Regarding my previous post about our treaty invitation for Canada to impose martial law on U.S. citizens in times of crisis, I have to calm myself and try to give the President and … our Congress the benefit of the doubt.
It is impossible for the President to have not known about this treaty with Canada. He’d have to sign it and such a treaty would have to originate from his Executive Branch of government.
The fact of this treaty, the fact of an Amero currency waiting in the wings to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a single economic entity like the EU, the fact that our borders remain a wide barn door, the fact that our President has supported the Law of the Sea treaty with the U.N.— All of this and more is cause enough to be very, very disturbed.
And if you have no clue about the Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST or UNCLOS or whatever they’re calling it now), you’re not alone. I have barely heard anyone mention it even though the UN and the President has been pushing for its passage for months now.
Despite a sudden flurry of activity late last year, the rush to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) appears to have slowed — at least for now. With the support of the Bush Administration and a largely somnolent Senate, the Treaty seemed to be — excuse the expression — a “slam dunk” that was only stopped following the outcry of a few respected voices from outside government.
…
In this instance, our nation’s military leaders have lined up in support of a Treaty that offers few benefits over the status quo to our military, while compromising our economic advantages and undermining our sovereignty. Today our Navy has broad freedom to navigate the seas, conduct surveillance as necessary, and to supply our military around the globe. But if we become signatories to LOST, these rights may be battered by vote of our co-signatories or entangled in legal disputes; our vibrant capitalism may have to capitulate to the Treaty’s collectivist ethos; and, our sovereignty will be eroded by the regime of taxes and the potentially powerful legal tools of governance that, as a legal matter, may trump our own laws.
Victims of their own experience, the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not seem to understand the larger issues implicated by the Treaty: that the current lack of statute in sea law is actually an advantage, how engorging international organizations only encourages further growth, and that the constraints placed on our economy and sovereignty inevitably have a pernicious effect on our national security.
In addition to appointing the UN the arbiter of the high seas, even though we are footed the bill to ensure the safe passage of commerce with our vast navy, there is also a provision which mandates technology transfers.
The Treaty may also require under terms related to sea bed mining the transfer of sensitive technology that has both civilian and military applications. Such technology transfer not only has national security implications but is another way to strip from the U.S. advantages our capital and dynamic, entrepreneurial economy affords.
And if that wasn’t enough, imagine conducting war with both hands tied behind our backs rather than our current one hand.
The Joint Chiefs’ letter claims that ratification is important for “sustaining forward deployed military forces,” but they do not mention that this is often accomplished by ordinary commercial shipping; and while our military’s rights may be largely unhampered — at least on paper — there are opportunities for mischief involving our economic and shipping concerns, which would be subject to lawsuits, especially lawsuits related to environmental regulation, in a way that the military would not.
…
Another gift of LOST is the danger of “lawfare,” whereby lawyers sue either in the judicial bodies to be established under LOST or in American courts to prevent or hamper certain military activities in the name of the Treaty’s environmental or other rules and regulations.
You can read the rest here. And here’s another article.
And now for the benefit of the doubt.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt does not mean selectively shutting out any information you would rather not hear. Quite the contrary. I really want to like the President. I do. I support the war in Iraq and I continue to support the war because, logically speaking, we cannot ween ourselves off petroleum. Our entire modern world, from Kansas to Madagascar, is pegged to that one natural resource, and without it millions will die.
What brings me up short when I want to judge the President on all these matters is simply this: I don’t have all the information he has. He’s been briefed on countless issues. I haven’t, and I shouldn’t.
For all I know, President Bush’s advisers have briefed him that natural disasters (solar flares, category 5 hurricanes, etc.) are going to strike the United States within the next two to four years, that it’s inevitable at this point and that it will absolutely debilitate the United States. In such a scenario, if we MUST have foreign troops come and impose martial law, I think we’d rather it be the Canadians and Brits rather than the Russian and Chinese help restore order, right? Perhaps, President Bush is planning for such an eventuality.
What if he was also briefed that if we don’t pass the Law of the Sea Treaty, Russia will be entrenched and have full claim over the Artic, which will thus, de facto, grant them an advantageous military posture over us.
What if, in seeing how China, Europe, and Russia is conspiring to crash the American Dollar, President Bush thought (however, misguidedly) that the only way to counter-balance that force is to unite Mexico and Canada with a single currency, the Amero. If such a union were to occur, we’d be the OPEC of food production for the entire world, and we’d also be energy independent with our combined resources. I think our sovereignty and our country would be destroyed over this, but I can see how he can genuinely believe that he’s saving the country from calamity.
All the “What if’s” can be explored until I’m blue in the face because the single salient fact about our current circumstance is that we’re in the dark, and no one is really talking. The Bush White House certainly isn’t talking. Bush continues to refuse to communicate with the American people about… well, almost everything really. All we have the surface effects of what’s going on underwater, and what little pops up is frightening to the extreme.
… and since I don’t know, and I know that I don’t know, perhaps it is safer for my soul to give the President the benefit of the doubt, that he is, after all, doing the best he can to serve our country…
