Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Law of the Sea Treaty
On the campaign trail last year, President Bush said a priority of his second term would be to 'build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence.' Sounds good to us," reads a Wall Street Journal editorial today. "But the rhetoric doesn't square with news that the administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court (Kelo v. City of New London case concerning eminent domain."Worried that a Bush Administration brief against land owners is in the works, the National Taxpayers Union, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other free-market groups signed a missive sent to the White House in October. No doubt, Business Roundtable-types are pressuring Mr. Bush on the other side, along with states and localities that feel that private property can be taken and then parceled out to maximize tax revenues. The letter urges the Administration to "affirm its support for property rights and refrain from filing a brief in Kelo." So far, the response has been a troubling silence.Now we have this: From WorldNetDaily
Sovereignty-sapping U.N. accord gets new life
Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, questioned Rice about the agreement (Law of the Sea Treaty - "LOST) at last week's confirmation hearings.From Insight On the News of April 19th, 2004
Rice responded that the president "certainly would like to see it pass as soon as possible," saying LOST "serves our national security interests, serves our economic interests. We very much want to see it go into force."
As worded, LOST would deny the United States the right to intercept terrorist vessels or proliferators, according to Leitner. The President's Proliferation Security Initiative, designed to battle proliferation of weapons of mass destruction with as little effect on commerce as possible, would be illegal under the treaty. "This U.S.-led, multinational program of high-seas interdiction and vessel boarding is barred by the Law of the Sea Treaty yet it is our overriding national-security interest to execute," Leitner said. "Ratification of the treaty would effectively gut our ability to intercept the vessels of terrorists or hostile foreign governments even if they were transporting nuclear weapons. We must ensure that we are not binding the government of the United States to a legal regime that makes us more vulnerable and trades the lives of our innocent civilians for the sake of participating in yet another unnecessary treaty."Those opposing LOST include:
Even worse, according to Leitner, is what he calls "the creation of yet another international court where the United States or our citizens can be dragged before politically motivated jurists to adjudicate and set penalties."
The treaty imposes limitations "on measures we might take to ensure our national security and homeland defense. If, for instance, foreign vessels operating on the high seas do not fit into one of three categories (i.e., they are engaged in piracy, flying no flag or transmitting radio broadcasts), LOST would prohibit U.S. Navy or Coast Guard vessels from intercepting, searching or seizing them," Gaffney testified.
The CATO Institute - Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty
The New American - Bush Continues to Support UN "Law of The Sea" Treaty
Whitten Commentary - Bush Continues to Support UN "Law of The Sea" Treaty, who urges you to contact Congress on this issue.
Light a Candle... - who directs you to Accuracy in Media
We would do well if this treaty got lost. It gives up to the UN/NWO, our sovereignty, rights, and benefits, from our oceans, coasts, and even the Great Lakes!
National conservative leaders -- Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and myself -- are starting to speak out now on this vital issue. So is Dr. Peter Leitner of George Mason University, author of "Reforming the Law of the Sea Treaty". I intend to do my part to fight against ratification of this sovereignty-destroying Treaty. But it is your voice that your State's U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative will heed when deciding just where they stand on LOST.
Why in the world is the administration supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty? Is it Powell's State Department, and no one else is paying attention?
The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan's original objections to the Treaty--while modified--still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place.This is not a complete list by any means. The Bush Administration hasn't met a spending bill it didn't like. Many of us are unhappy with seeminly little interest, in four years, in limiting spending. Then there is the friend of the court brief against property rights. Now when it seems there may be some impetus to rid ourselves of the UN, along comes interest in supporting a treaty that gives power to the UN over the seafloor to the detriment of our interests. The bush administration should look to the base that brought them to power.
Hat Tip to THE TOMO REPORT