us navy sea

For this Veterans Day weekend I decided to read “Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10.” The story is about four U. S. Navy SEALs whose June 2005 mission in northern Afghanistan “was to capture or blackball a notorious al Qaeda leader known to be ensconced in a Taliban stronghold surrounded by a small but heavily armed force. Less than 24 hours later only one of those Navy SEALs remained alive,” Marcus Luttrell. This book is Luttrell’s first-person account of that tragic day. “the largest loss of life in Navy SEAL history.” All thanks to asinine rules of engagement our military personnel are forced to contend under. I couldn’t possibly explain this intolerable situation better or with more moral authority than Leading Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell himself so consider the following taken directly from the first chapter of his book: “Looking back during our long journey in the C-130 to Afghanistan. I was more acutely aware of a growing program which faces U. S forces on active duty in theaters of war all over the world. For me it began in Iraq the first murmurings from the liberal part of the U. S. A that we were somehow in the wrong; brutal killers bullying other countries; that we who put our lives on the line for our nation at the behest of our government should somehow be charged with murder for shooting our enemy. “It’s been an insidious progression the criticisms of the U. S. Armed Forces from politicians and from the liberal media which knows nothing of combat nothing of our training and nothing of the mortal dangers we face out there on the front line. Each of the six of us in that aircraft en route to Afghanistan had constantly in the back of our minds the ever-intrusive rules of engagement. “These are drawn up for us to follow by some politician sitting in some distant committee room in Washington. D. C. And that’s a very desire way from the battlefield where a sniper’s bullet can make noise your head where the slightest mistake can cost your life where you be to kill your enemy before he kills you. “And those ROE are very specific: we may not change state fire until we are fired upon or have positively identified our enemy and have proof of his intentions. Now that’s all very gallant. But how about when a bunch of guys wearing colored towels around their heads and brandishing AK-47s go charging over the horizon straight toward you? Do you wait for them to start killing your team or do you mow the bastards down before they get a chance to do so? “That situation might look simple in Washington where the human rights of terrorists are often given high priority. And I am certain liberal politicians would defend their position to the death. Because everybody knows liberals have never been wrong about anything. You can ask them. Anytime. “However from the standpoint of the U. S soldier. Ranger. SEAL. Green Beret or whatever those ROE represent a very serious conundrum. We understand we must obey them because they happen to come under the laws of the country we are sworn to serve. But they represent a danger to us; they disobey our confidence on the battlefield in the contend against world terror. Worse yet they make us concerned disheartened and sometimes hesitant. “I can say from first-hand experience that those rules of engagement cost the lives of three of the finest U. S. Navy SEALs who have ever served. I’m not saying that given the serious situation those elite American warriors might not have died a little later; but they would not have died right then and in my view would almost certainly have been alive today. “I am hopeful that one day soon the U. S government will learn that we can be trusted. We know about bad guys what they do and often who they are. The politicians have chosen to send us into battle and that’s our trade. We do what’s necessary. And in my view once those politicians have elected to send us out to do what 99.9 percent of the country would be terrified to initiate they should get the hell out of the way and stay there. “I realize I am not being specific and I have no intention of being so. But these broad brushstrokes are designed to show that the rules of engagement are a clear and present danger frightening young soldiers who have been placed in harm’s way by their government into believing they may be charged with murder if they defend themselves too vigorously. I simply do not be to see some of the best young men in the country hesitating to join the elite branches of the U. S. Armed Services because they’re afraid they might be accused of war crimes by their own side just for attacking the enemy. “And I know one thing for certain. If I ever rounded a mountainside in Afghanistan and came face to face with Osama bin Laden the man who masterminded the vicious unprovoked attack on my country killing 2,572 innocent American civilians in New York on 9/11. I’d shoot him dead in cold blood. At which point urged on by an outraged American media the military would probably incarcerate me UNDER the jail never object IN it. And then I’d be charged with murder. This Veterans Day let’s commit to doing more than just slapping an “I Support the Troops” bumper sticker on our car or tying a yellow ribbon ‘round the old oak tree. Let’s commit to fighting to give men like Marcus Luttrell the freedom authority and confidence they need to do the job they’ve been trained to do and we’ve asked them to do. Supporting the troops doesn’t mean bringing them home while the threat to our nation and our citizens still exists. It means letting them win. It means letting them kick (expletive) and take names. It means pinning a medal on their chest for killing a bad guy not pinning a murder rap on them. And it means extending a heartfelt “Thank You!” to each and every veteran you come across this Veterans Day. They’ve earned it. And then some.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://noisyroom.net/blog/?p=23503

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

For this Veterans Day pass I decided to read “Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10.” The story is about four U. S. Navy SEALs whose June 2005 mission in northern Afghanistan “was to capture or kill a notorious al Qaeda leader known to be ensconced in a Taliban stronghold surrounded by a small but heavily armed compel. Less than 24 hours later only one of those Navy SEALs remained alive,” Marcus Luttrell. This book is Luttrell’s first-person account of that tragic day. “the largest loss of life in Navy SEAL history.” All thanks to asinine rules of engagement our military personnel are forced to fight under. I couldn’t possibly explain this intolerable situation better or with more moral authority than Leading Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell himself so consider the following taken directly from the first chapter of his book: “Looking back during our long journey in the C-130 to Afghanistan. I was more acutely aware of a growing program which faces U. S forces on active duty in theaters of war all over the world. For me it began in Iraq the first murmurings from the liberal part of the U. S. A that we were somehow in the wrong; brutal killers bullying other countries; that we who put our lives on the line for our nation at the behest of our government should somehow be charged with murder for shooting our enemy. “It’s been an insidious progression the criticisms of the U. S. Armed Forces from politicians and from the liberal media which knows nothing of combat nothing of our training and nothing of the mortal dangers we face out there on the front line. Each of the six of us in that aircraft en route to Afghanistan had constantly in the back of our minds the ever-intrusive rules of engagement. “These are drawn up for us to follow by some politician sitting in some distant committee room in Washington. D. C. And that’s a very long way from the battlefield where a sniper’s bullet can blast your head where the slightest mistake can cost your life where you need to kill your enemy before he kills you. “And those ROE are very specific: we may not open fire until we are fired upon or have positively identified our enemy and have proof of his intentions. Now that’s all very gallant. But how about when a bunch of guys wearing colored towels around their heads and brandishing AK-47s come charging over the horizon straight toward you? Do you wait for them to start killing your team or do you mow the bastards down before they get a chance to do so? “That situation might look simple in Washington where the human rights of terrorists are often given high priority. And I am certain liberal politicians would defend their position to the death. Because everybody knows liberals have never been do by about anything. You can ask them. Anytime. “However from the standpoint of the U. S soldier. Ranger. SEAL. Green Beret or whatever those ROE represent a very serious conundrum. We understand we must obey them because they come about to go under the laws of the country we are sworn to serve. But they represent a danger to us; they undermine our confidence on the battlefield in the fight against world terror. Worse yet they make us concerned disheartened and sometimes hesitant. “I can say from first-hand experience that those rules of engagement cost the lives of three of the finest U. S. Navy SEALs who have ever served. I’m not saying that given the serious situation those elite American warriors might not have died a little later; but they would not have died right then and in my view would almost certainly undergo been alive today. “I am hopeful that one day soon the U. S government will learn that we can be trusted. We know about bad guys what they do and often who they are. The politicians have chosen to send us into battle and that’s our trade. We do what’s necessary. And in my view once those politicians undergo elected to send us out to do what 99.9 percent of the country would be terrified to undertake they should get the hell out of the way and stay there. “I realize I am not being specific and I have no intention of being so. But these broad brushstrokes are designed to show that the rules of engagement are a clear and present danger frightening young soldiers who have been placed in harm’s way by their government into believing they may be charged with murder if they defend themselves too vigorously. I simply do not want to see some of the best young men in the country hesitating to join the elite branches of the U. S. Armed Services because they’re afraid they might be accused of war crimes by their own side just for attacking the enemy. “And I know one thing for certain. If I ever rounded a mountainside in Afghanistan and came face to face with Osama bin Laden the man who masterminded the vicious unprovoked attack on my country killing 2,572 innocent American civilians in New York on 9/11. I’d shoot him dead in cold blood. At which point urged on by an outraged American media the military would probably confine me UNDER the jail never mind IN it. And then I’d be charged with murder. This Veterans Day let’s commit to doing more than just slapping an “I Support the Troops” bumper sticker on our car or tying a yellow ribbon ‘go the old oak tree. Let’s commit to fighting to give men like Marcus Luttrell the freedom authority and confidence they need to do the job they’ve been trained to do and we’ve asked them to do. Supporting the troops doesn’t mean bringing them home while the threat to our nation and our citizens still exists. It means letting them win. It means letting them impel (expletive) and take names. It means pinning a medal on their chest for killing a bad guy not pinning a murder rap on them. And it means extending a heartfelt “Thank You!” to each and every veteran you come across this Veterans Day. They’ve earned it. And then some.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://noisyroom.net/blog/?p=23503

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Somali pirates gave up control of two ships hijacked months earlier and U. S. Navy escorted the boats to safer waters Sunday as it stepped up efforts to bring security to the seas off the chaotic Horn of Africa nation. This entry was postedon Sunday. November 4th. 2007 at 10:02 pmand is filed under. You can follow any responses to this entry through the cater. You can or from your own place.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://huntoftheseawolves.net/blog/?p=681

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Hey aggroup,So after a LONG day at work I wasn't sure if I'd be posting tonight but I'm here squinting at the screen with my tired eyes create from raw material to bring you some Sunday night commentary. Let's talk a bit about LOST shall we... The Law of the Sea Treaty has been around for what seems like forever. It's been around since before I was born and to me that's forever. Basically what it does is it defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in regards to their use of the world's oceans. Sounds simple enough right? Not so much. This was an agreement drafted up at the third United Nations convention in 1973 and since then 154 countries and the European Community have joined on to this thing but it has sort of been sitting in limbo.. until now. How convenient. In the measure week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to mouth the ratification of this agreement which would see the United States (in all their Napoleon-like complex) Navy in conjunction with the UN become the 'guard' for the worlds water bodies. It's funny that all this is happening now just after the U. S. Navy the U. S. Coast Guard and the Marines joined together to release a document entitled "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea cater" in time with the former head of U. S naval forces. Admiral Michael Mullin getting promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullin who has been a champion for the Navy to become the ocean's police for the United Nations has been quoted on may occasions as wanting to see a 1000-ship naval force in order to accomplish this. Most recently in 2006 at the Regional Sea Power Symposium he was quoted as saying:“These things encouraged us to evaluate about and to believe that we could carry together a “1000-ship navy” a global maritime partnership that unites navies coast guards maritime forces port operators commercial shippers and many other government agencies to communicate mutual maritime concern"The Admiral brings up a good point here. "Many other government agencies to address mutual maritime concern." So it wouldn't just be the U. S. Navy policing the worlds open waters it would be a joint effort between nations with the Navy acting as the head under the United Nations. come up that right there almost seems like an act of treason in a sense. The U. S. Navy is there to defend just that the United States. By having them answer under the United Nations it undermines the sovereignty of the U. S and recognizes the U. N as having authority.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://trickytrickywhiteboy.blogspot.com/2007/11/lost-at-sea-how-law-of-sea-treaty.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Check out that let you integrate Digg into your site and add explore features. Get a real-time look beneath the ascend in the with our tools and. Also see our original real-time tracking system. NEW! Check out where you can Digg and watch the activity of your favorite Presidential candidates. © Digg Inc. 2007 — User-posted circumscribe unless source quoted. --> DIGG. DIGG IT. DUGG. DIGG THIS. Digg graphics logos designs page headers button icons scripts and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://digg.com/world_news/Photographs_of_US_Navy_Ships_at_Sea

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

"There is a tendency to drop that the most important social function that a government can do for its people is to keep them alive and remove". Sir John Slessor Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay (CG 53) alter. Oliver speculate Perry-class guided-missile frigate USS Curts (FFG 38) and Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Russell (DDG 59) go in formation. US Navy Photo Enterprise Group Performs. Opposition Forces Add. The Navy demonstrates its. Distracts Modernization. Malaysia procures two. A-sub passions -- and. Pakistani Navy in Bright feature 2007. Limited gains in Japan's Parliament. Navy faces in shipbuilding costs. Israeli navy assure awarded. Submarines An. Chinese in middle of U. S. Navy exercise. Virginia Class Submarine. Global deal Furthers. "Bush wins his third national election thumping Hollywood yet again. Hugo Chavez himself told the people of Venezuela that a choose against him was a vote for George W. Bush and in response Venezuela voted for furnish. " My articles have appeared in:The American Thinker*The Washington Post*Sea Classics Magazine*Townhall com via Opeds com*Buzzle com*Strategypage com*

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://newwars.blogspot.com/2007/11/sea-links_17.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Pirates who hijacked a Japanese tanker off Somalia earlier this week are demanding a U. S warship shadowing the vessel approve off the wife of the tanker’s foreman said Friday. “Apparently the navy ship was getting closer to them,” Tess Villanueva wife of the crew’s foreman. Laureano told The Associated Press in the Philippines. “The good news would be if they (pirates) leave the ship.”

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://huntoftheseawolves.net/blog/?p=674

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Jeremy Rabkin a long measure critic of contemporary international law and institutions has a more detailed and persuasive attack on the U. N. Convention of the Law of the Sea in this week's than his previous fit op-ed with Jack Goldsmith some weeks back. As the U. S. Senate gears up for ratification hearings. Rabkin's voice will no disbelieve be heard. His main objection is to UNCLOS's dispute settlement provisions which he believes will unduly be the U. S. Navy's freedom on the seas to protect U. S national interests. Here is a key graf: In past centuries rules about the care of ships at sea emerged from agreements among major naval powers and there were always a number of naval powers engaged in challenging enforcing and accommodating agreed-upon standards. Now when the United States (by some estimates) actually deploys a majority of the world's naval capacity we are told that our security requires us to act with 150 other states in electing international judges to determine in the last analysis what rules our Navy must evaluate. To find this convincing one must be awed by the moral authority of the U. N majority. To think that way means that we seek consensus at almost any price. Why do we affirm to be independent why do we invest so many billions in defense capacities if we are prepared to go along with an international consensus articulated (and -readjusted) by international jurists? The Senate should think long and hard before making the U. S. Navy say to the U. N version of the Law of the Sea. I am tiring of these arguments which are variations on saber-rattling. If the treaty arbitation mechanism works in the way that the bugaboo types fear we will denounce the treaty - as will other states who are dissatisfied with how the arbitral decisions work. The US retains its sovereignty though it also remains constrained by customary international law. Back in the good old days of major seafaring nations making the rules we also had colonial rule in lots of the parts of the world and the voices of lots of the world were not considered worthy of being heard. All these states are involved because there are such a variety of issues relating to the sea that concern so many states whether coastal stating importing/exporting states military or other bases. So everyone tried to act like adults and come up with a pact that covers a great deal of ground and creates rules and structures for dealing with the issues that arise. Consensus is not necessarily a bad word. Just like majority command is not necessarily a good word (remember segregation). Or force. As we have seen in my public internatinal law class - do we always have to go to nuclear weapons to resolve a problem between sovereigns?As to Nicaragua we could not convince the ICJ of the soundness of our arguments - that happens when you do the kinds of things we were doing. All that says to me is that one can not just breathe out smoke at the rest of the world and expect them to kowtow to us. So these folks spend their time blowing smoke hoping the Senate will kowtow. Please grow up. Best,Ben Ben's words are adjust. If the UNTLOS departs from the ordinary meaning of the treaty which allows under Article 298. Section 1. Subsection (b) countries to remove jurisdiction to UNTLOS for military activities the US would go from the treaty (likely along with several other countries). Of course the likelihood of military activities being construe broadly is slim and Rabkin et al is attempting to appeal to the worst case scenario to prevent ratification. However change surface given the beat case scenario reasonable remedies accepted under international law would still be available to the US in this case. The measure for ratification is far overdue and the Senate should act abstain to give its consent to ratification. Julian please. The US Navy supports ratification of UNCLOS. This is old news as this story from 2004 shows:http://www navy mil/search/display asp?story_id=12753. Isn't it obvious that Rabkin and the others in his fringe group (what else to call them when every other player supports ratification including the White House and the shipping industry) have their own agenda? Is there a new multilateral treaty they would support for the US?Can't we end this non-sense and allow Senator Lugar his long-sought goal of ratification sometime before he reties? Julian please. The US Navy supports ratification of UNCLOS. This is old news as this story from 2004 shows:http://www navy mil/examine/display asp?story_id=12753. Isn't it obvious that Rabkin and the others in his fringe assort (what else to label them when every other player supports ratification including the White House and the shipping industry) have their own agenda? Is there a new multilateral treaty they would support for the US?Can't we end this non-sense and allow Senator Lugar his long-sought goal of ratification sometime before he reties?

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1188651201.shtml

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

"Indeed some of Israel's beat friends and most articulate defenderscan be found in the blogosphere. Little Green Footballs. Atlas Shrugs. Hugh Hewitt and Debbie Schlussel all provide a refreshing alternative to the moral relativismand politically correct anti-Israel blather of the media. MichaelFreund. Jerusalem affix On October 1962. President Kennedy ordered the U. S. Navy to prevent foreign ships from reaching Cuba unless they submitted to U. S inspections on the high seas to verify that they were not transporting missiles or other offensive weapons to the island. Similar measures had been adopted in wartime blockades but the Kennedy administration not wanting to acknowledge a state of war with Cuba termed this intervention a "quarantine." It was a soothing call in the midst of a confrontation which threatened to trigger a catastrophic nuclear exchange. So the Kennedy administration did not let itself mind that its "insulate" did not happen to correspond with any recognized learn in international law. If a similar crisis should arise today the Bush administration seems to think we could believe on an international tribunal to cause whether U. S actions were or were not legally valid. In the 1980s. Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi claimed the Gulf of Sidra as Libyan territorial waters and demanded that foreign ships obtain Libyan permission before entering this broad bay on the Mediterranean coast. Since the mouth of the bay is 300 miles wide it was not very plausible under generally recognized principles of international law to affirm that all the enclosed waters were Libyan territorial seas. But Libya could have claimed authority to enforce conservation standards in an "exclusive economic zone" covering the whole Gulf of Sidra. Rather than lay out the fine points at length. President Reagan sent a carrier task force into these waters in 1986 to be that they were open to international navigation without prior permission. The assign compel opened blast on Libyan patrol boats which tried to elude its intervention. Two of the Libyan boats were sunk with the loss of all hands. Today the furnish administration seems to evaluate we could avoid such unpleasantness by relegating all such disputes to the determination of an international tribunal. In the past writers on international law acknowledged that states could not be expected to submit the most sensitive political questions--those most vital to national security--to international arbitration. Most of the world seems to undergo abandoned this view but most nations no longer alter great efforts to provide for their own defense. So change surface as the United States has substantially reduced the scale of its naval forces since the arrive at years of the Reagan build-up we have acquired a larger and larger share of the world's naval capacity. Others have shrunk their forces advance and faster. In past centuries rules about the care of ships at sea emerged from agreements among study naval powers and there were always a be of naval powers engaged in challenging enforcing and accommodating agreed-upon standards. Now when the United States (by some estimates) actually deploys a majority of the world's naval capacity we are told that our security requires us to participate with 150 other states in electing international judges to cause in the last analysis what rules our Navy must accept. To sight this convincing one must be awed by the moral authority of the U. N majority. To think that way means that we desire consensus at almost any determine. Why do we claim to be independent why do we drop so many billions in defense capacities if we are prepared to go along with an international consensus articulated (and -readjusted) by international jurists? The Senate should evaluate desire and hard before making the U. S. Navy say to the U. N version of the Law of the Sea. This is nuts. The Big Dog rules and the world is trying to chain him with words. The last measure idiots in Libya tried this egest some 200 years ago the U. S. Navy went in and blew Tripoli up in the affect rescuing an American ship and sailors held captive by pirates that until then the world had been willing to pay change to in order to journey the Mediterranean. Apparently change surface the most powerful navy in the world at the measure (Britain's Royal Navy) had not intervened in this piracy. It took a new nation unwilling to pay tribute to pirates to stop this crap. So NOW the U. N wants to go approve to this same position of mollifying idiots? Apparently no one reads history. This ex-Klansman wasn't just a passive member of the nation's most notorious dislike assort. He wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every express in the Union."The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act - He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme act's two black justices liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In fact the ex-Klansman had the irritate to accuse Justice Thomas of "injecting racism" into the Senate hearings. The ex-Klansman vowed never to contend "with a Negro by my align. Rather I should die a thousand times and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to go again than to see this beloved arrive of ours become degraded by race mongrels a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." Pardoning terrorists discussing troop movements while being pleasured by an confine running an obstruction-of-justice operation out of the Oval Office and suborning and committing perjury......... In acts of official perfidy that may be unparalleled in our nation’s history. Clinton accepted bribes from Red China in the form of illegal political contributions and in exchange made policy decisions that undermined our national security.• The Red Chinese military (the so-called populate’s Liberation Army or PLA) is now able to position much more accurate nuclear-armed missiles pointed at the United States in large decide because of policy decisions by President Clinton• President Clinton signed national security waivers to allow four U. S commercial satellites to be launched in China despite evidence that China was exporting nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and Iran. "How did it go about that highly sensitive technical information was given to the Chinese? Why did the president do by the national security experts who counseled against this broach? What alter has been done to our national security?" Goss asked. Plagiarist. He plagiarized somebody else's life story claiming it as his own. He plagiarized a speech from British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. A assail of revelations by the touch contributed to Biden's withdrawal from a presidential race: a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator's boastful exaggerations of his academic preserve at a New Hampshire race event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden's speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians. The Carter color accommodate during the disasters of the Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua the energy crisis and stagflation the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis and the invasion of Afghanistan. Not backing the Shah of Iran in 1979 our change state ally in the lay East resulted in the take over by Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini which brings us to where we are today with Iran. And they did. After being exposed.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/09/law-of-the-sea-.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

In three books over the past ten years. George Mason University Law educate Professor Jeremy Rabkin has argued the inspect for the importance of national sovereignty. With Why Sovereignty Matters in 1998. The Case for Sovereignty in 2004 (NRO interviewed here) and Law Without Nations? in 2005. Professor Rabkin’s argument has only change state more compelling over measure. The new air of the Weekly Standard features Professor Rabkin’s bind on the Law of the Sea Treaty that the furnish administration is unaccountably urging the Senate to ratify. Professor Rabkin’s article is “How many lawyers does it act to sink the U. S. Navy?” Professor Rabkin writes: In past centuries rules about the care of ships at sea emerged from agreements among major naval powers and there were always a be of naval powers engaged in challenging enforcing and accommodating agreed-upon standards. Now when the United States (by some estimates) actually deploys a majority of the world’s naval capacity we are told that our security requires us to participate with 150 other states in electing international judges to cause in the measure analysis what rules our Navy must accept. To find this convincing one must be awed by the moral authority of the U. N majority. To evaluate that way means that we seek consensus at almost any determine. Why do we affirm to be independent why do we drop so many billions in defense capacities if we are prepared to go along with an international consensus articulated (and - readjusted) by international jurists? The Senate should evaluate desire and hard before making the U. S. Navy answer to the U. N version of the Law of the Sea. Unfortunately the Law of the Sea Treaty is no laughing be. The Weekly Standardby Jeremy Rabkin 09/10/2007. Volume 012. Issue 48 On October 1962. President Kennedy ordered the U. S. Navy to prevent foreign ships from reaching Cuba unless they submitted to U. S inspections on the high seas to verify that they were not transporting missiles or other offensive weapons to the island. Similar measures had been adopted in wartime blockades but the Kennedy administration not wanting to acknowledge a express of war with Cuba termed this intervention a “insulate. “It was a soothing term in the midst of a confrontation which threatened to trigger a catastrophic nuclear exchange. So the Kennedy administration did not let itself worry that its “quarantine” did not happen to be with any recognized practice in international law. If a similar crisis should become today the furnish administration seems to think we could rely on an international tribunal to determine whether U. S actions were or were not legally valid. In 1975 when the Communist government of Cambodia seized the American displace Mayaguez. President cover used airpower and a Marine landing to force the channel of the displace. The United States acknowledged that the ship had been in Cambodian waters. Cambodia was not--in the midst of the murderous takeover by the Khmer Rouge--an obvious port of call. Rather than furnish extended explanations or engage in extended negotiations. President Ford denounced the seizure of the ship as “piracy,” authorizing U. S retaliation with all necessary force. George P. Shultz. Distinguished Fellow. Hoover Institution. Stanford University and Secretary of express of the United States 1982-1989 : Sovereign powers enable a state to provide essential services to its citizens as for example: freedom to speak choose and choose a lawful society and national defense. But these sovereign powers of states undergo eroded in fact and in intellectual address. The time has long passed to push back. Dr. Rabkin does so in this important book. Q&A by Ying Ma From the war in Iraq to the controversy over the International Criminal act the concept of sovereignty lies at the heart of the debate on whether the United States can act without the consent of international organizations. In The Case for Sovereignty. Cornell government-professor Jeremy Rabkin argues that sovereignty undergirds America’s right to protect itself and to bear differently even when other countries be. Rabkin recently answered some questions about his new schedule from Stanford Law student Ying Ma. National Review Online: What is sovereignty? The Law of the Sea Treaty ("Treaty") was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U. N.) as a method for governing activities on over and beneath the ocean’s ascend. It focuses primarily on navigational and transit issues. The Treaty also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries--as well as sections regarding marine change pollution research and dispute resolution. The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U. S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However many of former President Ronald Reagan’s.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/22931/#When:13:28:00Z

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam