It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conspiracy: Bush Creates World’s Biggest Ocean Preserve

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
grimreaper797 posted an ATSNN article on this subject found here.

I felt it was important to preserve the issue within the Fragile Earth forum as well. (I hope you don't mind grimreaper797
)





Bush creates world’s biggest ocean preserve.

President Bush on Thursday created the world's largest marine protected area — a group of remote Hawaiian islands that cover 84 million acres and are home to 7,000 species of birds, fish and marine mammals, at least a quarter of which are unique to Hawaii.

More...


Most of the comments and reactions have been very positive. I think otherwise, and will duplicate my comments posted in that thread, here.

---

My experience is that a leopard does not change its spots, and the cynic in me feels certain this is another bait-and-switch ruse.

Since this is a conspiracy site, let me share the possible conspiracy:

President Bush exercised his power under the American Antiquities Act of 1906. It states in relevant part:



That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments...


As grimreaper797's article identifies, the newly designated "national monument" will cover more than 84 million acres. This is an area approximately the size of California, and represents the largest such designation in US history!


Here is a really good map of the location:



If you read the many articles written in the past two days on the subject, you will notice that the move to designate the area a national monument represented a complete surprise to nearly everyone...

For example,



Bush's decision, announced late Wednesday, caught environmentalists and commercial fishing interests by surprise.

Source.


Why was this such a surprise? For starters, less than a month ago, state and federal officials...signed an agreement to help them jointly manage the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, adding momentum to the creation of a marine sanctuary in the 1,400-mile long archipelago.



David Allen, Pacific regional director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said much of how the various agencies work together will be focused on fulfilling the vision of the sanctuary.

"We don't want the public to see us as four different agencies. We want the public to see us working very closely together," Allen said.

Young and Allen signed the document for their departments. Representatives for the National Marine Sanctuary Program and the National Marine Fisheries Service signed for their respective federal agencies.

Source.


So, the plan was to have general agreement between each of the state and federal agencies who had an existing responsibility and authority over the area for the creation of a marine sanctuary. Moreover, as the same article indicates, "creating a national marine sanctuary would grant the federal government greater powers to protect the area."

The article continues:



One key reason to grant sanctuary status to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands would be to lend permanence to the area's protection measures.

The federal waters around the islands are currently designated a coral reef ecosystem reserve, but that status does not come with permanent funding.
Future presidents may also change or revoke the status after taking office.


See, also, Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service and National Marine Fisheries Service for promoting coordinated management in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands - signed 5/19/06

It is important to note that a national "sanctuary" and national "monument" are indeed two very different designations.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act:



...authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate and manage areas of the marine environment with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities as national marine sanctuaries. Day-to-day management of national marine sanctuaries has been delegated by the Secretary of Commerce to the National Marine Sanctuary Program. The primary objective of the NMSA is to protect marine resources...

Source.


The legislation specifically provides:



1. If the Secretary finds a federal action is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource, the NMSP is required to recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives that will protect sanctuary resources if implemented by the agency in taking the action. [See section 304(d) of the NMSA.]

2. The NMSA also allows the Secretary to issue regulations for each sanctuary designated and the system as a whole that, among other things, specify the types of activities that can and cannot occur within the sanctuary. [See section 308 of the NMSA.]

3. The NMSA requires the preparation and periodic updating of management plans that guide day-to-day activities at each sanctuary in furtherance of the goals of that sanctuary. [See sections 304(a) and 304(e) of the NMSA.]

4. The NMSA also provides for the assessment of civil penalties up to $120,000 per day per violation and the assessment of damages against people that injure sanctuary resources. [See sections 306, 307, and 312 of the NMSA.]

Source.


By utilizing the American Antiquities Act, as opposed to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, President Bush gets to avoid the sticky problem of actually protecting the natural resources the law requires. Instead, the rules become completely administrative in nature and can be whatever the administration wants.

A novel approach, wouldn't you agree?

Ironically, the National Park Service publishes on their website an interesting overview of the American Antiquities Act:



The objective of this essay, however, is to review the president's power in park-making through use of the Antiquities Act. By law, of course, Congress creates national parks. However, when Congress was tight-fisted, belligerent, or, more likely, lethargic, park proponents pulled the rabbit of the Antiquities Act out of the hat. Quite simply, under this 1906 act the president could set aside, by executive decree, areas as national monuments. Throughout the twentieth century zealous park proponents, as well as the National Park Service itself, were quite willing to circumvent the powers of Congress by appealing directly to the chief executive. Later, when the time became more propitious, the monument would be "upgraded" to a national park.

National Monuments to National Parks: The Use of the Antiquities Act of 1906

(EDIT: Interesting error with this link. The URL is not accepted from ATS. Here is the Google chache version: Here.



Of course, the article implies (and not without historical justification) that the use of the American Antiquities Act was a way of getting things protected without the politics of Congress standing in the way. What it fails to mention, however, is the other edge of that sword... The Executive gets to fully call the shots.

I propose THAT is what has happened here. As a national monument, any protections identified by the Executive can be changed at will.

But I don't think the conspiracy stops there. If Bush wants TOTAL executive federal control over the area, there must be some reason for it.



...Within the boundaries of the monument, we will prohibit unauthorized passage of ships; we will prohibit unauthorized recreational or commercial activity; we will prohibit any resource extraction or dumping of waste, and over a five-year period, we will phase out commercial fishing, as well...

Remarks by President Bush on the Establishment of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument


Anybody smell a rat? I do.


Something's up...

Usually, if something is too good to be true, it ain't...

Hope I'm wrong.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by loam]




posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Do you suggest he wants to build some sort of a secret base there?

Or is this a ruse to boost his popularity by appealling to those dang ole' environmentalists? Making himself look more 'green', instead of an industrial de-regulator and friend of big business?

Seems he don't do anything without an ulterior motive, your suspicions are valid IMO.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   
The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve is already established by Executive Order. It is not entirely clear what Bush has done, whether he has expanded the area, opened new protections to the area, or what this involves. Are there two overlapping authorities here or one? All of this sounds very good, however what is what and where is where in these two different Federal Government Actions? Apparently the Bush decision opens some additional square miles but the same questions above remain. Exactly how is the current Bush decision substantially different from the Clinton decision and Exectutive Order? Does it repeal the earlier Executive Order, or enhance it? Elevating the area in the category of National Monument might involve more Agenda 21 trickery, where we are actually handing things over to the United Nations, IMF or International Bank of Settlements as collateral on the National Debt.



[edit on 16-6-2006 by SkipShipman]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
Do you suggest he wants to build some sort of a secret base there?


I have no idea.

But what I do know is that much of the area was already protected via a number of existing designations...

Read the Background section of the following agreement signed less than a month ago:

Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service and National Marine Fisheries Service for promoting coordinated management in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands - signed 5/19/06

As I said previously, at a minimum, the national monument designation represents a type of federal executive consolidation of control that enables Bush to re-write all the rules. He gets to avoid the real protection requirements mandated by the law under those other designation avenues.

I suspect, but of course have no proof, that the real objective is to remove all scrutiny from the area for some reason. I don't think it a stretch to argue the strategic value of the region... This move represents the BEST way to remove all prying eyes...

Doesn't anyone think this odd???


EDIT: SkipShipman, yes, and as the link above describes, there were already several other preexisting protection designations of the area...not to mention the attempt to consolidate them into "sanctuary" status.



[edit on 16-6-2006 by loam]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
i'm in concert with the notion, this is not a magnaminous gesture...
there's a game afoot (as Sherlock would say)

2 possibilities come to mind;

a replacement location for detainnes after Gitmo closes down
~ or ~

trading off this 1,400 X 100 mile strip of atolls & water
for the ANWAR wildlife area.
something like the convoluted mess we have in SC
with the 'wet-lands' conservation process....
Someone can take natural 'wet-lands' then fill them in
and destroy the naturally occurring ecosystem,
build their condo's or whatever....BUT.....
in exchange for that altered/destroyed 'wet-land'
the developer is required to 'set aside'
and equal ammount of land, to be a proxy for the
destroyed 'wet-land'...the sad part is the set aside land
can be 100 miles distant on some drainage ditch bordering
a dirt road....but thats the rule of law for ya.

I really can't say what twisty-turney paths it would take,
but the Hawiian chain Nat'l Monument site might be the
price of exchange, so the administration can take control of
the Alaskan wildlife refuge lands (with its oil)



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Maybe they clear the area from eyewitnesses and they prepare their next 9/11 there. A nuke or a Tonkin-like type of attack from (place the enemy) and then they have their motive to go to war.

Or something else...
But the idea of Gitmo 2 is really good.


[edit on 16-6-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Well....thats interesting. I tend to think it is a good thing but he didn't do it because he cares for the environment, his policies prove that. Most likely he is trolling for votes in November for his policies. Thing is he has proved himself so throughly in environmental issues just about everyone will see it for the cynical ploy it is. What wouldn't surprise me one iota is if it were quietly removed once the elections are over.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
...Most likely he is trolling for votes in November for his policies...


If that were true, he could have simply touted the achievement of the May 19, 2006, sanctuary agreement cited above.

I remain convinced this was a ploy, at a minimum, to avoid the requirements found in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act...and I highly suspect something far more sinister in play.

Look at the double speak of his words:



...Within the boundaries of the monument, we will prohibit unauthorized passage of ships; we will prohibit unauthorized recreational or commercial activity; we will prohibit any resource extraction or dumping of waste, and over a five-year period, we will phase out commercial fishing, as well...

Remarks by President Bush on the Establishment of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument


He wants something....and it ain't protectin' the 'fishies'...



[edit on 16-6-2006 by loam]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I'm with you loam, something smells. Supporters will say we are just bashing GW, and no matter what he does we will criticize him, but to think he is doing this out the kindness of his heart is like accepting candy from a known serial killer.

I like the theory of Gitmo 2, except for one thing. This is on US soil so they can't side step the laws that they can at Gitmo, so I don't think that is the case. I think it could be for an exchange to drill in Alaska, like loam said.

It was funny, on CNN they mentioned that GW and Barbara watched a documentary of the area by Jacque Cousteau's son, and they have been interested in the idea ever since. But because it was already under protection, it makes you wonder.

[edit on 6/16/2006 by Hal9000]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
I'm with you loam, something smells. Supporters will say we are just bashing, and no matter what GW does we will criticize him, but it would be like accepting candy from a known serial killer.


Agreed.


Originally posted by Hal9000
I like the theory of Gitmo 2, except for one thing. This is on US soil so they can't side step the laws that they can at Gitmo, so I don't think that is the case.


I also agree. But, of course, such a use would have to be discovered by somebody in order to cry foul. It does happen to be one of the most remote places on the planet. I don't suppose they'd issue maps to any such prospective detainees...


But who knows if this is the objective? Anything is possible.


Originally posted by Hal9000
I think it could be for an exchange to drill in Alaska, like loam said.


I didn't say that. St Udio did.


I happen to think this a far less likely reason.


Originally posted by Hal9000
It was funny, on CNN they mentioned that GW and Barbara watched a documentary of the area by Jacque Cousteau's son, and they have been interested in the idea ever since. But because it was already under protection, it makes you wonder.


Exactly.



[edit on 16-6-2006 by loam]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Hal9000
I think it could be for an exchange to drill in Alaska, like loam said.


I didn't say that. St Udio did.


Your right, sorry St Udio. That is interesting stuff.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
dont worry about this Loam, if I knew you were going to post all this I would have let you post the ATSNN article with all that in there.
great work.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I don't know...

A bloke does a good thing and everyone is skeptical...

On the other hand:

Maybe he knows the ring-of-fire is about to go off and thought he'd get in a bit of good PR before the Hawaiian islands cease to exist due to the "sinking effect"?

There's certainly a lot of quakes in Alaska right now, along the ring-of-fire...so some say.

Certainly hope it doesn't happen though


Cheers

JS

[edit on 16-6-2006 by jumpspace]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jumpspace
I don't know...

A bloke does a good thing and everyone is skeptical...




You're kidding, right?

"A bloke" isn't the description that comes to mind when discussing Bush or his environmental track record...



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
You guys have covered everything I was thinking and unfortunately, more. Just wanted to pipe in and say I agree.

This is not a move out of the goodness of his heart. The least injurious is that it's an opportunity to appear a sickly 'green' for the upcoming mid-term elections. More likely, it's much more malignant.

I apologize to the Bush supporters who think that even when the guy does something 'right' he gets ragged on, but look deeper. Read Loam's post and the links. Something's 'fishy' here and it ain't the smell of this preserve...



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
(first post)

Maybe this has something to do with:
1. The Valiant Shield exercise on the 19th ("the largest gathering of flattops for an exercise in the Pacific in more than a decade")
the.honoluluadvertiser.com...
2. The N. Korean Missile test (I've been reading the forums for a couple months now and I'm surprised this isn't a hot topic)
www.msnbc.msn.com...

The ability to prohibit unauthorized passage of ships and unauthorized recreational or commercial activity under that act would prove useful for a possible planned offensive (or defense)

And this might be pushing it, but the Valiant Shield exercise also coincides with
3. 4,000 gov't workers heading to bunkers on the 19th
www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Do you guys know what's up there? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Those "islands" barely qualify. The Northern Hawaiian Islands consist of 125 islands that make up a grand total of......ready for this? THREE SQUARE MILES. The average height above sea level is like 6 inches. There is no reason for them to block it off for the carrier exercises, because the carriers are there for RIMPAC which uses the Pacific Missile Range on Kauai. It's already restricted waters because of all the live fire training that goes on there. There are huge areas around the main islands that "belong" to the military that already have the restrictions that these islands would get under this.

However, and here's the really amazing part for you, that I'm sure a lot of people have trouble grasping. There are about 5 highly endangered species that I can think of right now that make the Northern Hawaiian Islands home. Leatherback turtles, Green Sea Turtles, Hawaiian Monk Seals, as well as a couple of bird species all live in that area. I think it's great that they want to limit the ability to fish and transit the area. There's no reason to be up there except the diving anyway.

"Strategic value"? Don't make me laugh. There is NO strategic value to the NHI region. There is no chance of building a base on any of the islands, prison camp or otherwise. The most important strategic areas around Hawaii are the main islands, which already have major bases on them (Hickam AFB, home of the 15th Airlift Wing, 154th HiANG and HQ PACAF. Pearl Harbor, home of PACFLT, Pearl Harbor Shipyard and numerous surface and sub combatants. Schofield Barracks, home of 25th Infantry), Midway, which is now closed due to the extreme bird strike hazard, Johnston Island which is closing now that the chemical weapon destruction is done, and Kwajallein which is ALREADY 90% used by the military for a missile testing range.

Sometimes, as odd as this will sound, something is done for a good reason. Not everything is a conspiracy, and not everything is done for malevolent reasons.

[edit on 6/17/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Well thank you for the information. I would still like to see more.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Okay, it's Greenwashing then, something which is all the rage with his buddies in the Oil Industry. Put out all these commecials saying they are, like, all green and stuff, and with the other hand, stuffing money into Anti-Kyoto and Anti-EPA lobbiests to keep the tar-ball rolling.

Why are some people acting surprised that other folks are finding it hard to believe that Bush doesn't have an alterior motive? Remember, he is a fricken politician trying to make his party look good for the coming elections. This month has been a good month for him and pulling the rug out of the Sancuary idea and designating it a "Monument" smells like rotten fish in Chinatown.

Perhaps one of Bush's family members has a disease that can potentially be cured by some of the endangered species.






Okay, maybe that's stretching it a bit, I don't think the Bush family is even versed well enough to even know that stuff like that can be learned from "them critters."

Since when has he cared about Endangered Species anyway?

Perhaps that's where the Zeta's have their base hidden away..



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I'm sure there IS some other motive for this, or some trade that was made in exchange. There are deals like that made all the time. However, the wild claims of using the area for bases, or the carrier exercises, and things like that are just that. Wild claims. I won't be surprised in the least to see this come up as an "environmental win" for the administration.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join