War On Terror Updates

Just a couple updates on some peripheral (but critical) pieces in the War on Terror.

First, Frank Gaffney, Jr. sounds the warning on the LOST (Law of the Sea) treaty that is pending in Congress right now.  Basically, this treaty would commit the United States to adhere to international authority in regard to environmental issues, meaning environmentalist wackos all over the world could dictate what the U.S. military does.

Surely you can understand how ludicrously insane this is.

President Bush recently allowed the Navy to ignore a federal court order to stop training with powerful sonar off the coast of California, but he has yet to ditch consideration of this treaty.  As Gaffney points out, though, the consistent efforts by activist federal judges to limit the power of the U.S. military should be a warning that international judges -- who would have even less incentive to worry about protecting America -- will be even more destructive to our naval activities.  Naval lawyers have been pushing for this treaty for decades (Reagan declined it back in the 80s), and if it weren't for them, it is unlikely that Bush would even consider it.

Some of the questionable things that LOST involves:

- it infringes upon American sovereignty
- imposes curbs on military operations inconsistent with routine U.S. practice and national-security requirements
- it empowers a U.N. agency with authority to exercise control over the world's oceans, seabeds, and even the airspace above them
- this agency — the International Seabed Authority — will have what amounts to the power to impose taxes in the form of various levies and fees
- it will also be able to decide who will be allowed to develop the resources on and beneath the ocean floor and to require transfers of technology and proprietary data from developed nations' companies to international bureaucrats and third-world states
- sweeping provisions requiring "protection of the marine environment" that could give rise to obligations to impose stricter environmental requirements than those of the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act

The underlying assumption for the entire thing is that the environment must not be harmed by anything, anywhere, anytime.  Also, any disputes that arise must be settled by an international body, with no opportunity for appeal.

Basically, international environmentalists will be able to clamp down on the American military, and the U.S. will lose its ability to defend itself, even from terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations.  For example:

A case in point is the 2007 civil suit brought against the Navy by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The NRDC — a leftist organization whose "green" agenda often serves as a cover for anti-military activism — sought an injunction against the sea service on the grounds that its use of high-power sonar constituted violations of federal environmental statutes.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the Navy's plan for protecting marine mammals off the West Coast during sonar training was inadequate, and ordered the case back to U.S. District Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper. Judge Cooper proceeded to ban sonar use within 12 nautical miles of the coast and mandated shutdown procedures when the Navy spotted marine mammals. All this in spite of the fact that the Navy already employs 29 procedures to lessen the impact of sonar on marine life.

Now, let's think about this.  What happens if our sonar is legally prevented from being used around our major ports?  Do you think that perhaps some foreign nation -- say, China, perhaps, or maybe Iran? -- could just sail right up to our shores and drop a few nuclear missiles on us?  Nah, surely not.  I mean, communist and terrorist nations ALWAYS respect international law, right?

If this is something that bothers you, you might want to contact your reps and the White House to mention your opinion.  I just can't figure out why those idiot lawyers actually WANT this thing...!

Next subject is the review of the FISA extension that was put in place last fall.  Michelle Malkin has an update:

Lawmakers in the Senate defeated an initial attempt Thursday to strip immunity for telecommunications companies out of a bill reauthorizing the federal government's warrantless wiretapping program. Senators approved a motion to table an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would have removed the immunity provision in the bill. The vote was 60-34. Democratic senators are planning at least two more amendments seeking to remove the immunity clause. If they both fail, then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has repeated his pledge to attempt to block a vote on the bill. Speaking to reporters earlier Thursday, Dodd said he was "vehemently" opposed to immunity and would do everything he could to prevent it."

Why is this immunity provision important?  Because, if telephony companies fear legal repercussions for turning over phone records of terrorists, how likely do you think they're going to be to work with the government to identify terrorists and their associates?  Exactly.  So, for the FISA law to be effective in fighting terrorism, the telephony companies have to be on board; for them get on board, the immunity has to be there.

Malkin's thoughts:

The frenzy over FISA is a stark reminder of basic party differences on the War on Terror. The Republicans put security first. The Democrats put trial lawyers, terrorists' rights, and election campaigns first. The Republicans are acting to prevent another 9/11. The Democrats are stuck in a 9/10 world.

This one issue precisely illustrates the difference in how the two parties look at the War on Terror, and how the next President is likely to act.  We're in a war with terrorism, whether we want to be or not.  They've declared war on us, not the other way around.  The question you need to ask yourself is: which mindset do you want leading the country in that war?  The 9/10 mindset, or the 9/11 mindset?

Call your Senators, and tell them not to be stupid.

There's my two cents.