Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US Administration Renews Push to Ratify Law of Sea Treaty

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

US Administration Renews Push to Ratify Law of Sea Treaty


www.globalsecurity.org

The Obama administration is beginning a new push to get the U.S. Senate to approve the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea treaty. Administration officials said the pact is necessary to protect the U.S. Navy’s right to carry out exercises off the coast of China.
...
Panetta said the treaty will ensure that U.S. warships, commercial vessels and aircraft have access to go where needed.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org
www.un.org
www.defense.gov
en.wikipedia.org




posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
This is a long shot..., most people, most normal people, don't pay much attention to the treaties our political and politically-inclined public servants court, or propose.

Mostly because of two things: 1) The narrative that they create to describe the treaty (much like they do with legislation) creates a presupposition about the matter which implies something clearly beneficial to the trusting public (for example consider the "Patriot Act," or the "2011 Bipartisan "Build Act"... it's a verbal public relations game they enjoy deeply.) Then there reason number 2) crafted by the most capable legal minds, the act is nearly impossible to completely comprehend because it's a gigantic compilation of exceptions, shifting definitions, multifaceted provisos, and buried stipulations designed to be intelligible only to those indoctrinated in the field of diplomatic communications and international law.

Our hosts into this latest push to jump on board and join the treaty is overflowing with scarcely applicable logic, nonsensical forays into unrelated material, and a sense that their audience is either already sold on the idea, or too simple-minded to understand the ramifications of our becoming members of this particular "club."

I am not really going to subject you to a barrage of points and counterpoints as that would probably serve only to delay your own review of the material (all those links up there are really pertinent.... just pretend you are a "good" president and actually try to understand them before doing as your party commands and signing up)...

Here's a simple set of observations I offer to entice you into this world of obfuscation and doublespeak:

(I'm lifting these from various locations... and they represent my current bias... dissuade me if you can.)

- The treaty creates the International Seabed Authority (ISA) with its own dispute resolution tribunal. However, should the U.S. stop its current compliance with the U.S.-negotiated laws of the Convention, the U.S. could not be taken to the Law of the Sea Tribunal since the U.S. has indicated that it would choose binding arbitration rather than availing itself of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.

- Requirements that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations could result in mandated over-fishing.

- The license fees and taxes levied on economic activities in the deep seabed area by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'. Citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities in the area.

- Businesses can already exploit resources from the international area; ratifying the treaty would force them to buy licenses for that right and pay taxes on the proceeds.

- One of the treaty's main selling points, legally recognized navigation rights on, over, and under straits, is unnecessary because these rights are not currently threatened by law or by any military capable of opposing the U.S.

- The treaty applies eminent domain to intellectual property giving the UN the power to seize technology and share it with potentially enemy states.

- The U.S. already honors almost all the provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes, there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs the negatives of the remaining provisions.


Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.

Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained recently, "...it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."


Frankly, this should get the conversation started... if there is to be one. I understand the "global" so-called "New World Order" is predicated on US submission to a "higher global authority" (read as: supranational cartel) - but I can't accept that as a valid sacrifice of sovereignty... not based on media-induced faith of elites and their supposed intentions to 'save us all.'


www.globalsecurity.org
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 11-5-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
If people were upset over other recent actions to the point of phone calls and more, this is no less important and far more so to my thinking.

I'm going to follow the OP lead in simply encouraging everyone to take a half hour or an hour this weekend and do your own 100% independent research on what this is, why it started and what it seeks to establish.

My personal position is 500% against and it has been since long before Obama became the latest one pushing this on us. It's bad, worse and just outright terrible. Unless someone thinks a steady move to a Global Community/UN Governance approach is a good direction for America.

Additonally, for those who may have the memories to recall, Rollye James made this one of her pet projects to inform her listeners on, on a regular basis...for years.
edit on 11-5-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


i would like to point out if they named it,
"the global takeover of seabed and foreshore"
and the set up of a shinny new expensive court system only the big boys can afford,

then we wouldnt be having this conversation here.



truth is this is about resources and rights and leads into control over resources for a supernational body who can instruct you on how to handle fish stocks and oil wells.

a push for the new world orders new world resorse court, to pick winners and losers,

take a look at the world trade court, we can even decide to block GMO foods even though we wont grow them here.

get the lube ready here it comes

xploder



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Actually I think something else is going on and this is a way to mask it. By signing the treaty it places the United States into a position to counter the Chinese claims in the South China Sea. If its ratified it places China into a position of ignoring the treaty to protect their interests by use of force. Since China interprets the EEZ to mean more than just resource claims, I think confontation is highly probable.

The other wild card is will the current Chinese government last. The recent actions of the blind man escaping, Chinese media reporting the facts because their public affairs minister failed to stop the story from running and the most recent deals with the Chinese government leadership starting to fragment because of recent events.

Just my 2 cents.....

At the rate things are going, when Orpheous descends into hell we will be right next to him holding a fruit basket.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I can understand the use of "China" as the reason du jour for acquiescing to the big club. I can understand many things that might be used as excuses to surrender the rights of our people as a nation... "play nice", "every one else is doing it", "we can 'take them to court'," "the man with the handsome smile says it's good for us," "the war hero says we need this," etc.

But frankly, "China" is a transient reason, "membership" is undesirable if it's only effective purpose is to subjugate sovereignty, and the treaty is so all-encompassing I suspect it contains many (many) hidden pitfalls that will serve only to strangle our efforts to pursue the will of the nation - which had, and still has, no influence on whether or not our political class is going to commit and render us liable for compliance forever... that means our children and theirs and so on... as if treaties and agreements based upon transient political expedience should be the ultimate definers of the reality they live in, irrespective of our posterity's sovereign will.... oh... that's right... no nation's supposed to have 'sovereign' will anymore, with the economic world order and all,... that's for 'others' to decide... since we can't be allowed to do that for ourselves.

Don't get me wrong, not every treaty is a tool of control... but this one most certainly is. And since we already comply voluntarily with most every provision, why must we place ourselves in the position of being subordinated to others who are just as apt to be subject to the folly of easily manipulated political expedience and self-serving agendas?

The funny part is, there are provisions within the treaty that are ostensibly benign... if those were accepted by themselves, it would not be that much of an issue, but that is not how it's framed... to that I would, and do, object.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
seems to be a global push in this direction, whether we like it or not.

Question, (rhetorical)

when did we come under Rule?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Food for thought -
* - No treaty can grant the US Governmnt powers / authority that are not spelled out in the Constitution.
* - No treaty can grant more / reduce constitutional rights.
* - Foreign treaties we sign become part of the Federal body of law, making it subservient to the Constitution.
* - Treaties signed are between the US and the other sovereign nations.
* - The individual states are a separate sovereign.
* - The UN is not a world government, it is not a legislative body, it is not a democratic organization, it does not answer to the citizens of the United States,

etc etc etc....

Dont get me wrong I understand what you are saying. Im coming from the position that these issues have been settled by the Head Money Case decision from back in the day.

I still think this move is cover for a potential confrontation with China.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
when did we come under Rule?


The moment US citizens decided not to vote, instead relying on others to vote.
The moment US citizens decided to complain about the government but dont do anything to resolve the issue.
The moment US Citizens decided voting for American Idol was more important than voting in elections.
edit on 11-5-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
In this case preachin to the choir wont help(or any other case for that matter....)
The "word"has to be viral before the populace will respond...it takes a certain percentage of people to hold a belief, and an impetus of some kind before anything is moved physically against the flow.....
I sometimes wonder just what the hell that percentage caan be....but thats another story....
before we get any movement the precntage must be reached, and its up to those who are doing the thinkin to make it go over the top......
Throwing in the minus points now and then in conversation may help......too often we just shake our heads and walk away from confrontation with ignorance.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
While I have issues with a world court, our oceans are in trouble from overfishing.

Today one modern trawler can haul as much fish in a day as a boat used to haul in a season.

If the oceans die we all die.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


The latest administrations have shown a unique ability to be resistant to voter choices and to circumvent constitutional controls.
What this looks like is a way to deploy to counter China's pushing around Viet Nam and the Phillipines.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
What this looks like is a way to deploy to counter China's pushing around Viet Nam and the Phillipines.


That's my take on all of this as well... If people remember back in early 2001 the US had one of our surveillance craft clipped by a Chinese fighter in international airspace and It was forced to land in China.

Several US surveillance vessels have been harassed in the South china sea in International Waters because China claims the waters as sovereign territory.

I am still trying to figure out how China can put forth a claim to the Arctic.

What scares the hell out of me is their aggressive stance towards the Philippines, Vietnam and India (recently) coupled with their internal power control issues (the blind guy escaping, the chief of police in a large city arrested and the popular mayor who was expected to go far who has been relieved).... Trouble in their Western provinces... Countries taking China to the UN / WTO / World court....

Dec 2012 might not be seen since the destruction will be from ourselves prior to it ever arriving. I am curious where their training carrier is currently at and how their flight training is going. I know they were using practice runways at one of their airbases to simulate a carrier deck. I have not heard anything except that it was caught by google earth doing trials.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
My god they have a carrier up and running? Full of those incompetent Kamikaze pilots?IN OPEN OCEAN!!!?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Americans need to be aware of this. This is bad news for US sovereignty and the US economy. It smells like another carbon tax scam, only more dangerous.

I don’t trust anything pushed by the Obama administration and was disappointed that McCain was pushing for ratification a year ago.

Read the July 6, 2011 The Heritage Foundation article, “Law of Sea Treaty (LOST) could cost us trillions.”

www.heritage.org...

I would have posted the pertinent parts of the article here, but I was not allowed to copy the article and don’t have the time to re-type it.

Thanks for boiling it down for us. Most do not have time to slog thru these documents. And I, for one, do not read or speak Legalese.

This is what caught my eye:

1.) “The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. “

“It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained recently, ‘...it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world.’"

2.) Requirements that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations could result in mandated over-fishing.

3.) The license fees and taxes levied on economic activities in the deep seabed area by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'. Citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities in the area.

The linked HF article also questions where the revenues would go. A number of the member nations of LOST are “rogue” nations.

4.) The treaty applies eminent domain to intellectual property giving the UN the power to seize technology and share it with potentially enemy states.

This treaty is so NWO or One World Federation. I have no doubt the banking cartels see the taxpayer as a cash cow. I really believe TPTB that run this world are evil.

As for war with China, when has the US ever had trouble finding justification for war? The US does not need to ratify LOST to go to war with China.

China knows war with the US is very possible, if not inevitable – hence the hurried massive military build-up.
War has always been a useful cover for culling the herd, among other things. I feel WWIII looms before us.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
My god they have a carrier up and running? Full of those incompetent Kamikaze pilots?IN OPEN OCEAN!!!?


I think you should know "those incompetent Kamikaze pilots" were Japanese, not Chinese.

They may look alike, but they have very different spoken languages & cultures.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
My god they have a carrier up and running? Full of those incompetent Kamikaze pilots?IN OPEN OCEAN!!!?


The carrier is an old Soviet one that was partially constructed. When the Soviet Union collapsed the carrier construction stopped. China has refurbished / outfitted it and they were conducting sea trials. It was supposedly purchased by a private individual in China to be used as a floating Casino if I remember right (Hong Kong zone).

The moment it hit territorial waters it was diverted to a naval base for refurbishment for the Army-Navy (or so the story goes).

The potential for damage is there since it gives them a bump in force projection however their inexperience in carrier doctrine coupled with an old carrier design I think negates that potential.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
The arrogance of man never ceases to amaze me! To presume to own or control land, sea or space by anyone person or group is disgusting! When man learns at long last that he is merely part of a complex existence, a (piece of the environment) , then and only then, will his life be complete!



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Dick Morris mentioned that the Law of Sea Treaty is coming up this Wednesday (23 May 2012). Of course, he's completely against it. He said it was a backdoor way of forcing the US to comply with the UN global warming agenda (the carbon tax scam), among other things. There is nothing good about the LOST for the US.

I don't normally watch Hannity, but I'm glad I caught this bit.

I'm going to check out the Dick Morris website.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


This is regarding Admirality law, correct? If so, Anonymous needs to get their serious face on and organize rallies. This is big time bad. See what people don't realize is that we are already under Admirality law via the gold fringe bordering flags in American court rooms. Also the difference between United states and the United States of America, and how it relates to constitution and 14th Amendment citizen status. One of those relates to the District of Columbia and it's territories like Guam and Puerto Rico. The States do not fall under this jurisdiction. Those of you who become citizens of the District of Columbia's jurisdiction have what is known as civil rights, granted after the civil war to 14th amendment citizens. You have only the "rights" congress gives you, and you are not considered a sovereign. A citizen of the state, is known as a sovereign, and our within their rights to do as they wish as long as they do not damage any property or persons. If a case is to be brought against them they must provide criminal intent and a injured party. Oh yes, they control the law scene very well. If Joe Schmoe would learn to interpret it correctly, he'd be able to set us all free right now. All he simply must do is connect the dots...
edit on 21-5-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join