U.N. would accept the U.S. position that intelligence operations over, on or under the seas are indeed military activities. If there is a dispute as to what is or isn’t a military activity, LOST requires the matter to be resolved by international arbitration.

In 2003, Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that rulings from these arbitration panels “could have an impact on operational planning and activities, and our security.” Last week, in response to questions from Senator David Vitter (R-La.) during a Committee hearing, Professor Bernard Oxman, a witness supporting LOST, admitted that if the parties to a dispute can’t agree on the arbitration panel, the U.N. Secretary General will chose the arbitrators. Lawyers in Pyongyang, Havana and Tehran: call Turtle Bay.

LOST also opens the door to a long-sought U.N. goal: the redistribution of wealth by taxing Americans. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), a bloated, multi-national bureaucracy headquartered in Jamaica, has the mandate to distribute revenues and “other economic benefits” on the basis of “equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States.” In addition to acting as a global IRS, the ISA also decides which companies from what nations will develop mineral resources on the seabed.

In urging ratification, former President Bill Clinton described LOST as “a far reaching environmental accord” that would “harmonize” U.S. laws to “prevent, reduce and control pollution” in the “best practical means.” But Article 213 requires nations to adopt “laws and regulations … to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.” Thus, LOST could become a means of enforcing another agreement we never ratified: the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Al Gore — call your office.

Before casting a vote to ratify LOST, all 100 U.S. senators should read Article 314 of this onerous treaty and Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.N.-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted — and therefore enforced — without the consent of any signatory. Yet our Constitution requires that two thirds of our Senate concur in any treaty. Do 67 members of this Senate now want to surrender that authority to foreign governments?




"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

You must login to discuss this item.