The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law

[bigdog]

Thank you, Guro. 

[prentice crawford]

Woof,
 I've tried a number of times to post this URL, I think I've finally got to stick. This is the U N's, world government building program, under the guise of environmental planning, that along with the Project 21 Agenda that George Sorros funds, is designed to make a shell of existing governments and fill them with provisions that makes them compatible with eachother legally and otherwise, with similar structure and thus linked globally just like the global financial markets and IMF. In other words they will all be similar economically and governmentally and very easily transitioned to U.N. governance and control in the future. This is why the leaders of the Socialist movement in the world are willing to do anything to push the idea of global warming and impending environmental disaster to force governments around the world to sign on to the U N agenda. It's a Trojan Horse.

www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV2VIRJKL04[/youtube]

                                            P.C.
 

[prentice crawford]

Woof,
 For the record I didn't vet the video, so there's no telling what kind of fact checking there is to be done on it. For all I know they might just be a bunch of jealous Marxist.
                   P.C.

[G M]

**Well, at least it's not a made up crisis or anything..... 

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/report-un-tax-americans-green-climate-fund/237466

Report: Obama, UN to tax US for Green Climate Fund


byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer


President Obama's team of negotiators at the United Nations Climate Change Conference may agree to a tax on foreign currency transactions, designed to pay for a "Green Climate Fund," that would fall disproportionately on American travellers and businesses, according to a group attending the conference that is skeptical of the UN position on global warming.
 
Negotiators at the conference are considering "a new tax on every foreign currency transaction in the world," according to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). "Every time you travel abroad, you'll have to pay a climate tax," explains CFACT, the group that released the "Climategate" emails. "More importantly, every time we import goods, every time we export our fine products (think jobs) we will do so with a climate tax skimming off the top."
 
European countries would evade much of the tax burden, however, because "transactions within the Eurozone won't have to pay this new tax."
 
CFACT suggests that Obama is open to implementing this tax and similar policies in the absence of a full climate treaty, which would require congressional approval.  "We have learned that while many have discounted this conference, knowing that a full climate treaty is difficult to achieve especially with a U.S. Senate that will not vote to ratify," CFACT says. "Obama and his fellow climate travelers are working around the Senate and planning to stick America with the bill."

[JDN]

And I thought it was going to be bipartisan project.   

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qi6n_-wB154" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Crafty_Dog]

I certainly hope that this is something that the Rep candidates notice and seize upon.

[Crafty_Dog]

Dear fellow Patriot,

Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama Administration will be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new "Small Arms Treaty."

Disguised as an "International Arms Control Treaty" to fight against "terrorism," "insurgency" and "international crime syndicates," the UN Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

I'm helping lead the fight to defeat this radical treaty in the United States Senate and I want your help.

Please join me by taking a public stand against this outright assault on our national sovereignty by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

Ultimately, the UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN Small Arms Treaty, you and I can get a good idea of what's likely in the works.
 

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE the U.S. to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL "unauthorized" civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.

To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the UN, the United States of America isn't a "shining city on a hill" -- it's an affront to their grand designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they'll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.

And the UN's apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.

That's why I was so glad to hear that the National Association for Gun Rights is leading the fight to stop this assault on our Constitution!
 

The truth is there's no time to waste.

You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.

They've made that mistake before, and we've made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the UN Small Arms Treaty into law since the mid-1990s.

But now time may not be on our side.

In fact, we're likely to only have a few weeks to defeat the treaty when they make their move.

And we definitely don't have a President in the White House who will oppose this treaty.

So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to stop the UN Small Arms Treaty is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.

As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.

With new pro-gun champions joining me in the Senate, rounding up enough votes to kill this thing should be easy, right?

Unfortunately, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Even with the Republican tidal wave in 2010, there still isn't a pro-gun majority in the Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.

You know just as well as I do how few Senators are truly "pro-gun."

Not only that, but many Senators get "queasy" about killing treaties for fear of "embarrassing" the President -- especially with "international prestige" at stake.

They look at ratifying treaties much like approving the President's Supreme Court nominees.

Remember how many Senators turned their back on us and voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?

A dozen more only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.

So if we're going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it's too late!

Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?

Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your Constitutional rights must be opposed?

If you said "Yes" to these questions, please sign the survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty.
 

And along with your signed survey, I hope you'll send a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35 to help finance this battle.

With your generous contribution, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue contacting Second Amendment supporters to turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.

Not only that, but they're preparing a massive program to launch the second this treaty is brought before the Senate.

Direct mail.  Phones.  E-mail.  Blogs.  Guest editorials.  Press conferences.  Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits.  The whole nine yards.

Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that's not easy, and we may not have much time.

In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty pro-gun Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!

So please put yourself on record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty by signing NAGR's Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

But along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom,
 
Rand Paul
United States Senator
P.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced the Obama Administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new GLOBAL, "Small Arms Treaty."

If we're going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it's too late!

Please return your Firearms Sovereignty Survey and put yourself squarely on the record AGAINST ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty.

And if you can, please make a generous contribution to the National Association for Gun Rights of $250, $150, $100 or even just $35 right away!

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

[Crafty_Dog]

As you can see, this is a fundraiser and it is from a group with which I am not familiar.  That said, the basic thrust of the argument I believe to be true.

Dear fellow Patriot,

Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama Administration will
be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new "Small Arms Treaty."

Disguised as an "International Arms Control Treaty" to fight against "terrorism,"
"insurgency" and "international crime syndicates," the UN Small Arms Treaty is in
fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

I'm helping lead the fight to defeat this radical treaty in the United States Senate
and I want your help.

Please join me by taking a public stand against this outright assault on our
national sovereignty by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/2/

Ultimately, the UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE
firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new
scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN Small Arms Treaty, you and I can get a
good idea of what's likely in the works.

http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/4/


If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN Small Arms Treaty would
almost certainly FORCE the U.S. to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through
even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL "unauthorized" civilian firearms (all firearms owned
by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun
CONFISCATION.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on
bringing the United States to its knees.

To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the UN, the United
States of America isn't a "shining city on a hill" -- it's an affront to their grand
designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own
decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they'll NEVER
be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.

And the UN's apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me
of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.

That's why I was so glad to hear that the National Association for Gun Rights is
leading the fight to stop this assault on our Constitution!

http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/5/


The truth is there's no time to waste.

You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want
is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical
legislation.

They've made that mistake before, and we've made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt
to ram the UN Small Arms Treaty into law since the mid-1990s.

But now time may not be on our side.

In fact, we're likely to only have a few weeks to defeat the treaty when they make
their move.

And we definitely don't have a President in the White House who will oppose this
treaty.

So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to stop the UN Small Arms Treaty is during the
ratification process in the U.S. Senate.

As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.

With new pro-gun champions joining me in the Senate, rounding up enough votes to
kill this thing should be easy, right?

Unfortunately, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Even with the Republican tidal wave in 2010, there still isn't a pro-gun majority in
the Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.

You know just as well as I do how few Senators are truly "pro-gun."

Not only that, but many Senators get "queasy" about killing treaties for fear of
"embarrassing" the President -- especially with "international prestige" at stake.

They look at ratifying treaties much like approving the President's Supreme Court
nominees.

Remember how many Senators turned their back on us and voted to confirm anti-gun
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?

A dozen more only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots
pressure from the folks back home.

So if we're going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the
heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it's too late!

Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment
are the supreme law of the land?

Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your
Constitutional rights must be opposed?

If you said "Yes" to these questions, please sign the survey the National
Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty.

http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/6/


And along with your signed survey, I hope you'll send a generous contribution of
$250, $100, $50 or even just $35 to help finance this battle.

With your generous contribution, the National Association for Gun Rights will
continue contacting Second Amendment supporters to turn up the heat on targeted U.S.
Senators.

Not only that, but they're preparing a massive program to launch the second this
treaty is brought before the Senate.

Direct mail.  Phones.  E-mail.  Blogs.  Guest editorials.  Press conferences.
Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits.  The
whole nine yards.

Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for
Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that's not easy, and we may not have much time.

In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty pro-gun
Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!

So please put yourself on record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty by signing NAGR's
Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/7/

But along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250,
$100, $50 or even just $35.

http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/18/

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it
will make a difference.

http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/19/

Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second
Amendment rights.

For Freedom,

Rand Paul
United States Senator

P.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced the Obama Administration will
be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new GLOBAL, "Small Arms
Treaty."

If we're going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat
up on the U.S. Senate now before it's too late!

Please return your Firearms Sovereignty Survey and put yourself squarely on the
record AGAINST ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty.

And if you can, please make a generous contribution to the National Association for
Gun Rights of $250, $150, $100 or even just $35 right away!

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it
will make a difference.

http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/20/

[Crafty_Dog]

China and Russia vetoed a resolution on Syria this weekend that the United States and others had introduced at the U.N. Security Council (UNSC). The resolution itself was not particularly aggressive and committed the United Nations and its members to minimal actions, including expressing support for an Arab League proposal that would call for Syrian President Bashar al Assad to step down. Nevertheless, the United States responded to the vetoes with anger and fairly intense rhetoric. After its veto at the UNSC, Russia is sending a delegation led by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Damascus on Tuesday for talks with the Syrian leadership.

It is interesting that China and Russia acted together in the first place. The willingness of both to cast vetoes when one would have sufficed indicates the emergence of a bloc on Syria and beyond. The reasons for the bloc are not difficult to understand. China and Russia were both unsettled by the principles on which NATO intervened in Libya. The logic behind that intervention was simple: The Libyan government was historically oppressive and, in the course of an uprising, was planning to impose mass murder on its enemies. Given this, the international community decided that it had an obligation to intervene in order to save innocent lives.

The Russian and Chinese view was that this doctrine opened the door to unlimited interventions not in response to mass murder, but in order to prevent mass murder. From the Chinese and Russian perspective, this would allow intervention based on fears. Fears can be feigned and anyone can assert the threat of mass murder and war crimes. Therefore, the Libyan precedent seemed to be a doctrine that justified intervention based on suspicion of intent. Or, to put it more bluntly, the Russian and Chinese view was that the intervention in Libya was designed to achieve political and economic goals, and the threat of impending mass murder was simply the justification.

China and Russia viewed the Syrian resolution as a preface to more aggressive resolutions also based on the doctrine of preventing atrocities much greater than those already committed. They felt that this would set a permanent principle of international law that they opposed. Their opposition was based on the perception that this was merely a justification for interventions against regimes of which the West disapproved. They also saw themselves as potential victims over the long term. Both regimes are authoritarian, to say the least, and both face potential domestic opposition. Events could transpire such that Russia and China could one day be weakened and coping with insurgencies, and they would have implicitly agreed, by supporting multiple U.N. interventions, to interventions in their countries. It might be seen as a far-fetched idea, but it is of sufficient significance that neither Russia nor China was willing to allow the principle to take hold.

There were, of course, more immediate geopolitical issues. As we have argued before, Iran is in the process of establishing a sphere of influence in which Syria plays a strategic role. If al Assad survives, his regime will be heavily dependent on Iran. Neither China nor Russia would be particularly troubled by this. Certainly, Russia does not want to see an excessively powerful Iran, but it would welcome any dynamic that would tie American power down in a long-term duel with Iran. Creating a regional balance of power would divert U.S. power in directions that would provide Russia with freedom for maneuver.

The same can be said of China, with the additional proviso that the Chinese do not want to see anything interfere with their energy trade with Iran. So there were two issues for China. First, China did not want a precedent set that might allow an American intervention in Iran. Second, China, like Russia, welcomed the diversion of American power from the South China Sea, where it had been planning to shift forces.

In the expansion of Iranian influence, Syria is now the major battlefield. What we have now seen is that China and Russia recognize the battlefield and for now are prepared to side with Iran against the United States, a move that makes clear sense from a balance of power perspective. At the same time, challenging the United States is always potentially dangerous, and the Russians reverted to an old strategy of thwarting the United States in the United Nations, then sending a senior delegation to Syria to speak with al Assad. It is assumed that what the delegation will say are the things that the Americans would like to hear. That is undoubtedly the wink and nod behind the delegation.

What is more likely is that the Russians will make a warning to al Assad as a formality and perhaps will look around for a personality who might take al Assad’s place while preserving the regime. But the Russians understand that such a move could destabilize the Syrian regime, and they are satisfied with the way things are. Therefore, sending a Russian delegation to Damascus on Tuesday is a gesture toward settlement. It will not placate the United States. Ultimately, the Russians know that and don’t seem to care.

[Crafty_Dog]

OBAMA'S SNEAKY TREATIES
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on February 7, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over -- or seeking ratification of -- five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions. Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.

Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty and democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and Clinton not to sign them or by blocking their ratification.
 
• International Criminal Court -- Clinton has reversed George W. Bush's policy and entered into negotiations over U.S. participation in the court. Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of "aggression," which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations. If we submit to the court's jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions. Clinton says she will stop our military's hands from being tied, but we all must realize that once we accept the International Criminal Court, we go down a slippery slope. The court could even prosecute Americans who have been cleared by our own judicial system.

• The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration -- with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) -- will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar's primary in Indiana is over this year. LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it ... for free.

• Small-arms control -- Clinton is about to negotiate on a global ban on export of small arms. It would only apply to private citizens but, of course, most small-arms deals come not from individuals or private firms but from governments, specifically those of the United States, Russia, China and Israel. The treaty would require each nation to adopt measures to stop exportation of small arms. It is easy to see how this could be a backdoor way to require national registration of all guns and to assert federal regulation over firearms. It would also require the registration of all ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired. The Second Amendment be damned!

• Outer Space Code of Conduct -- Under the guise of stopping debris from accumulating in outer space, the European Union has enlisted Clinton in negotiations over a code of conduct. The code would prohibit activities that are likely to generate debris in outer space -- space littering. The code might inhibit or prohibit the United States from deploying anti-missile missiles on platforms in space, denying us the key weapon we need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats. European leftists reacted angrily when G.W. Bush opted out of the ABM treaty banning defensive weapons. Now they seek to reimpose it under the guise of a code of conduct.

• Rights of the Child -- Even more fanciful is a treaty Clinton plans to negotiate setting forth a code of rights for children, to be administered by a 14-member court set up for the purpose. The draft treaty obliges rich nations to provide funds for shelter, food, clothing and education for children in poor nations. This provision could create grounds to litigate to challenge the level of foreign aid we give as inadequate to meet our treaty obligations. Already, leftists in the United Kingdom are using the treaty to attack welfare cuts by the Cameron government.

European liberalism is advancing -- masked -- by way of these treaties. Defenders of liberty must say no!

[Crafty_Dog]

Dick Morris on Law Of the Sea Treaty (LOST).  Sounds pretty awful:

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-gives-our-offshore-revenues-to-third-world-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

[Crafty_Dog]

Does this URL work for you?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204520204577249072967967832.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. And LEE A. CASEY
This Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that should interest every U.S. company doing business overseas, and especially those operating in the developing world. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Mohamed v. Palestinian Authority raise the issue of whether corporations can be sued for violations of international law under U.S. statutes, including the Alien Tort Statute.

The ATS was adopted in 1789 by the first U.S. Congress. The statute permits suits by aliens in federal courts for certain alleged international-law violations, but it was moribund for nearly 200 years and its purpose remains opaque. The best guess is that Congress wanted to provide a means by which the U.S. could fulfill its international obligations to vindicate a very discrete set of damage claims by diplomats and other foreign nationals injured or abused by Americans.

Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, however, activists and plaintiffs' lawyers began using the law as a means of suing foreign nationals, and then U.S. nationals and companies, in federal court for alleged human rights abuses overseas. They included abuses perpetrated not by the defendant corporations but by the foreign governments with which the companies have done business. This type of "aiding and abetting" liability reached its high-water mark in Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd. (2002), a case brought in Manhattan's federal district court against dozens of U.S. companies that had done business with the South African government during that country's apartheid years.

The trial judge properly dismissed the case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit partially reversed that decision, permitting the ATS claims to go forward. The Supreme Court initially agreed to review the case but then changed its mind because too many Justices would have had to recuse themselves, being shareholders in one or more of the defendant companies. The Second Circuit decision that corporations could be sued under the ATS merely for doing business with the wrong government stands.

In Kiobel and Mohamed, the Supreme Court will again have the opportunity to bring some certainty and sanity to this area of the law. Those cases involve international tort (or damage) claims against nonnatural "persons"—oil companies alleged to have aided and abetted international law violations by Nigeria's government in Kiobel, and by the Palestinian Authority for torture and extrajudicial killing in Mohamed.

Traditionally, international law applied only to nation states. As Emmerich de Vattel, an early and influential scholar much admired by the Constitution's Framers, explained in the 18th century: "The law of nations is the science of the law subsisting between nations or states, and of the obligations that flow from it." Exceptions for individuals involved piracy and attacks on diplomats or those traveling under "safe conducts," the very claims the ATS was likely meant to address.

Yet these exceptions applied only to natural persons. The recognition of corporate entities as legal "persons" is a relatively recent development. There is no basis in customary international law—the actual practice of states in their dealings with each other—for corporate liability on the international level.

Even the dissolution of German companies implicated in Nazi atrocities after World War II was not a judicial action. The corporate entities did not stand in the dock at Nuremberg. Their punishment was a political decision by the victorious Allies intent on creating a new, democratic Germany.

Extending ATS violations to corporate entities would go beyond what international law supports. It would open U.S. courthouse doors to international disputes in which the U.S. itself may have little if any interest and/or which are more appropriately dealt with at the diplomatic level.

Permitting ATS actions against corporate entities would also expand a new frontier for plaintiffs' lawyers, seeking out wrongs committed by foreign governments overseas and then bringing actions for money damages against U.S. companies who may have dealt with, or even simply operated in, those countries. It will add to the litigation explosion that already has done much harm to the U.S. economy and society.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. They have filed amicus curiae briefs in opposition to corporate liability in both the Kiobel and Mohamed cases.

[Crafty_Dog]

Not familiar with the group from which this fund raiser comes, but I suspect their concerns are well warranted:
===========

Dear Marc F.,

Left-wing activists are quick to dismiss the UN Small Arms Treaty as virtually irrelevant in the United States.

But while these armchair generals pontificate, bureaucrats at the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs are steadily pushing a global gun ban under the guise of “controlling the illicit firearms trade.”

On October 14, 2009, President Obama and newly minted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed the longstanding position of the United States and announced public support for an international gun control scheme.

This breathed new life into the so-called “Small Arms Treaty” and bureaucrats at the UN quickly began working on new ways to redefine gun ownership as a crime.

The next “UN Conference on an Arms Trade Treaty” will be held in New York City throughout the month of July. According to sources at the UN, pushing heavy anti-gun restrictions into the developing language of the treaty is top priority.

“The hidden agenda of a lot of the people who sought to negotiate a small arms treaty really had less to do with reducing dangers internationally and a lot more to do with creating a framework for gun control statutes at the national level,” said former UN Ambassador John Bolton.

The official documents of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs substantiate Ambassador Bolton’s predictions. Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is the same old gun control on a global scale.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly force the United States to enact new firearms licensing requirements.

It would also require the U.S. to confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms, ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons and create an international gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

Ultimately, the clear goal is to give UN bureaucrats sweeping power to restrict your Second Amendment rights.

Right on cue, left-wing activists are raising shrill protests. It would be downright funny, if the subject itself weren’t so serious. For example, one of their “experts” is a character named Professor Carl T. Bogus.

Yes, you read that right. Apparently it’s not a joke. Professor Bogus has been hailed as a hero by anti-gun groups like the “Violence Policy Center” for explaining where the Second Amendment really came from.

According to Professor Bogus, James Madison actually wrote the Second Amendment just to reassure wicked, early-American slave masters that their militias, which were the “principle instruments of slave control,” would not be disarmed.

“The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder,” says anti-gun zealot Josh Sugarman, founder of the Violence Policy Center.

Now the able Professor Bogus has brought forth a new jewel: the very idea that Hillary and the UN are anti-gun is, well, bogus.

According to Professor Bogus and the rest of the brain trust at the left-wing news website “Mother Jones,” the National Association for Gun Rights actually invented the “rumor” that Hillary, Obama and the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs want to ban guns!

The National Association for Gun Rights is proud to acknowledge that it was first on the scene more than two years ago, alerting gun owners to the dangers of the “Small Arms Treaty.”

Now, NAGR’s million member army is working to defeat this new threat, and literally thousands of gun owners are joining the fight every week. The National Association for Gun Rights will continue doing battle against this direct attack on the Second Amendment.

For Freedom,
 
Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

P.S. The National Association for Gun Rights is working literally day and night to keep you up-to-date on all gun issues.

You can help out tremendously by signing up for a small, automatically-deducted monthly contribution. Just click on the banner below!

[Crafty_Dog]

BD, or anyone else:

I know I should know better but , , , well I don't-- so I would be glad for some precise, informed statements/citations concerning the hierarchy between the contents of a duly ratified treaty and

a) a US law, and
b) the US Constitution.  There is the case of Reid v. Covert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert but is there anything else to the contrary?

Thank you.

[ccp]

Another UN example of US bashing:

UN Human Rights Chief Calls For Trayvon Investigation
   100 2 929
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   by William Bigelow
UN Human Rights chief Navi Pillay has called for an "immediate investigation" into the death of Trayvon Martin.   

Leaving aside the matter of the despicable record of the UN on human rights, what kind of record does Pillay herself have on human rights, and does she have any moral leg to stand on when interfering in the domestic affaris of the United States?  According to Freedom House, between September 2008, when she became the Human Rights Chief, and June 2010, Pillay made no comment whatsoever on the victims in 34 countries rated “Not Free.”  Some of the countries not criticized were: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam.

When Iranian demonstrators were abused violently by the Iranian government’s forces following the June 2009 presidential elections, Pillay refrained for three months from commenting even though video existed of demonstrators being killed; she only mentioned the matter as part of her traditional opening speech at the UN Human  Rights Council session in September 2009. She did not give any statement dealing directly with the matter.  And when she did speak, it was only in an  “unprecedented effort to engage” with the Muslim world. While she did raise some human rights concerns, she praised Iran’s progress instead of naming violence that had been recorded or current violations.

The pattern of do-nothingness continued. In July 2010, two renowned human rights lawyers, Haytham al-Maleh and Muhanad al-Hasani were jailed for criticizing the Syrian authorities on human rights grounds. In March 2010, the Syrian military detained Kurdish leader Abdel Hafez Abdel and journalists, bloggers and writers for exposing Syria’s corruption. But Pillay did not respond at all. In addition, Pillay was a staunch defender of the falsified Goldstone Report which ripped Israel and also questioned whether the United States had the legal right to kill Osama Bin Laden.

In 2011, the United States, Canada, Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands announced a boycott of Durban III, the UN meeting to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the first Durban conference, where Israel was targeted for vilification. Pillay tried to block further countries boycotting the event, and claimed that the boycotts were a “political distraction.”

Of the Trayvon Martin case, Pillay said, “I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned.”

Perhaps Martin’s family deserves reparations. But it’s none of her damn business either way -- at least based on her record.

[Crafty_Dog]

Infg credible

http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-gives-away-our-sovereignty-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

[bigdog]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/mt-rushmore-un-report-james-anaya_n_1496120.html

South Dakota's Black Hills, home to the granite faces carved into Mt. Rushmore, should be restored as Native American tribal lands, a United Nations official recently said.

[DougMacG]

Besides the Black Hills it seems to me that the UN HQ is also on 'tribal lands'.

I hope everyone has their title insurance in place as we turn over our sovereignty to a global authority for review and distribution.

[Crafty_Dog]

Clinton, Obama, UN To Tell Us How To Raise Our Children
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on May 14, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version
In Screwed!, we expose the Rights of the Child Treaty which is now being negotiated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and will likely be submitted to the Senate this year (perhaps in the lame duck session).
 
Twenty years ago, during the Clinton Administration, the Senate refused to ratify the treaty.  But now it is being pushed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
 
The Treaty, literally, tells us how to raise our children.  And it would be legally enforceable in American courts under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.  Only a constitutional amendment could supersede the "rights" it confers on children:
 
•  It bans spanking or any form of corporal punishment of children.
 
•  Article 12 of the Treaty says "when adults are making decisions which affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinion taken into account." Could this proviso establish a due process right of children to challenge their parents' divorce or their decision to move?
 
•  Worried that your children are hanging out with a bad bunch?  Article 15 guarantees children "freedom of association."  It says "Children have the right to meet together and to join groups and organizations, as long as it does not stop other people from enjoying their rights."
 
•  The Treaty would stop states from trying children as adults and incarcerating them with adult inmates.  It would require that even murderers in their teens be sent to children's facilities rather than prison. Article 37 says "children should not be put in prison with adults."
 
The Treaty requires all signatory nations to provide children with adequate levels of food, clothing, housing, education and medical care.  In Britain, Prime Minister Cameroon is facing a lawsuit for violating the Rights of the Child Treaty by proposing a cut in welfare benefits.
 
It also obliges rich nations to "help poorer countries achieve the best health care possible, safe drinking water, nutritious food, and a clean and safe environment for children."  Enforceable in US courts, this provision might create a basis for judicial decisions ordering increases in foreign aid, just as courts now order steps to address overcrowding of prisons.
 
The Treaty would make a new level of busybody intrusion into our lives. 

[JDN]

I must admit, I'm not sure why the UN needs to be involved, but this treaty requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach previously found in many countries, and still found in the U.S.A that treats children as possessions or chattels, ownership of which is sometimes argued over in family disputes.  Frankly, I think children should have basic some rights, especially as they become older.

The "best interest of the child" is not all bad despite arguments to the contrary.  Frankly, too prevalent IMHO are parents who neglect their children.  In contrast, everyone on this forum seems like an excellent parent and probably in most aspects, is already conforming to this treaty.

Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion in the 2005 decision banning the death penalty for minors, noted that "every country in the world has ratified [the convention] save for the United States and Somalia."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/#ixzz1uxDS0hSt

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/#ixzz1uxDI8bTu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child

http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B53D4DCA7-5899-4242-B244-54A253AFC137%7D

http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf

However, repeating myself, I agree, I do not see the need for a UN treaty.  Perhaps I am missing the point.

[DougMacG]

"I do not see the need for a UN treaty."  [International Children's rights]

Agree!  For many reasons.  The desire of some to give up our sovereignty is not tied to one or two individual issues.  I don't see the need for the UN at all except as a speakers forum and a place where representatives can make contacts for voluntary  cooperation. I would keep the UN, move it out of NY, scale down our contribution, and form other organizations that address specific global needs that are in our best interest.
--------

LOST, Law of the Sea Treaty
Moving on, my first Phyllis Schlafly post on the forum.  Same argument to some extent, we don't need decision making bodies that give Cuba for example an equal say as the US.

http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2012/05/16/defeat_law_of_the_sea_treaty__again/page/2

There's no need for a 18-nation organization to regulate offshore and deep-sea production everywhere in the world, mostly financed by American capital, and then allow it to be taxed for the benefit of foreign freeloaders. The riches of the Arctic, for example, can be resolved by negotiation among the five nations that border the Arctic.

Environmentalists, the third leg of the unholy coalition to ratify LOST, are salivating over its legal system of dispute resolution, which culminates in a 21-member international tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany. The tribunal's judgments could be enforced against Americans and cannot be appealed to any U.S. court.

This tribunal, known as ITLOS, International Tribunal of LOST, has jurisdiction over "maritime disputes," which suggests it will merely deal with ships accidentally bumping each other in the night. But radical environmental lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change, in effect superseding the discredited Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. properly declined to ratify.

A paper just published by Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation lays out the roadmap for how the radical environmentalist lawyers can use LOST to file lawsuits against the U.S. to advance their climate-change agenda.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns us that the Law of the Sea Treaty is even more dangerous now than when President Ronald Reagan rejected it: "With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims." Bolton warns that LOST will give China the excuse to deny U.S. access to what China claims is its "Exclusive Economic Zone" extending 200 miles out into international waters.

The whole concept of putting the United States in the noose of another global organization, in which the U.S. has only the same one vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans. LOST must be defeated.

[bigdog]

"Agree!  For many reasons.  The desire of some to give up our sovereignty is not tied to one or two individual issues.  I don't see the need for the UN at all except as a speakers forum and a place where representatives can make contacts for voluntary  cooperation. I would keep the UN, move it out of NY, scale down our contribution, and form other organizations that address specific global needs that are in our best interest."

This is interesting.  Do you have particular needs (and or partnering nations or organizations) in mind?

[Crafty_Dog]

This seems relevant to our discussion:

http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=38

Legislation > American Laws for American Courts
 

American Laws for American Courts was crafted to protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shariah Law.

Why American Laws for American Courts?

Some 235 years ago, America’s forefathers gathered in Philadelphia to debate and write a unique document. That single-page document announced the formation of a new country—one that would no longer find itself in the clutches of a foreign power. That document was the Declaration of Independence. Eleven years later, many of those same men gathered again to lay the foundation for how the United States of America was to be governed: The US Constitution, a form of government like no other by the people, of the people and for the people.

For more than two centuries, hundreds of thousands of courageous men and women have given their lives to protect America’s sovereignty and freedom.

American constitutional rights must be preserved in order to preserve unique American values of liberty and freedom. State legislatures have a vital role to play in preserving those constitutional rights and American values of liberty and freedom.

America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems, particularly Shariah Law. Included among, but not limited to, those values and rights are:

•Freedom of Religion
•Freedom of Speech
•Freedom of the Press
•Due Process
•Right to Privacy
•Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Civil and Criminal Law Serve as the Bedrock for American Values: We are a nation of laws.

Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines, including Shariah law principles, are finding their way into US court cases.

Reviews of state laws provide extensive evidence that foreign laws and legal doctrines are introduced into US state court cases, including, notably, Islamic law known as Shariah, which is used in family courts and other courts in dozens of foreign Muslim-majority nations .

These foreign laws, frequently at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, typically enter the American court system through:

•Comity (mutual respect of each country’s legal system)
•Choice of law issues and
•Choice of forum or venue
Granting comity to a foreign judgment is a matter of state law, and most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state. This doctrine, the “Void as against Public Policy Rule,” has a long and pedigreed history.

Unfortunately, because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws, including as an example, Shariah, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices – first to know what Shariah is, and second, to understand that granting comity to a Shariah judgment may be at odds with  our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.

The goal of the American Laws for American Courts Act is a clear and unequivocal application of what should be the goal of all state courts: No U.S. citizen or resident should be denied the liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed in our constitutional republic.  American Laws for American Courts is needed especially to protect women and children, identified by international human rights organizations as the primary victims of discriminatory foreign laws.

By promoting American Laws for American Courts, we are preserving individual liberties and freedoms which become eroded by the encroachment of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as Shariah.

It is imperative that we safeguard our constitutions’ fundamentals, particularly the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the sovereignty of our Nation and its people, and the principles of the rule of law—American laws, not foreign laws.

MODEL LEGISLATION

AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE [GENERAL ASSEMBLY/LEGISLATURE] OF THE STATE OF [_____]:

The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

The [general assembly/state legislature] fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, and also recognizes that this right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[1] As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals For the purposes of this act, foreign law shall not mean, nor shall it include, any laws of the Native American tribes in this state.

[2] Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[3] A contract or contractual provision (if capable of segregation) which provides for the choice of a law, legal code or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the law, legal code or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[4]

1.A. A contract or contractual provision (if capable of segregation) which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any law, legal code or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
2.B. If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency or similarly binding proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions of the non-claimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be denied.
[5] Without prejudice to any legal right, this act shall not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or the United States.

[6] This subsection shall not apply to a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State. This exemption in no way grants permission for any otherwise unlawful act under the guise of First Amendment protection.

[7] This statute shall not be interpreted by any court to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party to the extent that such treaty or international agreement preempts or is superior to state law on the matter at issue.

 

American Laws for American Courts has passed into law in the following states:

American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts

American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts

American and Arizona Laws for Arizona Courts

[Crafty_Dog]

Security
U.S. Sovereignty Could Be LOST
Three decades after President Ronald Reagan put the kibosh on a treaty that surrendered U.S. sovereignty to a law enforcement body chosen by the United Nations, the Obama regime and its leftist followers in Congress appear ready to try to ratify the same treaty before Obama is possibly sent packing in November. The Law Of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is allegedly an attempt to protect the world's oceans, which constitute 70 percent of the Earth's surface, from environmental damage, as well as to lessen the oceans' potential as a source of conflict between nations. In reality, however, LOST is nothing more than an attempt at the global redistribution of power and wealth, especially America's and Europe's, via a UN body called the International Seabed Authority, which would be headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica.
The ISA would have the power to regulate the entire world's oceans, including economic activities such as seabed mining, fishing and ocean petroleum exploration. Military activities would also fall under its jurisdiction, with ISA having the authority to tell the U.S. Navy where it could and could not sail. Freedom of the seas has been guaranteed by the U.S. Navy, but under LOST it would be the ISA, whose members would be chosen by the same organization that put such exemplary human rights defenders as Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia on the UN Human Rights Council. Such nations no doubt would soon be on the ISA. LOST even imposes a global tax (a.k.a. "protection") that would be paid directly to ISA by companies seeking to exploit the ocean's resources. LOST is thus a Marxist's dream come true.
While LOST's prospects for ratification seemed dim, the Congressional Quarterly says that "hopes for ratification have been revived." LOST is championed by former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MI), who opposed it while in Congress but is now lobbying for corporate and environmental interests that favor it. Additionally, soon-to-be-former Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) also backs the treaty, increasing the odds that the Obama regime could cram this treaty past the Senate before November. In the name of U.S. sovereignty and freedom of the seas, LOST must be sent back to Davy Jones' locker, just as the Gipper did 30 years ago.

[bigdog]

"I do not see the need for a UN treaty."  [International Children's rights]

Agree!  For many reasons.  The desire of some to give up our sovereignty is not tied to one or two individual issues.  I don't see the need for the UN at all except as a speakers forum and a place where representatives can make contacts for voluntary  cooperation. I would keep the UN, move it out of NY, scale down our contribution, and form other organizations that address specific global needs that are in our best interest.

Is this the type of thing you had in mind, Doug? 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/18/the_persian_gulf_needs_its_own_nato?page=0,0

[DougMacG]

"Is this the type of thing you had in mind, Doug?"

YES.  Not that I know exactly what our interests in the gulf should be, but we should be in alliances with people who share our interests.  We should not so much be giving people like Chavez and Ahmedinejad a platform for credibility or trading away our interests with regimes like China and Russia to get their approval, when their own interest peace and freedom is noticeably insincere.

[bigdog]

As I noted above, I think the idea has merit.  The is large and in many ways unwieldy.  I think there is merit in exploring options, similar to that discussed in the article or an ANZUS or the strides that the US has made in recent years in Asia with the Philippines, Vietnam, S. Korea.  I would like the US to continue to build/maintain relations with traditional allies such as the UK. 

[Crafty_Dog]

Law of the Sea Treaty Is Found on Capitol Hill, AgainBy MARK LANDLER
Published: May 23, 2012
 
WASHINGTON — Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican, joked that he was witnessing “sort of a Lazarus moment.” On that score, at least, Mr. Corker got no quarrel from his Democratic colleagues.

Thirty years after it was signed in Montego Bay, Jamaica, the United Nations treaty that governs the world’s oceans is undergoing one of its periodic resurrections in Congress. A Senate committee on Wednesday summoned three top national security officials to make yet another plea for the agreement, in the face of narrow, but stubborn, opposition.

The Senate has never ratified the treaty, despite the support of Republican and Democratic presidents, the Pentagon, environmental advocates, the oil and gas industry — virtually anyone who deals “with oceans on a daily basis,” in the words of Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the Republican who recently lost a primary, who is a supporter.

So long has the “Law of the Sea” treaty been stalled on Capitol Hill that its opponents — a handful of conservative Republicans who view it as an infringement on American sovereignty — have taken to calling it “LOST, ” an uncharitable, if apt, acronym.

Now, though, Senator John F. Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, sees another chance to push through a treaty last debated in 2007. In the first of a series of hearings, he enlisted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to help make the case — allowing them to argue that the treaty is increasingly important to deal with such issues as fraught relations over the South China Sea.

The treaty, ratified by 162 states and the European Union, codifies rules for the use of the oceans and maritime resources. Among its provisions, it allows countries to exploit the continental shelf, in some cases extending more than 200 miles from shore.

“Whatever arguments may have existed for delaying U.S. accession no longer exist and truly cannot even be taken with a straight face,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting that some critics still seem to believe that because the treaty was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations, “the black helicopters are on their way.”

By refusing to ratify the treaty, Mrs. Clinton said, the United States could fail to exploit untapped oil and gas deposits buried beneath the offshore seabed. It could lose out to Russia, Norway and other countries in staking claims to the Arctic Ocean, where melting ice is opening up untold mineral riches. And it could lose credibility in reining in China’s maritime ambitions in the South China Sea.

Mr. Panetta and General Dempsey zeroed in on the national security benefits, arguing that by instituting rules and a mechanism for resolving disputes, the treaty reduces the threat of conflict in hot spots like the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to shut down in retaliation for oil sanctions.

“Frankly, I don’t think this is a close call,” Mr. Panetta said.

Several Republicans agree it is a clear choice: they say the treaty ought to be mothballed for good. Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, complained that under the terms of the agreement, the United States would have to transfer billions of dollars in royalties from oil and gas production on the continental shelf to an international authority, which would redistribute the money to less developed countries.

Senator James Risch of Idaho said it would oblige the United States to adhere to international agreements to stem greenhouse gas emissions. “That’s got Kyoto written all over it,” he said, referring to the climate change treaty rejected by the United States.

Mr. Risch seemed particularly rankled by Mrs. Clinton’s contention that the treaty’s opponents were driven by “ideology and mythology,” not facts. “I hope you weren’t scoffing at us,” he said. “I’m one of those that fall into that category.”

Mr. Corker, while saying he had an open mind, suggested that there was more than a bit of politics in the timing of the treaty’s reappearance. If Republicans win the Senate, Democrats would find it even harder to win approval in the next Congress.

Despite sending a marquee delegation to testify before Congress, the White House has not exactly championed the treaty, certainly not like the New Start arms reduction treaty with Russia, which was pushed ardently by President Obama.

For his part, Mr. Kerry promised to keep the debate away from the “hurly-burly of presidential politics” by delaying a vote until after the election. Still, for Mr. Kerry, whose name is on the shortlist of candidates to succeed Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state in any second Obama term, ratifying the Law of the Sea would be “a huge feather in his cap,” said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who has argued against the treaty.

[DougMacG]

"Mr. Kerry promised to keep the debate away from the “hurly-burly of presidential politics” by delaying a vote until after the election."

Right.  Nothing hurts responsible governance more than consent of the governed (sarc.).  Not only some Dems are leaving the Senate, but L.O.S.T. supporter Dick Lugar is leaving too.  I wonder how Washington resident Lugar will vote in a lame duck, what the people of Indiana want or what "everyone" knows is best for them...
-----

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/20/will-u-s-sovereignty-be-lost-at-sea-obama-signs-u-n-treaty-that-redistributes-drilling-revenues/

Will U.S. Sovereignty Be LOST At Sea? Obama Supports U.N. Treaty That Redistributes Drilling Revenues

A proposed Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which is supported by President Obama but has not yet been ratified by Congress, will subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights.

As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries. This apparently is in penance for America’s audacity in perpetuating prosperity yielded by our Industrial Revolution.

Under current law, oil companies are required to pay royalties to the U.S. Treasury (typically at a rate of 12 ½% to 18%) for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and off the northern coast of Alaska. Treasury keeps a portion, and the rest goes to Gulf states and to the National Historic Preservation Fund. But if LOST is ratified, about half of those Treasury revenues, amounting to billions, if not trillions of dollars, would go to the ISA. We will be required to pay 1% of those “international royalties” beginning in the sixth year of production at each site, with rates increasing at 1% annual increments until the 12th year when they would remain at 7% thereafter.

Like the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol debacle that preceded it, this most recent LOST cause embodies the progressive ideal of subordinating the sovereignty of nation states to authoritarian dictates of a world body. The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free.

And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.

The treaty was originally drafted in 1968 at the behest of Soviet bloc and Third World dictators interested in implementing a scheme to weaken U.S. power and transferring wealth from industrialized countries to the developing world. It had been co-authored by Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist and admirer of Karl Marx who ran the World Federation of Canada. In a 1999 speech she declared: “The world ocean has been and is so to speak, our great laboratory for making a new world order.” Recognizing this as a global grab, President Reagan thought it was such a lousy idea that he not only refused to sign, but actually fired the State Department staff that helped negotiate it.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns that world circumstances are even much less favorable to the U.S. for LOST enactment now: “With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.”

The treaty has been pitched as an effort to protect the world’s oceans from environmental damage and to avoid potential conflicts between nations. Accordingly, ISA would settle international maritime and jurisdictional disputes, possibly even to the extent of overriding our U.S. Navy’s freedom of navigation and governing where ships can and cannot go. ISA’s prerogative to do so would be entirely consistent with a “global test” definition advocated by key LOST proponent Senator John Kerry in 2004.

The treaty contains a clause empowering the ISA to take whatever steps it deems necessary to stop “marine pollution.”  According to William C. G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, its expansive definition of pollution could be read to include “…the potential impact of rising sea surface temperature, rising sea levels, and changes in ocean pH as a consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in sea water.”  Burns warns that this could “give rise to actions under the Convention’s marine pollution provisions to reduce carbon emissions worldwide.” He warns that this can easily be expanded to include anti-global warming measures, and since it would be “self-executing”, U.S. courts can be used to enforce it.

Powerful environmental organizations love LOST because it will afford a legal system for dispute resolution which culminates in a 21-member international tribunal (ITLOS) based in Hamburg which can be enforced against American companies without possibilities of U.S. court appeal. Numerous lawsuits charging global warming dangers linked to greenhouse emissions from ships will most likely supersede binding rules of the discredited Kyoto Protocol which the U.S. wisely never ratified.

The U.S. Navy maintains that we need LOST to guarantee free transit in dangerous waters, such as in the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to block, and in the South China Sea which is dominated by China. Yet freedom of navigation has been recognized under international law for centuries. It was policed by the British Navy over 400 years, and by ours since 1775. Since the U.N. has no navy, it will still be up to us to continue this role.

Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry has been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive. Republican Senator Luger, another strong treaty supporter and career globalist, apparently didn’t want to highlight that fact during the course of his hard-fought Indiana reelection campaign. Now, with nothing more to lose following his primary defeat, he can be expected to help push for Senate ratification as early as next month.

U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had both supported the treaty during their tenures, but they never sent it to the Senate for ratification because of opposition over concerns that it will limit commerce and allow international bodies to wield control over U.S. interests. During W’s term of office, then-Senator Joe Biden introduced LOST before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he chaired in 2007, yet it was never brought to the floor for a vote. The Obama administration has now openly supported Senate action since at least 2009 when it released its Treaty Priority List.

Those who support the treaty argue that it will clarify rules regarding the high seas…ocean waters beyond our national jurisdiction and in the Arctic Ocean where the U.S., Russia Canada, and several Scandinavian countries have all claimed territorial rights. During her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said: “If people start drilling in areas that are now ice-free most of the year, and we don’t know where they can or can’t drill or whether we can, we’re going to be disadvantaged. So I think you will have a very receptive audience in our State Department and in our administration.”

Peter Brooks, a former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and current Heritage Foundation senior fellow disagrees with that rationale. He argues that: “While LOST’s navigational tenets for operations on high seas, including establishing waters and exclusive economic zones, are of little dispute, some of the other ‘non-navigational’ provisions are what really frighten the treaty’s detractors.” And in addition to establishing and having to deal with still another U.N. agency, and giving away many billions of dollars to “any number of bad actor, corrupt or anti-American regimes” at a time when our country is facing enormous fiscal and budgetary challenges, LOST considers the deep seabed as the “common heritage of mankind”.

Brooks continues: “But what they’re really getting at is if you want to harvest Davy Jones’ locker you need to ask pretty please of…tahdah…the ISA. This Mother-may-I would likely limit or discourage the private sector’s economic opportunities in the deep seabed, affecting the provision of this likely-significant bounty to global markets. Global energy demand…and prices at the pump…seem to be going anywhere but down. We don’t want to allow our energy exploration to be held hostage to the whims of some unaccountable international bureaucrats.”

Steven Groves, an international law fellow at the Heritage Foundation agrees, and observes that opposition from Republican members of Congress who have objected reflects a legitimate deep-seated distrust of the United Nations and other international bodies, observing: “This seems to me a bit of a Trojan Horse for the ability of one country to affect another country’s environmental policy. That’s generally something we do not like as conservatives and Americans.”

And why would anyone possibly doubt the U.N.’s objectivity and sagacity as an oversight organization? Well perhaps we might think about the history of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which produced the 1992 Earth Summit Rio Declaration’s rules which have been adopted by a new U.S. National Ocean Council  (NOC) established by President Obama through an Executive Order.  Principal #15 states that: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

In other words, those protections can involve whatever restraints on drilling and other activities an organization such as ISA may deem necessary to protect the planet from global warming… whether or not they can scientifically establish that there is a problem…or whether or not those attempted interventions will make a bit of difference.

Headed by Science Czar and noted climate alarmist John Holdren, the NOC is seen by many as a back door way to sneak LOST in as a “soft law”, the same tactic used when the U.N.’s Agenda 21 failed to pass Congress. This enables it to avoid a 2/3 Senate approval vote hurdle required for all treaties.

What would Ronald Reagan say about what is now going on?  Let me guess.

Maybe, “Law of the Sea…get LOST…this time for good!”

[JDN]

Without going into the details of this law, our Navy supports this law, Clinton AND Bush both supported this law.  If I read it correctly, it only affects "operations beyond 200 miles of our coast" anotherwords international waters.  I'm not sure why we have any more rights to any operations, be there fishing or drilling than any other country does in international waters.  Having a international body adjudicate disagreements in international waters doesn't seem all bad.....

[DougMacG]

"Without going into the details of this law"

  - That would be no way to judge it.

"our Navy supports this law"

  - We do not have rule by military.  This currently is a question for the Senate.  One Senator IMO already lost his seat over it.

 "Clinton AND Bush both supported this law."

  - And Reagan opposed it.  To pick at those two, Clinton bombed an aspirin factory and hit the Chinese embassy by mistake in Belgrade.  Bush in roughly your words invaded a country that posed no threat to us?  I disagreed with roughly half of what he did (Harriet Miers was the wisest Amercian available for the Supreme Court) so his support gives me no guidance.

"If I read it correctly, it only affects "operations beyond 200 miles of our coast" in other words international waters."

  - The have been unable to ratify it for 30 years with Dem and Rep. Senates, so looking at the harmless aspects without the objectionable parts isn't very helpful.  If you want to look at it thoroughly, one of the best resources available on the internet is right here in this DBMA thread.

[JDN]

Doug, I understand we do not have rule by military.  However, often we listen to the our armed forces.  The Navy in this instance.

No reason to denigrate either Clinton or Bush, I was merely pointing out that influential individuals from BOTH parties have supported this legislation.  Perhaps they see the big picture?

While I concur that the DBMA is an excellent site, it is no offense biased against "international law".  Yet I have learned a lot.
However, my "question" still stands, ""If I read it correctly, it only affects "operations beyond 200 miles of our coast" in other words international waters."
You edited later my comment, "I'm not sure why we have any more rights to any operations, be there fishing or drilling than any other country does in international waters.  Having a international body adjudicate disagreements in international waters doesn't seem all bad....."

Frankly, I am still curious why we should not agree to international adjudication of international waters.  As should China and other countries.....  Of course, selfishly, we want what's ours and what's yours too, but then so does everyone else.  Why not let an international body adjudicate these issues in international waters?  Remember, we have no more right to these waters than anyone else does....  Or are you saying might makes right.... ?

[Crafty_Dog]

"I am still curious why we should not agree to international adjudication of international waters."

Because it would be run in a manner similar to the General Assembly of the UN.

[JDN]

"I am still curious why we should not agree to international adjudication of international waters."

Because it would be run in a manner similar to the General Assembly of the UN.

It IS in international waters.  Further, if everyone agrees, many disputes over fishing and other mining and drilling operations can be avoided. 

Why should we arbitrarily have the right to decide rules for others in international waters? 

To adjudicate issues, if not someone like the General Assembly, then who do you have in mind?

[DougMacG]

"It IS in international waters."

Therefore The Republic of Djibouti and the United States of America should have an equal say in defense maneuvers for example to protect Taiwan or South Korea?

"if not someone like the General Assembly, then who do you have in mind?"

This question is posed backwards.  GIVEN: NOT the UN General Assembly to resolve ANYTHING, then start forming successful, functional, responsible international organizations before ceded rights and powers to them.

[JDN]

"It IS in international waters."

Therefore The Republic of Djibouti and the United States of America should have an equal say in defense maneuvers for example to protect Taiwan or South Korea?

"if not someone like the General Assembly, then who do you have in mind?"

This question is posed backwards.  GIVEN: NOT the UN General Assembly to resolve ANYTHING, then start forming successful, functional, responsible international organizations before ceded rights and powers to them.

Doug, did you read your own excellent Forbes article?  It has nothing to do with defensive maneuvers.  Our own Navy supports this bill; obviously they wouldn't do this if they thought there was any military constraints.  As to fishing and mineral rights in International Waters which this law pertains to, then yes, I think The Republic of Djibouti (is there really such a country?  ) should have a say about international waters just like we do. I don't quite get where we think we have the arbitrary right to anything in international waters or the right to cede any rights or powers in international waters.  They don't belong to us. 

Forbes:  "A proposed Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which is supported by President Obama but has not yet been ratified by Congress, will subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights."

[DougMacG]

JDN, Thanks for clarifying your view. (?)  My goal is to defeat that view in the electoral process.

[Crafty_Dog]

"It IS in international waters.  Further, if everyone agrees, many disputes over fishing and other mining and drilling operations can be avoided."

Uhhh , , , be definition the problems arise when everyone does NOT agree. 

"Why should we arbitrarily have the right to decide rules for others in international waters?" 

So we don't get fuct. 

"To adjudicate issues, if not someone like the General Assembly, then who do you have in mind?"

In the absence of a suitable body, then the US Navy will do fine.

[DougMacG]

"In the absence of a suitable body, then the US Navy will do fine."

 

[JDN]

"In the absence of a suitable body, then the US Navy will do fine."

 

So might makes right; even though we are wrong.... 
No wonder our popularity in the world has diminished through the years.  No one likes a bully.

[Crafty_Dog]

Horse excrement.

On the whole, the US has an extraordinary record of defending the high seas.   Name me another nation that would have come close to our standard had it had the same military dominance that we have had.

It's not a question of might vs right.  It is a question of not being a clueless vagina putting our fate into the hands of something that will function something like the General Assembly of the UN and then being surprised it got fuct.

[JDN]

We are not discussing "defending the high seas". 

We are talking in international waters "the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights."

Military domination should not be the issue.  Or are you suggesting rather than diplomatic solutions we merely assert our authority/ownership
of drilling, mining, and fishing rights in international waters using our navel dominance?

Remember, it's our Navy that is in favor of this law.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.dickmorris.com/stop-un-internet-regulation-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

[Crafty_Dog]

WSJ:

The Law of the Sea Treaty
The U.S. has more to gain by participating in convention deliberations than by staying out.
By HENRY KISSINGER, GEORGE SHULTZ, JAMES BAKER III, COLIN POWELL AND CONDOLEEZZA RICE

The Convention of the Law of the Sea is again under consideration by the U.S. Senate. If the U.S. finally becomes party to this treaty, it will be a boon for our national security and economic interests. U.S. accession will codify our maritime rights and give us new tools to advance national interests.

The convention's primary functions are to define maritime zones, preserve freedom of navigation, allocate resource rights, establish the certainty necessary for various businesses that depend on the sea, and protect the marine environment. Flaws in the treaty regarding deep-seabed mining, which prevented President Ronald Reagan from supporting it, were fixed in 1994. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have supported ratification, as do Presidents George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama, because it is in the best interest of our nation. Yet the U.S. remains one of the few major countries not party to the convention.

The treaty provides substantial economic benefits to the U.S. It accords coastal states the right to declare an "Exclusive Economic Zone" where they have exclusive rights to explore and exploit, and the responsibility to conserve and manage, living and nonliving resources extending 200 nautical miles seaward from their shoreline. Our nation's exclusive zone would be larger than that of any country in the world—covering an area greater than the landmass of the lower 48 states. In addition, the zone can be extended beyond 200 nautical miles if certain geological criteria are met; this has significant potential benefits where the U.S.'s continental shelves may be as broad as 600 miles, such as off Alaska, where vast natural resources lie.

As the world's pre-eminent maritime power with one of the longest coastlines, the U.S. has more than any other country to gain—and to lose—based on how the convention's terms are interpreted and applied. By becoming party to the treaty, we would strengthen our capacity to influence deliberations and negotiations involving other nations' attempts to extend their continental boundaries.

The U.S. currently has no input into international deliberations over rights to the Arctic, where rich energy and mineral resources are found more than 200 nautical miles from any country's shoreline. Russia has placed its flag on the North Pole's ocean floor. This is a largely symbolic act, but the part of the Arctic Ocean claimed by Russia could hold oil and gas deposits equal to about 20% of the world's current oil and gas reserves.

As a nonparty to the treaty, the U.S. has limited options for disputing such claims and is stymied from taking full advantage of resources that could be under U.S. jurisdiction. Lack of participation in the convention also jeopardizes economic opportunities associated with commercial deep-sea mining operations in international waters beyond exclusive economic zones—opportunities now pursued by Canadian, Australian and German firms.

Some say it's good enough to protect our navigational interests through customary international law, and if that approach fails then we can use force or threaten to do so. But customary law is vague and doesn't provide a strong foundation for critical national security rights. What's more, the use of force can be risky and costly. Joining the convention would put our vital rights on a firmer legal basis, gaining legal certainty and legitimacy as we operate in the world's largest international zone.

The continuing delay of U.S. accession to the convention compromises our nation's authority to exercise our sovereign interest, jeopardizes our national and economic security, and limits our leadership role in international ocean policy.

Our planet's environment is changing, and there is an increasing need to access resources responsibly. We can expect significant change and resulting economic benefit as the Arctic opens and delivers potentially extraordinary economic benefit to our country. Our coastline, one of the longest in the world, will increase.

These changes and the resulting economic effects are the substance of serious international deliberations of which we are not a part. Time moves on and we are not at the table. This is a serious problem and a significant cost for future generations of Americans.

Maritime claims not only in the Arctic but throughout the world are becoming more contentious. As aggressive maritime behavior increases, the U.S. military has become more, not less, emphatic on the need to become party to this treaty. Current and past military leaders are firmly behind accession, because while nothing in the convention restricts or prohibits our military activity, it is the best process for resolving disputes.

We have been on the sidelines long enough. Now is the time to get on the field and lead.

The authors all have served as secretary of State in Republican administrations.

===============

Would have been nice to see the creation of international tax authority over US enterprises addressed , , ,

[JDN]

Pretty impressive bipartisan (Republican) list of supporters.


The Law of the Sea Treaty
The U.S. has more to gain by participating in convention deliberations than by staying out.
By HENRY KISSINGER, GEORGE SHULTZ, JAMES BAKER III, COLIN POWELL AND CONDOLEEZZA RICE

[Crafty_Dog]

New UN Treaty Bars Treating Teenage Criminals As Adults: Screwed!
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on June 1, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version
The Rights of the Child Treaty, now in the final stages of negotiations at the United Nations, will include a provision barring the placement of any person under eighteen years of age in a prison with adults.  Should the United States sign the Treaty - and Hillary is negotiating to do so - it will invalidate state laws that require teens over sixteen (fifteen in some states) accused of murder and other heinous violent crimes to be tried and sentenced as adults.
 
Our new book, Screwed!: How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off and Plundering Our Economy -- and How Our Leaders Help Them Do It, documents this key threat to our ability to deal appropriately with leaders of gangs like the Latin Kings. Prosecutors note that gang leaders often use juveniles to commit the worst of crimes because of their immunity from prosecution as adults.  Changes in state law - that would be invalidated by this Treaty - have reduced this tendency and led to serious prison time for serious crimes committed by sixteen and seventeen year olds.
 
Treaties, under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, have the force of Constitutional Law in the United States and take precedence over any state, federal or local laws to the contrary.  (As this thread has discussed in some detail, this statement is not quite accurate, though it may well be accurate in the matter as issue here)
 
In the aftermath of the crime wave of the 70s and 80s, most states changed their criminal justice laws to require that teens over sixteen be tried as adults for crimes such as murder, rape, or, in cases of gang leaders, of drug selling.  These laws put the defendants, if convicted, in adult prison facilities.  Children's prisons tend to be minimum security facilities designed to keep children under supervision until they reach eighteen.  Then they are typically released.  Very few, if any, are then transferred to adult penitentiaries to serve a full sentence.
 
But the Rights of the Child Treaty, in its current form, includes a provision that flatly prohibits putting children in the same prison as adults, regardless of what state and federal laws provide.
 
The slap-on-the wrist treatment juvenile offenders get in children's facilities contrast sharply with the effective long sentences now being meted out by the federal courts before whom most big drug cases are now prosecuted.  The resulting drop in crimes, particularly in homicides, has been heartening and largely removed crime from the nation's political agenda.
 
Now, unless we stop it, the United Nations is about to force us to adopt sentencing laws which do nothing to punish juvenile offenders and, indeed, offer little disincentive to a life of crime.
 
Read Screwed! about all the Treaties Obama and Hillary are planning to push through in their final months in office and how to fight to kill them.

[bigdog]

One thing that you may not be aware of is that minors do not have the same rights as adults.  So, for example, a minor need not be read his/her rights upon arrest/detainment.  Therefore, in some ways, there is a lower bar for a conviction for a minor than for an adult.  And therefore, I do not think that it is bad thing that a 16 year old be put into an adult prison.  This is also not to mention the extreme violence that takes place in detention centers, whether for juveniles or adults.  A minor has not become an adult, and therefore on average, hardly has a fighting chance in an jail altercation.  And, finally, a teen's brain has not fully developed, which means that holding them accountable, as an adult, from a physiological/psychological perspective doesn't make much sense.

I am not saying that joining a treaty is necessary to change policy, but I whole heartedly approve of the point of joining this treaty. 

[Crafty_Dog]

"And therefore, I do not think that it is bad thing that a 16 year old be put into an adult prison."

Is this what you mean to say?

"I am not saying that joining a treaty is necessary to change policy, but I whole heartedly approve of the point of joining this treaty."

By which you mean you disagree with treating juvenile killers as adults?   

Anyway, is this really the point of joining the Treaty?  I strongly suspect not.  I suspect it is more more a matter of a backdoor to establishing progressive entitlements (a.k.a. "rights") that have nothing to do with the point that Morris, who lets face it is not very precise in some of his thinking, is raising here as a "And furthermore" type of point.  Yes?

[bigdog]

"And therefore, I do not think that it is bad thing that a 16 year old be put into an adult prison."

Is this what you mean to say?

No... it is my fault for trying to multitask, and failing.  I do not think that 16 year olds should be placed into prison with adults. 
"I am not saying that joining a treaty is necessary to change policy, but I whole heartedly approve of the point of joining this treaty."

By which you mean you disagree with treating juvenile killers as adults?   

Yes. 

Anyway, is this really the point of joining the Treaty?  I strongly suspect not.  I suspect it is more more a matter of a backdoor to establishing progressive entitlements (a.k.a. "rights") that have nothing to do with the point that Morris, who lets face it is not very precise in some of his thinking, is raising here as a "And furthermore" type of point.  Yes?

Also yes.  And, your fears about the future, possible implications is part of why I don't think joining the treaty is a necessary step. 

Sincere apologies for the confusing wording of my prior post.  

[Crafty_Dog]

The issue of what to do with sociopathic teenage criminals can be a vexing one.  Just as your logic about the drawbacks and injustice of putting them in with adult criminals makes sense, so too does the logic of saying they don't belong in with juveniles who are of the sort intended to be helped by the juvenile system instead of being preyed upon by these sociopaths.


If we want to discuss this further lets take it to the Crime and Punishment thread on the MA forum.