UN Gun Treaty

[Nemont]

Tom,
the President is getting traction with Romney's Bain experience and unwillingness to release his tax returns, I highly doubt he is going to gift wrap an issue that divides his own party and put into jeopardy every western Democrat running for office.

Can you find a credible source, not Dick Morris, that show this treaty has even been drafted? I can't find the actual treaty just a proposed treaty that may or may not be brought forward. Hillary has not signed on in support but rather attended the meeting where it was discussed, there is no document that has been signed by either Hillary or Obama.

If you can find an actual document and also produce facts that show what you claim I will delete my membership from this site and I will never question you on anything again.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Holy shit the bat-shit crazy is around here.

Right now, they can't pass ANY treaties, even ones that Bush wanted. Even on that the Navy's admirals wanted. The right-wing nuts are bound and determined to export their looney-tune conspiracy theories around the nation...

This is particularly relevant this week because of the Law of the Sea Treaty, negotiated 18 years ago, and ratified by 161 countries around the globe. Here in the U.S., it's been endorsed by the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the Obama administration, business leaders, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, and specifically U.S. Navy leaders who, as Josh Rogin explained, see the measure as necessary "to allow the United States to fully participate in the growing multinational system that governs the open seas."

Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice -- Republican Secretaries of State from Republican administrations -- wrote an op-ed, urging Senate ratification, but GOP senators were more inclined to listen to Dick Morris.

Yesterday, Sens. Portman and Ayotte were the apparent nails in the coffin. It's no coincidence that both Portman and Ayotte are being considered for their party's vice presidential nomination, which means they have to take ridiculous policy positions that make the GOP base happy. Had either endorsed the treaty, Fox News would not have been pleased.

And so international rules for the world's oceans will have to wait once more.

The development was a blow to the Obama administration, military leaders and the business community led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who had argued that the treaty would improve national security and enhance U.S. standing in the world. They had pressed for ratification of the treaty, which was concluded in 1982 and has been in force since 1994. The United States is the only major nation that has refused to sign the pact.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and other conservatives have led the campaign against the treaty, contending that it would undermine U.S. sovereignty. DeMint heralded the latest development on Twitter, saying, "34 Senators now oppose LOST, sinking the misguided treaty."
The treaty establishes a system for resolving disputes in international waters and recognizes sovereign rights over a country's continental shelf out to 200 nautical miles and beyond if the country can provide evidence to substantiate its claims. The United States has abided by the rules of the treaty since President Ronald Reagan's administration.

Tinfoil hats for Tom.....

 

[shoots-straight]

Holy shit the bat-shit crazy is around here.

The correct term is: "Bat-crap-crazy" thank you!

 

[Tom]

Nemont, you don't mean that you don't care that Clinton and Obama are working on this treaty do you?
You think the treaty could be good or what? I'm thinking it sucks, but I suppose it come out a miracle and not be as bad as that.

Here's some more information addressing what Dick Morris said in that video. Its from the Harvard International Law Review Journal, the link is there for the whole article. I found it with a search for "unratified treaty".

It was back in 2009 that H.Clinton started working on the treaty, a reversal of previous US policy. There's supposed to be a meeting drafting it this year.


“Today, although signing is not typically viewed as a manifestation of consent
to be bound to a treaty, many international law academics and lawyers
contend that signing does impose certain obligations on the signatory country.
This contention is based on a provision in the Vienna Convention, a
treaty that regulates the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties.
Article 18 of the Vienna Convention states that a nation that signs a
treaty is “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and
purpose” of the treaty “until it shall have made its intention clear not to
become a party to the treaty.”34 Although the United States has not ratified
the Vienna Convention, executive branch officials have stated on a number
of occasions that they view much of the Convention as reflecting binding
customary international law”.35
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi...=1I7DMUS_enUS262#search="unratified treaties"

A quorum to do business, that's 51, then 2/3 of that, that's 101/3 or 34. Is that possible? The idea of someone in our government supporting and possibly signing a treaty that violates or Bill of Rights is disgusting.

I dingo is hungry and a dingo, but why are Obama and Clinton supporting this thing? What good do they think could possibly come of it?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Mitt Romney eats babies and has 42 wives. It's true because some idjit on the internet said so.

 

[tjones]

correct that,,,the dingo ate the babies.

 

[shoots-straight]

correct that,,,the dingo ate the babies.

It really did eat the ladies baby. Read this Tom!

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-11/...ser-island-azaria-chamberlain?_s=PM:ASIA:eek:

 

[WV Hunter]

Since this thread evolves into something else every other post or so I thought I would throw this out there:

Can anybody give me a real world overveiw of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? I get to day dreaming thru some of the Chautauquas and miss paragraphs at a time when I realize I wasn't paying any attention to what I just read.

So, any of you smart guys want to give me a good summary? I've got about 50 pages to go.

 

[noharleyyet]

Since this thread evolves into something else every other post or so I thought I would throw this out there:

Can anybody give me a real world overveiw of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? I get to day dreaming thru some of the Chautauquas and miss paragraphs at a time when I realize I wasn't paying any attention to what I just read.

So, any of you smart guys want to give me a good summary? I've got about 50 pages to go.

...if your AMF Harley ain't leakin' oil....yer out of oil

Best I can do on short notice Chris.

 

[noharleyyet]

I hesitate to get into this pissing contest, but simply want to tell Ben Lamb not to insult my intelligence by referring to Media Matters, a left-wing organization that is totally biased. I have seen you in action, Ben, testifying during the Montana Legislature, and I know you are far smarter than to rely on Media Matters' propaganda. Barack Obama meant exactly what he said: If you are a successful business owner, you didn't do it on your own. You owe you success to the government. Despicable...

Obachurian sometimes gives due credit...for example:

 

[tjones]

Hell I had to google "Chautauquas", no help here. We live sheltered lives here in Montana.

Classic,,,,,,,,,,,,,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghCTZF61ey0

 

[Nemont]

Nemont, you don't mean that you don't care that Clinton and Obama are working on this treaty do you?
You think the treaty could be good or what? I'm thinking it sucks, but I suppose it come out a miracle and not be as bad as that.

Here's some more information addressing what Dick Morris said in that video. Its from the Harvard International Law Review Journal, the link is there for the whole article. I found it with a search for "unratified treaty".

It was back in 2009 that H.Clinton started working on the treaty, a reversal of previous US policy. There's supposed to be a meeting drafting it this year.


“Today, although signing is not typically viewed as a manifestation of consent
to be bound to a treaty, many international law academics and lawyers
contend that signing does impose certain obligations on the signatory country.
This contention is based on a provision in the Vienna Convention, a
treaty that regulates the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties.
Article 18 of the Vienna Convention states that a nation that signs a
treaty is “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and
purpose” of the treaty “until it shall have made its intention clear not to
become a party to the treaty.”34 Although the United States has not ratified
the Vienna Convention, executive branch officials have stated on a number
of occasions that they view much of the Convention as reflecting binding
customary international law”.35
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi...=1I7DMUS_enUS262#search="unratified treaties"

A quorum to do business, that's 51, then 2/3 of that, that's 101/3 or 34. Is that possible? The idea of someone in our government supporting and possibly signing a treaty that violates or Bill of Rights is disgusting.

I dingo is hungry and a dingo, but why are Obama and Clinton supporting this thing? What good do they think could possibly come of it?

You have no idea how the Senate works do you. How is 2/3 of 100 members 34?

I never said this treaty was good or bad, I said that as of today it doesn't even exist. In fact the meeting to start working on the language is right now and there has been NO signatures afixed to anything.

So just to be clear you fear a treaty that has not been written yet, siting a rule that the U.S. has not signed in regards to the Vienna convetions and you don't know the rules of the Senate that require 60 plus votes for cloture to even bring a bill up and then a 2/3 consent of the entire body. If you believe that Senators won't show up for that vote then you need to put down the crack pipe.

So show me something from a source that is credible that shows A. Obama has stated support for the small arms treaty B. that Hillary has stated that she would sign it and get it passed and C. that the Senate is circumvented by the Vienna Convention and our rights wll be trampled.

The reality is that the treaty is still being talked about in a meeting right now and we are years away from every getting this to the floor of the Senate.

My offer still stands, I will leave the site and never post again if you can refute anything I have just typed.

Nemont

 

[shoots-straight]

You have no idea how the Senate works do you. How is 2/3 of 100 members 34?

I never said this treay was good or bad, I said that as of today it doesn't even exist. In fact the meeting to start working on the language is right now and there has been NO signatures afixed to anything.

So just to be clear you fear a treaty that has not been written yet, siting a rule that the U.S. has not signed in regards to the Vienna convetions and you don't know the rules of the Senate that require 60 plus votes for cloture to even bring a bill up and then a 2/3 consent of the entire body. If you believe that Senators won't show up for that vote then you need to put down the crack pipe.

So me something from a source that is credible that shows A. Obama has stated support for the small arms treaty B. that Hillary has stated that she would sign it and get it passed and C. that the Senate is circumvented by the Vienna Convention and our rights wll be trampled.

The reality is that the treaty is still being talked about in a meeting right now and we are years away from every getting this to the floor of the Senate.

My offer still stands, I will leave the site and never post again if you provide or refute anything I have just typed.

Nemont

But Nemont, that's the Teabaggers platform. Without all the conspiracy theories, there's nothing credible.

 

[noharleyyet]

that's the Teabaggers platform. Without all the conspiracy theories, there's nothing credible.

....time for another sip shoots;

 

[Ben Lamb]

I support cutting the budget by cutting social services for everyone who wears a tri-cornered hat.

 

[Tom]

I'm not interested in you resigning from posting Nemont.

This is the state department statement/press release that started people worrying in 2009 about Clinton and this administration's actions on the small arms treaty:

U.S. Support for the Arms Trade Treaty

Press Statement
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC

October 14, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms.


The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations. As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.


On a national basis, the United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the “gold standard” of export controls for arms transfers. On a bilateral basis, the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions. Multilaterally, we have consistently supported high international standards, and the Arms Trade Treaty initiative presents us with the opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes.


The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons. We look forward to this negotiation as the continuation of the process that began in the UN with the 2008 UN Group of Governmental Experts on the ATT and continued with the 2009 UN Open-Ended Working Group on ATT.

 

[tjones]

Snopes even calls BS.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

 

[Ben Lamb]

1.) I support trying to reign in the proliferation of small arms to terrorist states and organizations. I would hope that most other people see the value in that.

2.) This is limited to international trade of small arms and reigning in the abuses. It says nothnig about violating a soveriegn nation's right to regulate their own arms trade, or infringe upon the rights of their people.

3.) Devil's always in the details:

As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.

 

[MNHunter]

The more I read threads like these the more I lose faith in humanity. The aluminum industry will never go under with the number of tinfoil hat wearing people I share this country with. If it isn't vaccines causing autism it's phantom treaties banning guns except those required to arm the black helicopters.

Hunting season can't come fast enough!

 

[tjones]

1.) I support trying to reign in the proliferation of small arms to terrorist states and organizations. I would hope that most other people see the value in that.

2.) This is limited to international trade of small arms and reigning in the abuses. It says nothnig about violating a soveriegn nation's right to regulate their own arms trade, or infringe upon the rights of their people.

3.) Devil's always in the details:

Now Ben you can't going ruining a perfectly good conspiracy with hard facts. You should know better.