EURObama Chose Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair 'Lightweight Joe' to Push 'Green' UN Treaties Like the UNCLOS & Kyoto Protocol

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) may soon be debated, once again, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, most likely sometime during 2009. Although last October 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), chaired by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, had voted 17-4 to submit the UNCLOS to a floor vote for ratification, the SFRC failed to satisfy many Americans’ demands to convene full, impartial and transparent open public hearings.


See Ken Timmerman, Senate Refuses Debate on Controversial Treaty, Newsmax.com (Sept. 27, 2007) at: http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Sea_treaty/2007/09/26/36021.html . "Officially known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opponents are referring to it more simply as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. What’s got them most riled up is the fact that neither the Bush White House, nor the Treaty’s supporters in the United States Senate, appear willing to have a forthright, honest, and full debate. 'They’re trying to ram this thing through in the dead of night,' said former Reagan administration Pentagon official Frank Gaffney, who now heads the conservative Center for Security Policy. On Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relationship Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, will hold its first hearing on the controversial Treaty. A bevy of senior Bush administration officials will all testify in favor of the Treaty. But not a single voice in opposition will be heard. 'Biden brushed us off with a form letter,' says Cliff Kincaid, an anti-United Nations activist who has teamed together with Gaffney and other conservatives into an ad hoc coalition to oppose the treaty. Thursday’s hearing 'is just a stunt by Biden to get mileage for his presidential campaign,' he told reporters in Washington on Wednesday. “And the Bush administration is being dragged along for the show.”


Indeed, what actually transpired following such 'pushback' were perfunctory UNCLOS ratification hearings, with administration officials and treaty proponents dominating much of the ‘air time’ and their obscurantist testimonies receiving the most minimal of cross-examinations. In addition, none of the other committees possessing oversight jurisdiction, either in the Senate or the House of Representatives, called for or conducted their own such investigations. See Colby Itkowitz, Senate Panel Approves Law of the Sea Treaty, CQ TODAY – FOREIGN POLICY (Oct. 31, 2007), ITSSD Journal on the UN Law of the Sea Convention at: http://itssdjournalunclos-lost.blogspot.com/2008/01/senate-panel-approves-law-of-sea-treaty.html . "'Do we join a treaty that establishes a framework to advance the rule of law on the oceans?” Chairman Joseph R. Biden, Jr., D-Del., asked. “Or do we remain on the outside, to the detriment of our national interests?' The Bush administration strongly supports Senate passage of the treaty. Biden said the president told him it was one of his foremost foreign policy priorities. The treaty also has the backing of the U.S. military, intelligence agencies and business and environmental groups."


Due to Americans' dissatisfaction with the SFRC's (and Senator Biden's) lackluster performance, the Senate Majority has since been unable to secure enough votes to ensure the treaty’s ratification. Consequently, the U.S. UNCLOS ratification process remains, at least for the time being, frozen in limbo.


Arguably, had the Congress undertaken a due diligence review befitting its constitutional obligation to provide all Americans with due process of law, it would have been able to discover the treaty’s numerous environmental regulatory, enforcement and revenue-raising provisions pursuant to which new imposts could adversely affect the general public. Given the sheer length of the UNCLOS (over 200 pages) and the multiple subject matters it covers, (and thus the resulting complexity), reasonable citizens are therefore left to wonder whether ‘wisdom’ is served at this time and place and by this Congress, without considering the true amount of work that would be required to thoroughly vet what is perhaps the largest environmental regulatory treaty in the world.


Senator and now Democratic Candidate for Vice President Joe Biden supports greater U.S. participation in United Nations multilateral environmental treaties that would impose legal obligations on the United States government to incorporate European Union-style rules (e.g., the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE) that are economically costly and nonscience-based, into federal legislation and administrative agency regulations to which ALL American businesses and consumers would be subject. As noted on the Biden for President/Vice President website (See Delware's Joe Biden, at: http://www.joebiden.com/home.php/issues/display/environmental_protection/)

"Joe Biden’s Plan For Passing On A Cleaner, Greener World To Our Children Focus on Climate Change" - "Joe Biden is continuing his strong environmental record by leading the effort to pass the most aggressive bill in the Senate to reverse global warming -- the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. The Act would limit greenhouse gas emissions and help avert the major problems warming of our planet could cause – such as altering growing seasons; redistributing natural resources; and lifting sea levels. Lead the World Forward - Global warming requires a global solution. Joe Biden believes the US must take a leadership role in international climate treaty negotiations, and make it a top priority. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he wrote a bipartisan resolution directing the President to return to international negotiations and reclaim a leadership role in the fight against global warming. If we don’t engage countries like China – which is building one new coal-fired power plant a week – we will not solve the global warming crisis."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=213&sid=1465340


Choice of Biden as VP Candidate Praised Overseas


By Arthur Max


Associated Press


August 23, 2008


ACCRA, Ghana (AP) - From confronting Russia to dealing with climate change, Barak Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential candidate Saturday was seen abroad as adding weight and depth to the foreign policy of a potential Obama administration.


European analysts said the crisis in the Caucasus provided an appropriate backdrop to Biden's nomination.


In Accra, experts attending a U.N. climate change convention said Obama was sending a strong signal of change on what many see as a foreign policy debacle by the outgoing Bush administration regarding the battle against global warming.


"Biden owes his selection to (Russian Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin," said French political analyst Dominique Moisi. "Russia's invasion of Georgia reinforced the American worry about international tensions." The choice of the foreign affairs veteran was intended to reassure the electorate concerned about Obama's lack of credentials, Moisi said.


In Britain, the North America editor for the British Broadcasting Corp., Justin Webb, said Biden was "Vladimir Putin's contribution to American politics - he is a necessary antidote to the Obama lack of worldly wisdom, which before Georgia was a bit academic to most Americans."


Webb said Republican presidential candidate John McCain had acquitted himself well during the Russian invasion of Georgia this month. McCain "took the 3 a.m. call. Obama needs a pal who can do the same," Webb wrote in his blog.


In Germany, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right Christian Democrats, Eckart von Klaeden, said Biden was "an exceptionally good decision, which shows how Obama is trying to organize all elements of the Democratic party behind him."


Biden's nomination created a buzz at the U.N. conference in Accra, where delegates from 160 countries were working on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty regulating carbon emissions renounced by President Bush shortly after taking office in 2000.


The choice of Biden "is a good signal for these talks," said Angela Anderson, director of the Global Warming Campaign for the PEW environmental group. "I'm thrilled."


Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, drafted climate change legislation as long as 20 years ago, and is an aggressive supporter of domestic and international efforts to rein in emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases.


"The easiest and fastest way to demonstrate a change of foreign policy would be on climate change," said David Doniger, of the Natural Resources Defense Council.


Biden and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, both have sent top congressional staff to the latest series of climate negotiations. The aides, James Greene and Mark Helmke, are to report on the talks to the committee at the end of the year and make recommendations for the next administration.


"This treaty is going to be so complex that the Senate could not give its advice and consent" without a thorough briefing, Helmke, Lugar's aide, said on the conference sidelines.

Helmke said the president-elect, whether Obama or McCain, may send a high-level representative to the next round of talks in December, which takes place in Poland just a few weeks after the U.S. election and seven weeks before the inauguration.

Greene, Biden's aide, declined to comment on the day of his boss's nomination.


But Helmke said it was possible that Biden could take a leading role in the negotiations next year, matching the task of former Vice President Al Gore in capping the Kyoto negotiations a decade ago.
___
AP correspondents Melissa Eddy in Berlin, Jamey Keaten in Paris and Raphael G. Satter in Paris contributed to this report.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUROBAMA'S SOUND JUDGMENT & BOLSTERED INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS/FOREIGN POLICY CREDENTIALS...????

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e0b42753-0d7e-4be0-9b6b-d4a626e8d4e9


That's the Ticket! - Why loquacious Delaware Senator Joe Biden is a Terrific Vice-presidential Pick for Barack Obama


by Jonathan Cohn


The New Republic


Post Date Saturday, August 23, 2008


It's a great pick! He connects with blue-collar voters and reassures voters worried about Barack Obama's foreign policy inexperience.

It's a lousy pick! He's prone to gaffes and, as a senior member of the Senate, steps on the message of change.

In the next few days, pundits will be obsessing over the political impact of putting Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket. But the more important questions are the more tangible ones. Is Biden qualified to serve as an advisor to the president and, in an emergency, his stand-in?
What does this selection tells us about the way Obama makes decisions?

[THIS SHOWS HOW TRULY HYPOCRITICAL AND DEVOID OF GOOD JUDGMENT. BY RELYING ON 'LIGHTWEIGHT JOE' TO BOLSTER HIS OWN 'LIGHTWEIGHT' CREDENTIALS, EUROBAMA ONLY MAKES HIMSELF, AND POTENTIALLY THE UNITED STATES, MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO NUANCED AND WELL-CONSIDERED & STRATEGIZED EURO-INFLUENCES, LET ALONE TO THE PLOTTINGS OF OTHER FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. ALSO, WE CAN SEE EUROBAMA'S FLAWED JUDGMENT IN HIS RELIANCE ON HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE STATEMENTS PREVIOUSLY MADE BY SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID.]


[EUROBAMA WAS RECENTLY QUOTED DURING THE SADDLEBACK CHURCH PUBLIC FORUM THAT TOOK PLACE IN LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA, AS CRITICIZING THE SELECTION OF CLARENCE THOMAS AS U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. WHEN ASKED WHICH SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HE WOULD NOT HAVE NOMINATED, EUROBAMA ANSWERED: "I WOULD NOT HAVE NOMINATED CLARENCE THOMAS. I DON'T THINK THAT HE...WAS A STRONG ENOUGH JURIST OR LEGAL THINKER AT THE TIME FOR THAT ELEVATION. SETTING ASIDE THE FACT THAT I PROFOUNDLY DISAGREE WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF A LOT OF THE CONSTITUTION." See Jim Meyers, Obama: Clarence Thomas Unfit for Supreme Court, Jacksonville Forum (Aug. 18, 2008) at: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/jacksonville-fl/TI5L03OUTI8GR968U . ]


[HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO JUSTICE THOMAS' FORMER LAW CLERK WENDY E. LONG, CURRENTLY COUNSEL TO THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION NETWORK, "OBAMA STARTED TO SAY THAT JUSTICE THOMAS DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH 'EXPERIENCE' FOR THE SUPREME COURT. IN MID-SENTENCE, WHEN OBAMA REALIZED THAT HE HIMSELF HAS FAR LESS EXPERIENCE FOR THE PRESIDENCY THAN JUSTICE THOMAS HAD FOR THE COURT IN 1991, HE SHIFTED AND SAID JUSTICE THOMAS 'WAS NOT A STRONG ENOUGH JURIST OR LEGAL THINKER AT THE TIME"...THIS IS ALL REMINISCENT OF (SENATE MAJORITY LEADER) HARRY REID'S COMMENT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT JUSTICE THOMAS WAS 'AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE COURT' AND THIS HIS OPINIONS 'WERE POORLY WRITTEN'. REID WAS EXPOSED AS THE IGNORAMUS THEN, AND THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS ASKED HIM TO STOP USING 'STEREOTYPES AND CARICATURES'"...REID IS AMONG SEVERAL CRITICS WHO HAVE CALLED THOMAS' WRITTEN OPINIONS 'LIGHTWEIGHT' AND SUGGESTED THAT HE WANTS TO ABANDON THE PRINCIPLE OF 'STARE DECISIS' - STANDING BY PRECEDENT - AND REINVENT THE WHEEL WITH EVERY CASE." “'REASONABLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVERS OF ALL POLITICAL STRIPES, WHO DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH JUSTICE THOMAS' JURISPRUDENCE, CONSIDER HIS WORK TO BE SCHOLARLY AND OF TOP QUALITY. AND YET SENATOR OBAMA IS, SADLY, UNABLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE EVEN THAT MUCH ABOUT AN INTELLIGENT, WONDERFUL AND KIND MAND WHO BROKE RACIAL BARRIERS TO RISE TO THE VERY TOP OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION', SAID HELGI WALKER, A FORMER ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT BUSH AND FORMER LAW CLER FOR THOMAS." See: Conservatives Slam Obama’s Answer About Supreme Court Justices at Saddleback Forum, FOXNews.com (Aug. 18, 2008) at: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/18/conservatives-slam-obamas-answer-about-supreme-court-justices-at-saddleback-forum/ ].


[DESPITE ALL OF THIS, EUROBAMA NOMINATES U.S. DELAWARE SENATOR JOE BIDEN AS HIS VICE PRESIDENT, WHOM BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE LONG REFERRED TO AS AN 'INTELLECTUAL LIGHTWEIGHT'. EVEN THE TRANSATLANTIC BLOGOSPHERE IS WELL ACQUAINTED WITH 'LIGHTWEIGHT JOE'S' FALLIBILITIES: "HE'S THE SORT OF MAN I'VE MET MANY A TIE IN IRISH PUBS. BIDEN WIL TELL YOU, AT SOME LENGTH FOR SURE, ALL ABOUT HIS PLANS FOR THE FUTURE, HOW HE'S ON THE CUSP OF GREATNESS JUST WAITING FOR THAT LAST PIECE TO FALL NEATLY INTO PLACE. THE FACT THAT - STUBBORNLY - IT HAS NEVER YET DONE SO DETERS HIM NOT A BIT...YOU CAN PICTURE HIM PROPPING UP ONE END OF THE BAR FOR THIRTY YEARS; LONG ENOUGH FOR ALL TO BE FORGIVEN, ALL ANCIENT BATTLES AND BLUNDERS FORGOTTEN AS WE GROW OLDER, MORE CHARITABLE, MORE SENTIMENTAL. BIDEN'S THE SORT OF FELLOW WHO'LL MAKE A WILDLY INAPPROPRIATE AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENT ABOUT YOUR WIFE. TO YOUR FACE. ON YOUR WEDDING DAY. BUT HE'LL DO SO IN SUCH A GUILELESS FASHION FREE FROM ANY HINT OF MALICE THAT, DASH IT AND ALMOST HALF DESPITE YOURSELF, YOU FORGIVE THE SILLY OLD FOOL. HE WAS, YOU REALIZE, PROBABLY TRYING TO AY SOMETHING COMPLEMENTARY. HECK, EVEN HIS 1988 DISGRACE WAS SO PREPOSTEROUS - PLAGIARISING NEIL BLEEDIN' KINNOCK! - THAT IT SEEMS UTTERLY ARTLESS. SO BIZARRE THERE HAD TO BE AN INNOCENT, BRAIN-FRYING EXPLANATING FOR IT. DESPITE ALL THOSE YEARS IN WASHINGTON, THERE'S AN ENDEARING CHILD-LIKE QUALITY TO BIDEN. OR, TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, OBSERVING BIDEN IN FULL FLOW IS A GLORIOUS SIGHT; IT'S LIKE WATCHING A LABRADOR BOUND AFTER A BOUNCING BALL EVEN THOUGH, BEING A PUPPY, IT DOESN'T QUITE HAVE THE CO-ORDINATION TO GRAB THE BALL CLEANLY. INSTEAD THERE'S A FRENZY OF YELPING DELIGHT AS THE AS THE BALL CARROMS AROUND THE YARD, ALWAYS TANTALISINGLY JUST OUT OF REACH..." See Megan McArdle, A Man You Don't Meet Every Day, The Atlantic.com (Aug. 24, 2008) at: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/a_man_you_dont_meet_every_day.php ].

The answer to the first question is unambiguously "yes." Start with the resume: Biden first came to the Senate in 1973, after a brief career in local government. He rose through ranks, eventually becoming chairman of the judiciary committee, a position he occupied from 1987 through 1995. In 1997, he became ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations a Committee, which he chairs today. As a result of this experience, Biden can boast of real policy expertise--and genuine accomplishments. [??] Chief among them are the Violence Against Women's Act, which he sponsored and eventually shepherded to passage as part of the 1994 crime bill, and American intervention in the Balkans, for which he was an early and influential advocate.

Biden's history of public service has its blemishes, too. After masterminding the defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987, he famously botched the hearings for Clarence Thomas, presiding over a spectacle that somehow managed both to confirm a deeply conservative judge while making himself, and many liberals, seem insensitive to the concerns of women. Biden also voted for the Iraq War. He did so more reluctantly than some other Democrats, openly decrying President Bush's doctrine of preemption and promoting (with Republican Senator Richard Lugar) a measure that would have authorized war only to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. But when that effort failed, Biden voted for the final, broader resolution--thereby breaking with more prescient colleagues like Carl Levin and Jack Reed, who thought Bush hadn't made the case for war. Most recently, Biden supported the strongly anti-consumer 2005 bankruptcy law, although that was presumably a typical act of local political boosterism. (Delaware is home to the credit card industry.)

For many Washington insiders, it's Biden's words--not his votes--that deserve scrutiny. His promising 1988 presidential bid ended quickly following revelations he'd used quotes from other famous politicians, without attribution, and that he had a habit of exaggerating his past exploits. [!!] And while those transgressions are old news, might a general election campaign bring forth new ones? It's a legitimate worry. The Obama campaign doesn't need those sorts of distractions--not now and not for the next four years, should the Democrats win in November.


And yet as politically unfortunate as those instances have been, the more important question is what they reveal about Biden's character and leadership qualities. I have no special reporting insights here, but the consensus that emerges from past writings about him--including the descriptions in Battle for Justice, Ethan Bronner's account of the Bork hearings--is that Biden suffered from an acute case of intellectual insecurity. The boasts, in this view, reflected Biden's constant fear that he would be perceived as a lightweight, either because of his (then) youth or lack of top intellectual credentials. (He graduated from the University of Delaware and, later, Syracuse Law School.) Biden is older now. Washington considers him, legitimately, an elder statesman. One can imagine--or at least hope--that the insecurity has waned over time.


And even if it hasn't, it's important to put this character flaw in context. Biden may have stretched the truth about his own accomplishments, but that's a far lesser sin--at least in my book--than calculating every move based on political expediency or using high office to gain personal wealth. And there's no sign that Biden has ever been prone to these sorts of problems. On the contrary, his political history suggests real courage on behalf of important, but controversial, causes. Biden had to fight for both VAWA and the Balkans intervention. As for using office to get rich, Biden's record looks to be squeaky clean. Based on public disclosure forms, he is the least wealthy member of the U.S. Senate. It's a reflection of his working-class roots--and the everyman sensibility that remains one of his most endearing characteristics. But it's also a tribute to Biden's virtue. Such a long tenure in office, surely, has presented ample opportunities for graft and shady dealings.


So Biden is not just qualified for the job. He is very qualified for the job. He can help Obama govern; should the unthinkable happen, he would make a capable and trustworthy commander-in-chief himself. But what does this tell us about Obama and how he makes decisions?


Political considerations surely played a major role in Obama's thinking. If you believe what you read, he had higher regard for--and a closer relationship with--several other contenders, including Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed. But voters might have rejected a ticket with Kaine or Sebelius, concluding it lacked sufficient experience in national and international politics. Reed, an Army veteran and highly respected lawmaker, didn't have that problem. But he's notoriously dull.


But it's unlikely politics were Obama primary motivation. If they had been, Obama might well have selected Evan Bayh, whose presence on the ticket would have put Indiana into play and--as a result--reshaped the electoral map. (Among other things, it would have drained McCain's financing, by forcing him to advertise in the expensive Chicago television market.) But Bayh, although a perfectly respectable senator, is not exactly a heavyweight. He claims no policy area as expertise; he has no major law or initiative that he can claim as an accomplishment. There's nothing terribly wrong with Bayh but there's nothing terribly right with him, either. It's been said that Bayh was the "safe" candidate--and, as a political matter, that's true. But given his less than sterling record, putting him a heartbeat away from the presidency would have actually been a little risky.


Biden's choice presents real risks for Obama, too--and not just political. Biden can be difficult. He speaks his mind, even when he has nothing nice to say. But if that sometimes makes conversations uncomfortable, it also makes them valuable. Obama has always said he didn't want a "yes" man--that he wanted a vice president who would challenge him intellectually and promote a vigorous debate about policy decisions. It's precisely the sort of environment that the current White House lacks. By choosing Biden, Obama tells us he's serious about that change.


One other, perhaps less appreciated, virtue of the Biden choice is what it says about Obama philosophically. Biden can be counted upon to play the role of house dissenter and skeptic. But he does so as somebody whose fealty to the basic values of the Democratic Party is not in doubt. On a wide range of issues, from economics to the courts to national security, Biden has compiled a record that would please the majority of progressives. His rating from Americans for Democratic Action is a perfect 100, just like Obama's. He scores well among other liberal groups, too.


Conservatives will blast this record, just as surely as liberals will (or should) celebrate it. But one of the virtues of having Biden as the vice presidential nominee is that he won't take those kinds of attacks lightly. He'll fight back. He'll remind people, rightly, that being a liberal Democrat means raising the minimum wage, making sure everybody has affordable health care, providing strong public schools, and protecting human rights. Then, he'll ask why conservative Republicans don't want the same things. That's exactly the kind of political debate this country needs. By picking Biden as a running mate, Obama has signaled that he welcomes this argument--and intends, finally, to win it.


Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at The New Republic and the author of Sick: The Untold Story of America's Health Care Crisis--And the People Who Paid the Price.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5D61139F930A25752C0A96E948260

Biden Gives Kinnock Copy of His Speeches


REUTERS


Published: January 13, 1988


LEAD: Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., meeting Neil Kinnock for the first time, today presented the Labor Party leader with a bound copy of the Senator's speeches and told reporters: ''I told him he was welcome to use them whenever he liked, with or without attribution.''


[NOW, IS THIS AN EXAMPLE OF THE GOOD JUDGMENT AND INTELLECTUAL HEFT & HONESTY TO WHICH THE NEW EUROBAMA PRESIDENTIAL TICKET ASPIRES?]


[DID NOT 'LIGHTWEIGHT JOE' UNDERSTAND HOW HE WOULD BE PERCEIVED BY NEIL KINNOCK, LET ALONE BY THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC, AFTER HE PRESENTED THE UK LABOR PARTY LEADER WITH A COPY OF HIS SPEECHES CONTAINING THE PLAGIARIZED PASSAGES???]

[BUT THEN, AGAIN, WASN'T EUROBAMA HIMSELF ACCUSED OF PLAGIARISM?? See Alex Spillius, Hillary Clinton Accuses Obama of Plagiarism, UK Telegraph (Feb. 26, 2008) at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1579074/Hillary-Clinton-accuses-Obama-of-plagiarism.html . "[Obama]...has been forced into the unwelcome distraction of fighting off charges from Mrs Clinton's camp that he lacks credibility after he used a short passage from a speech by his friend Deval Patrick, the Governor of Massachusetts, nearly verbatim and without attribution. Howard Wolfson, Mrs Clinton's chief spokesman, said: "Senator Obama's campaign is largely premised on the strength of his rhetoric and his promises, because he doesn't have a long record in public life. When the origin of his oratory is called into question, it raises questions about his overall candidacy." See also, Clinton Camp Accuses Obama Of Plagiarism, US News & World Reports Political Bulletin (Feb. 19, 2008) at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080219.htm . "The Financial Times reports, 'In an attack designed to remind people of Joe Biden's withdrawal from the 1988 presidential campaign after his uncredited use of passages from Neil Kinnock, leader of the Labour party opposition in the UK, the Clinton campaign said it raised 'fundamental questions' about the integrity of Mr Obama's campaign.' The Los Angeles Times reports that Clinton, 'in response to a question from reporters on her campaign plane, added her voice to her staff's criticism of Obama. 'If your whole candidacy is about words, they should be your own words,' she said. 'That's what I think.'"].

[See Edward Luce, Clinton in a War Over Words With Obama, Financial Times (Feb. 18, 2008) at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e7744382-de4e-11dc-9de3-0000779fd2ac.html . "On Monday the Obama camp admitted that Mr Obama had used the same language as Mr Patrick in a speech in Wisconsin on Saturday in a passage designed to rebut the allegation that his campaign consisted of poetic phrases but little else. They said Mr Patrick and Mr Obama were friends who often “riffed off each other’s speeches”. 'Don’t tell me words don’t matter,' Mr Obama said in the passage borrowed from Mr Patrick. 'I have a dream – just words? We hold these truths to be self-evident – just words? We have nothing to fear but fear itself – just words?'”].

Mr. Biden dropped out of the Democratic Presidential race last September after admitting that he had used speeches by Mr. Kinnock and other politicians without attribution, and after published reports that he had plagiarized while in law school.


The Delaware Democrat, who met Mr. Kinnock at the House of Commons, said the Welsh politician ''did not give me any more ideas for speeches, nor I him.''


Mr. Biden, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was on a two-day visit of Britain as part of a tour to consult allies on the treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union banning intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://bigheaddc.com/2008/02/18/katrina-vanden-heuvel-plagiarism-not-an-issue/

Katrina vanden Heuvel: Plagiarism Not An Issue

Bighead DC

Feb. 18, 2008

Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation magazine, told Chris Matthews today on Hardball that Sen. Barack Obama’s plagiarism scandal should not have been covered on the program because, she feels, it doesn’t matter to the common person. An incredulous Matthews responded that she should ask Sen. Joe Biden whether these kind of issues matter — a reference to Biden being forced to quit his bid for the presidency in 1987 after he plagiarised a speech. Pat Buchanan, a guest on the show, said that he felt this was a “bad day” for Obama, and that his character will likely be called into question more often now in the campaign.

See also Hardball: Plagiarism or Not?, Hardball at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAMhjDbrtyg

[WHAT KIND OF EXAMPLE DOES THIS PROVIDE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRY GOVERNMENTS AND INDUSTRIES THAT SYSTEMATICALLY STEAL U.S. COPYRIGHTS, PATENTS and TRADESECRETS??? THESE POLITICIANS AND COMMENTATORS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES, ESPECIALLY UNINFORMED AND ARROGANT KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL. DEAR MS. VANDEN HEUVEL, PLAGIARISM, LIKE COPYRIGHT and PATENT INFRINGEMENT, ARE REAL ISSUES THAT MATTER TO COMMON PEOPLE WHO OWN BUSINESSES, and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSETS!! See: ITSSD Journal on Intellectual Property Rights, at: http://itssdinternationaliprights.blogspot.com/ ].

UNCLOS Proponents Are Opposed to and Annoyed By Questions Americans Are Asking About the Treaty. Why?? Shouldn't Congress Answer??

http://www.rcreader.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12534&Itemid=42


Should the Senate Ratify the U.N. Sea Treaty?


By Mark W. Hendrickson


River Cities' Reader


06 February 2008


There has been vigorous debate about whether the U.S. Senate should ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST by its critics). The treaty has a wide-range of supporters in the United States. These reportedly include elements within the Pentagon who believe that UNCLOS would prevent foreign states from adopting arbitrary policies that interrupt normal naval operations. A primary objection of opponents is that UNCLOS would establish a dangerous precedent by authorizing the U.N.'s International Seabed Authority to collect taxes.


Would the provisions set forth in UNCLOS yield net gains for the United States? Opinions differ widely. It may be impossible to answer this question with certainty, and I won't even try. Instead, I think we should ask ourselves whether any treaty adopted by the U.N. is worth the paper on which it is printed.


[THESE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES and THEIR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES, before THE U.S. SENATE DECIDES TO RATIFY THE UNCLOS. THUS FAR, THE U.S. SENATE HAS ABDICATED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IN VETTING THIS MOST SIGNIFICANT OF TREATIES. THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE REVIEW OF THIS TREATY WAS, AT MOST, A CURSORY REVIEW RELIANT MOSTLY UPON PRIOR YEARS' TESTIMONY THAT FAILED TO DELVE INTO MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES. AFTER ALL, ACCORDING TO UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI PROFESSOR OF LAW, BERNARD OXMAN, "[T]he LOS Convention...remains "the strongest comprehensive environmental treaty now in existence or likely to emerge for quite some time.” IF THAT IS THE CASE, WHAT LEGAL/REGULATORY OBLIGATIONS & ECONOMIC COSTS DOES/WILL THE UNCLOS PLACE ON THE UNITED STATES, ON LAND, IN TERRITORIAL WATERS, IN COASTAL WATERS, ON THE 'HIGH SEAS', TO PROTECT & PRESERVE THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT??? ISN'T THAT A VERY FAIR QUESTION TO ASK OUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES TO WHICH AMERICANS DESERVE AN HONEST AND DETAILED RESPONSE?? IS THAT NOT OUR RIGHT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT??]


Any treaty is only as good as the honor of those who adopt it. The record of the U.N. does not inspire confidence.


[THIS IS ANOTHER EXCELLENT POINT. BUSINESS PEOPLE WOULD AGREE THAT A TREATY IS SORT OF LIKE A CONTRACT. AND, A BUSINESS CONTRACT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE HONOR AND RECORD OF PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT'S SIGNATORIES.]


• The U.N. voted to establish the state of Israel in Palestine. Almost ever since, the U.N. has adopted reams of discriminatory resolutions and sought to impose conditions that threaten Israel's very existence. This shows the U.N. to be fickle, even treacherous. Apparently, even most of the European states have no objection to Jews being annihilated as long as it doesn't happen within their own borders.


• The U.N. devised an "oil for food" program ostensibly to weaken the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and to prevent innocent Iraqis from suffering. It later came to light that France, Germany, Russia, and others were only too happy to profit from illicit deals and bribes that propped up Saddam and strengthened his cruel, tyrannical rule. If even some of our supposed friends will cheat on a "humanitarian" agreement, what hope of compliance with treaties can we realistically expect?


[THIS IS ANOTHER GOOD QUESTION. WHY DO THE UNCLOS TREATY PROPONENTS FIND IT ANNOYING THAT SUCH QUESTIONS ARE BEING ASKED??? DO THEY NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION & THE CONGRESS ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?? ARE THEY ABOVE THE LAW?]


• U.N. relief workers have been found to demand sexual favors from poor, defenseless individuals in order to receive the food and other desperately needed aid that had been donated to help those unfortunates.


Despite the specious record of the U.N., idealists who crave peace make common cause with realists who crave power to lobby for more and more authority to be vested in the U.N. Liberals who think that a business monopoly is a threat to the human race desire a political monopoly that they fantasize will be benevolent and just.


Liberals believe that if there were no more sovereign states, then there wouldn't be any more war. Well, there might not be "wars" in the traditional sense if a global government with an effective monopoly on force were ever created, but there would still be plenty of violence. Look, when the Soviet communists finally subdued internal armed resistance, there were no wars between the constituent republics, but the Soviet Union was still a very violent place. The state waged its own sort of war against all the subject peoples, with tens of millions executed or banished to Siberia as "enemies of the state." As destructive as war is (an estimated 45 million lives lost to war in the 20th Century), war is not nearly as deadly as governments that have fallen into the wrong hands (responsible for more than 120 million deaths in the 20th Century).


[WHY DO THESE PEOPLE OVERLOOK SUCH OBVIOUS FACTS?? ARE THEY NAIVE OR MERELY UTOPIANS?? OR BOTH??]


Do we really want to trust the U.N. - which not many years ago had such bloody, oppressive regimes as those of Cuba, Syria, Libya, and Sudan on its Human Rights Commission - to uphold the provisions of UNCLOS? The U.N. can't even abide by the most important agreement in its history: the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3 affirms, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person"; Article 4, that nobody shall be held "in servitude"; Article 7, "All are equal before the law ... ." A list of undemocratic governments that have violated those rights and committed the most heinous atrocities against their own citizens, and yet have been accepted as equals in the halls of the U.N., would fill a long paragraph. What grounds do we have for trusting such characters to honorably uphold and abide by the terms of UNCLOS? This seems to be an egregious case of wishful thinking.


[THIS IS ANOTHER EXCELLENT QUESTION. HOW CAN THE U.N. BE AN HONEST BROKER WHEN IT ENTERTAINS SUCH MEMBERSHIP IN IMPORTANT FORUMS IN THE NAME OF 'DIPLOMACY', 'TOLERANCE' & 'UNDERSTANDING'??? WHY SHOULD THE U.S. & OTHER COUNTRIES BE HELD TO A DOUBLE STANDARD?? HOW CAN THE U.N. GENERAL SECRETARIAT THAT OVERSEES THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNCLOS, ALONG WITH THE U.N. ENVIROMENT PROGRAM (UNEP), BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR U.S. REPRESENTATIVES??]


[THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS THAT THEY CANNOT BECAUSE OF 'ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY' GRANTED TO THE UN AND ITS BODIES. SECTION 4, SUBSECTION G, ARTICLE 177 OF THE UNCLOS EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THE INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY (ISBA) WITH ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. UNCLOS ARTICLES 178, 179 & 180 SERVE TO PROTECT THE ISBA AND ITS PROPERTY ASSETS LOCATED WITHIN EACH UN MEMBER TERRITORY FROM LEGAL PROCESS, SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND "RESTRICTIONS, REGULATIONS AND CONTROLS AND MORATORIA OF ANY KIND". FURTHERMORE, PURSUANT TO UNCLOS ARTICLE 181, THE ISBA ARCHIVES, WHEREVER LOCATED, ARE GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE & IMMUNITY OF 'NONVIOLABILITY'. MOREOVER, UNCLOS ARTICLE 182(a) PROVIDES THAT STATE PARTY REPRESENTATIVES PERFORMING OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS ON BEHALF OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR WORK IN THE ISBA ASSEMBLY, COUNCIL AND SUBSIDIARY ORGANS, AS WELL AS, THE ISBA EXECUTIVE AND ITS OFFICERS AND STAFF, ARE ALL IMMUNE FROM LEGAL PROCESS. SUCH PROTECTION FROM ACCOUNTABILITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BROAD AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION THAT HAS BEEN AFFORDED THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS OFFICIALS, AS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY U.S. COURTS. THE KEY U.N. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY CASE REMAINS De Luca v. United Nations Organization Perez de Cuellar, Gomez, Duque, Annan, et. al. (1994).]


Why are we wasting time with such a futile exercise? Given the track record of many of the U.N.'s member states, one can only conclude that they would love to hamstring the United States, figuring that we might make concessions and try to abide by the treaty even while other signatories flout it? Who needs a treaty like that?


[THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE ASKING OF THEIR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES. AND, THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE WILLING AND EAGER TO ANSWER THEM.]


Mark W. Hendrickson is a faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.


Comments (3) >>

...written by Arsen, February 06, 2008I really need something up to date that says Law of the Sea will pass that is from last week.



...written by Caitlyn L. Antrim, February 06, 2008


[CAITLYN ANTRIM IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE RULE OF LAW COMMITTEE FOR THE OCEANS, and FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP IN GLOBAL DIPLOMACY].


It appears that you are mistaking title for substance. The "United Nations" in the title refers only to the fact that the Convention was negotiated at the UN. In fact the Convention is an agreement among states as to the rights of coastal states (to manage their territorial sea, their offshore fishing resources and the minerals of the continental shelf) and the rights of seafaring states (to free navigation on the high seas, including within the economic zone, passage through straits used for international navigation, and innocent passage through the territorial sea). The United Nations does not have a role here - rights and responsibilities belong to states. In some cases there are provisions for arbitration of disputes, but there are exceptions for military activities, boundary delimitation and actions under Security Council resolutions. Even then, disputes are tightly limited and the rules lean in our favor.


[WE BEG TO DIFFER. ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS, THE UNCLOS OPERATES "UNDER THE UN GENERAL SECRETARIAT." See: Lawrence Ziring, Robert E. Riggs and Jack C. Plano, The United Nations – International Organization and World Politics Third Edition (Harcourt College Publishers © 2000) at. p. 57. COMMENTATORS, AS WELL, HAVE NOTED HOW THE UNCLOS SECRETARIAT IS ONLY ONE OF SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS, "INCLUDING THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO) AND UNEP...THAT DEAL WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT. THE IMO MANAGES AGREEMENTS CONCERNING POLLUTION FROM SHIPS; UNEP MANAGES THE REGIONAL SEAS PROGRAM; AND THE UNCLOS SECRETARIAT HANDLES THE BROADER LEGAL FRAMEWORK.” See Frank Biermann and Steffan Bauer, A World Environmental Organization: Solution or Threat for Effective International Environmental Governance (© 2000 Ashgate Publ.) at p. 190. IN ADDITION, “The UN GENERAL SECRETARIAT [ALSO] SERVES AS THE SECRETARIAT FOR...THE AGREEMENT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF 'THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA of 10 DECEMBER 1982, RELATING TO THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF STRADDLING FISH STOCKS AND HIGH MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS". See “International Environmental Governance: Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)”, Status of Multilateral Environmental Agreements UNEP/IGM/1/INF/3 (April 6, 2001) at par. 90.]


Only three cases provide for international bodies, and we intentionally decided to create new bodies rather then utilize the UN. One body is made up of geologists expert on reviewing limits to the continental shelf, another is an international tribunal that states may, but need not, choose to resolve disputes, and the third is the International Seabed Authority. The Authority as negotiated in 1982 was the reason for President Reagan's objections. It's powers and Authority, and the oversight role of the US, were renegotiated to our complete satisfaction in 1994. The US, once we join, will have a _permanent_ seat on the executive council and we will be able to veto any rule, regulation or amendment dealing with operations, budget or distribution of funds. In addition, the finances of the Authority are audited by commercial accounting companies. The entire staff of the authority is only 38 people, most of whom are clerks, administrative personnel, drivers and security personnel.


[THE POWERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY HAVE GRADUALLY EXPANDED SINCE THE 1994 AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED, WHICH WAS NOT ANTICIPATED BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AT THE TIME IT NEGOTIATED THE 1994 AGREEMENT. See: Myths and Realities Concerning UN Law of the Sea Treaty: LOST Does Incorporate Europe's contra-WTO Precautionary Principle! (c), at: http://itssdjournalunclos-lost.blogspot.com/2008/01/myths-and-realities-concerning-un-law.html . OR WAS IT??]


[See also: U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/62/215, Oceans and the Law of the Sea (March 14, 2008), at: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/476/67/PDF/N0747667.pdf?OpenElement (... The Area 33. Notes the progress of the discussions on issues relating to the regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the Area, and reiterates the importance of the ongoing elaboration by the Authority, pursuant to article 145 of the Convention, of rules, regulations and procedures to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment, the protection and conservation of the natural resources of the Area and the prevention of damage to its flora and fauna from harmful effects that may arise from activities in the Area;").


[WHILE THE FINANCES OF THE AUTHORITY (ISBA) MAY BE AUDITED, WHO IS AUDITING THE AUDITORS?? “[A] CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE IN THE UNITED NATIONS HAS COME FORWARD TO ALLEGE THAT THE INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY (ISA) IS KNOWN FOR HAVING MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AND THAT IT SUFFERS FROM A LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND ETHICAL OVERSIGHT....Nithi Sam-Thambiah, WHO HAD BRIEFLY HELD THE POSITION OF CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT AT THE ISA...WAS HIRED IN DECEMBER 2001. SIX MONTHS LATER HE SAYS HE WROTE A LETTER TO ISA SECRETARY-GENERAL Nandan REQUESTING A MEETING TO DISCUSS VARIOUS 'SENSITIVE' ISSUES, INCLUDING 'MISMANAGEMENT AND IRREGULARITIES' IN THE ORGANIZATION. ONE MONTH LATER, Sam-Thambia WAS FIRED..." See Cliff Kincaid, Scandal Rocks U.N. Sea Treaty Organization, Accuracy in Media (Oct. 16, 2007).]


If you don't like the UN, then you should give a new look at the LOS Convention because the convention not only avoids giving the UN power, it establishes an alternative body that incorporates features we would like to see added to the UN - particularly the permanent US seat, the introduction of chambered voting that enhances the influence of developed countries, and the requirement for consensus in financial decisions that gives the US a veto (but only if we join and attend so we can use it).


[SORRY TO SAY, NOT TOTALLY ACCURATE. See: Fact Sheet - U.S. Oceans Policy and the Law of the Sea Convention Released by the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (May 28, 1998) at: http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/oceans/fs_oceans_los.html , WHICH PROVIDES THAT WHILE A SEAT MAY BE GUARANTEED TO THE UNITED STATES ON THE COUNCIL OF THE ISBA AND ON THE COUNCIL'S FINANCE COMMITTEE, THE U.S. DOES NOT HAVE A GUARANTEED 'VETO' THAT CAN BE USED TO BLOCK DECISIONS THAT GO AGAINST U.S. INTERESTS. RATHER, ACCORDING TO THIS DOCUMENT, "THE EFFECT OF...A CHAMBERED VOTING ARRANGEMENT...[IN] THE COUNCIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY...IS TO ALLOW THE UNITED STATES AND TWO OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES ACTING IN CONCERT TO BLOCK A DECISION;" WHAT HAPPENS IF THE U.S. IS UNABLE TO SECURE THE AGREEMENT OF TWO OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO 'ACT IN CONCERT' TO BLOCK A DECISION THAT IS HOSTILE TO U.S. INTERESTS?? IN OTHER WORDS, THE U.S. WILL NEED TO RELY ON DIPLOMACY AND HORSETRADING WITH OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO SECURE A NEEDED VOTE AT THE RIGHT TIME; THEREFORE THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A VETO, CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN STATED! INDEED, AS FAR AS THE U.N. IS CONCERNED, IT IS ONLY IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL THAT THE U.S. WIELDS A GUARANTEED VETO. ("In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations [Chapter V, Article 27], decisions of the Security Council are made by an affirmative vote of nine members of the Council including the concurring votes of the five permanent members (China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America). If a permanent member casts a negative vote, the draft resolution being voted on is not passed.) See: Security Council - Voting Information, Introduction, United Nations Documents: Research Guide at: http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scvote.htm].


The Convention is in place and running. As directed by President Reagan, we observe the convention as much as we can as a non-party already. As to the seabed provisions, the republican congresses failed to fund the US regime for seabed minerals that had been established in 1980. As a result, their is _no_ US seabed mining industry, even as Germany became the 8th consortia to be authorized by the Authority to have exclusive exploration rights for their minesite in the Pacific.


Attack the UN all you want. But you will find that the US negotiators of the LOS Convention anticipated your concern and avoided giving the UN any role in the Law of the Sea Convention.


[WHAT ABOUT THE INT'L TRIBUNAL ON THE LAW OF THE SEA?? THAT IS NOT A UN BODY?? WHAT ABOUT THE INT'L SEABED AUTHORITY?? THAT IS NOT A UN BODY?? ARE WE NOT CONTRADICTING OURSELVES HERE?? IF THAT IS THE CASE, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC MUST DEMAND THAT THE U.S. CONGRESS CONVENE OPEN & TRANSPARENT PUBLIC HEARINGS PURSUANT TO WHICH IT, AND THE ADMINISTRATION, CAN SHARE THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNCLOS & THE PLANNING THAT HAS GONE INTO THE U.S. RATIFICATION POSITION. WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE??]




...written by Robert McManus, February 07, 2008



This is truly an idiotic screed: For starters, the UN has NO substantive responsibilities under the LOS Convention. (It's called UNCLOS because the conference that negotiated it was convened pursuant to a UN General Assembly Resolution in the 1960s.) Mr. Hendrickson admits he "won't even try" to figure out whether the treaty yields net gains to the US. This is an abdication of intellectual rigor that staggers the imagination, coming as it does from a putative educator. Less lazy individuals have answered that question affirmatively, including the Chief of Naval Ops (and all living former CNOs), the Joint Chiefs, the secretary of state, the president, the American Petroleum Institute, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (twice!), the Bush-appointed US Oceans Policy Commission (unanimously), and all living former chief counsels of the State Dept.


[WOW. THE UTTER CONTEMPT, INTOLERANCE AND RUDENESS SHOWN HERE FOR INQUIRING OR OPPOSING VIEWS IS ASTOUNDING. MR. MCMANUS SHOULD KNOW BETTER. HE IS AN ATTORNEY SUPPOSEDLY IN 'GOOD STANDING' IN WASHINGTON DC. See: http://www.kgrmlaw.com/index.php?page=44 . ALSO, MR. MCMANUS WAS ONCE A PUBLIC SERVANT. HE PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS A U.S. GOVERNMENT LAWYER FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) AND THE U.S. NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) See:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_J._McManus , WHICH IS WHY HE CLAIMS BELOW THAT HE IS THE AUTHORITY ON THE UNCLOS TREATY.]


Unlike Mr. Hendrickson, I am familiar with the ACTUAL PROVISIONS of the treaty, and would be happy to answer questions, with ACTUAL REFERENCES to the text. (I call this odd technique "scholarship.") For reasons I can't fathom, the far-right opponents of this treaty consider it some sort of saliva test, and deem its defeat sufficiently important to lie about its provisions in the press (or, as in Hendrickson's cae, to argue some irrelevant point about the UN).


[IT WOULD APPEAR THAT MR. MCMANUS OPPOSES AND IS ANNOYED BY QUESTIONS THAT ORDINARY AMERICANS HAVE ABOUT THE U.N. AND THE UNCLOS, THE UNCLOS' MANY QUESTIONABLE PROVISIONS, ESPECIALLY THEIR 45 + ENVIRONNMENTAL ARTICLES, REGULATIONS, ANNEXES AND PROTOCOLS, THE FORMER THINKING BEHIND THE U.S. NEGOTIATING POSITION, AND THE CURRENT U.S. GOVERNMENT & EXPERT UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH U.S. SOVEREIGNTY WOULD BE LOST AT THE HANDS OF UNCLOS ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE ISBA & THE ITLOS, & REGARDING HOW TO COUNTER EFFORTS BY OTHER UNCLOS TREATY PARTIES, SUCH AS THE EUROPEAN UNION & ITS MEMBER STATES, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY EXPLOITING THE UNCLOS AT U.S. EXPENSE. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT MR. MCMANUS OPPOSES AND IS ANNOYED BY SUGGESTIONS THAT THE UNCLOS BE PUBLICLY & TRANSPARENTLY REVIEWED BY THE U.S. CONGRESS before THE U.S. SENATE RATIFIES IT. MR. MCMANUS: ARE YOU OPPOSED TO CONGRESS HONORING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH 'DUE PROCESS'??? IF SO, WHY??]

[MR. MCMANUS HAS ACTED THIS WAY BEFORE. See: Robert McManus, LOST at sea, Letter to the Editor, Washington Times (Aug. 10, 2007) at:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070810/EDITORIAL/108100010/-1/RSS_EDITORIAL&template=nextpage .]