Law of the Sea Treaty

[erynthered]

anybody following this?

 

snip

 

But critics say clauses built into the treaty could directly harm American interests. They say it could force the U.S. to comply with unspecified environmental codes, and that the treaty gives environmental activists the legal standing to sue over river pollution and shut down industry, simply because rivers feed into the sea.

 

The treaty allows environmental groups to bring lawsuits to the Law of the Sea Tribunal in Germany, a panel of 21 U.N. judges who would have say over pollution levels in American rivers. Their rulings would have the force law in the U.S., according to a reading in a 2008 Supreme Court decision by Justice John Paul Stevens.

 

"You've got an unaccountable tribunal that will surely be stacked with jurists hostile to our interests," said Chris Horner, author of "Red Hot Lies," a book critical of environmentalists. "This would never pass muster if the Senate held an open, public debate about this."

 

Legal experts also warn that the treaty demands aid for landlocked countries that lack the access and technology to mine the deep seas -- and that it might not even benefit the U.S. at all.

 

"You have to pay royalties on the value of anything you extract (from the deep seabed), those royalties to be distributed as the new bureaucracy sees fit, primarily to landlocked countries and underdeveloped countries," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. American money would also go to fund the International Seabed Authority, which Groves warned "would have the potential to become the most massive U.N. bureaucracy on the planet."

 

"The whole theory of the treaty is that the world's oceans and everything below them are the common heritage of mankind," said Groves. "Very socialist."

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/12...tion-un-treaty/

[Alaska Darin]

I've been following it. I'm not surprised by it - it's one of those things I've feared since Clinton left office and guys like Kerry and Gore were put forth.

[UBinVA]

On our way to the New World Order. Our sovereignty is under attack and we are doing it to ourselves. The Dems and the U.N. want to destroy our constitution and our way of life. I say go F%^k yourself.

 

Second Amendment: Gun Control

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=50671

 

Human rights:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/16/...hts-Council.php

 

UN CRC:

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Ty...6-C1974B1A57F8}

[erynthered]

On our way to the New World Order. Our sovereignty is under attack and we are doing it to ourselves. The Dems and the U.N. want to destroy our constitution and our way of life. I say go F%^k yourself.

 

Second Amendment: Gun Control

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=50671

 

Human rights:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/16/...hts-Council.php

 

UN CRC:

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Ty...6-C1974B1A57F8}

 

 

If I had posted something in this thread Title about Palin, it would have had more responses to it.

 

Though I'm not a bit surprised by the silence from the bleeding heart obama knob gobbling limp liberal left on L.O.S.T, cause they're friggin LOST!!

[DC Tom]

UN CRC:

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Ty...6-C1974B1A57F8}

 

That website exaggerates the CRC rather grossly. Falsely in some cases.

 

 

Still...although the CRC isn't some oppressive Big Brother world legislation, it is pretty seriously ridiculous. The UN desperately needs a hobby.

[UBinVA]

That website exaggerates the CRC rather grossly. Falsely in some cases.

 

Any examples of this?

 

Any new treaties/laws of this magnitude and scope over ones personal business with respect to their kids will have unintended consequences. I don't want any government body telling me what I can or can not do with regard to my kids within the current law of course.

 

Chip, Chip, Chip away on our liberties.

[DC Tom]

Any examples of this?

 

Yeah. The CRC. Read it.