Democrats seek to put national security under thumb of United Nations, unions.

By paulseale Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Does anyone remember the comotion stirred by John Kerry during the 2004 election when he talked about America needing to listening to foriegn leaders and pass some sort of a global test? Well to my suprise Democrats decided to put this into law.

Earlier today congressional sources alerted me to provisions within "H.R. 1" which would put a vital security initiative under the "authority" of the United Nations. I thought for a moment maybe my source was kidding me. Democrats really would not try to put a provision into effect which would put part of our country's national security under direct authority of the United Nations would they?

So I did a search in the bill for "PROLIFERATION SECURITY INITIATIVE" and sure enough there is the provision.


(a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress, consistent with the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, that the President should strive to expand and strengthen the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) announced by the President on May 31, 2003, with a particular emphasis on the following:

(1) Issuing a presidential directive to the relevant government agencies and departments that establishes a defined annual budget and clear authorities, and provides other necessary resources and structures to achieve more efficient and effective performance of United States PSI-related activities.

(2) Working with the United Nations Security Council to develop a resolution to authorize the PSI under international law.

(3) Increasing PSI cooperation with non-NATO partners.

(4) Implementing the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the September 2006 report titled `Better Controls Needed to Plan and Manage Proliferation Security Initiative Activities' (GAO-06-937C), including the following:

(A) The Department of Defense and the Department of State should establish clear PSI roles and responsibilities, policies and procedures, interagency communication mechanisms, documentation requirements, and indicators to measure program results.

(B) The Department of Defense and the Department of State should develop a strategy to work with PSI-participating countries to resolve issues that are impediments to conducting successful PSI interdictions.

(5) Expanding and formalizing the PSI into a multilateral regime to increase coordination, cooperation, and compliance among its participating states in interdiction activities

Okay so what we have here is a bill which would make the PSI "authorized" under the United Nations Security council and making the PSI a "multilater regime" to improve cooperation for interdiction activities.

What does this mean? This means that the United States would need to ask permission before interdicting illicit WMD traffic and provide our enemies in the United Nations vital national security information contained within the PSI system.

Democrats wish to take a key national security system and turn it over to the United Nations and our enemies. Kinda funny that we havent heard about this provision, isnt it? That was in the 9/11 Commission recommendations, right? I am sure that was in their mandate too, right? Of course the answer is no to both.

The madness doesnt stop there.

While the media reports that the same bill will allow airport security employees to form unions and "protect whistle blowers," they fail to mention that the same provision would allow them to strike.

Yup, thats right. A key cog in the national security and our economy will be at the whim of union bosses. God forbid a strike happen during some key time of crisis. New York Congressman Peter King put it best:

King cited last summer's alleged plot in Britain to blow up U.S.-bound airliners. King said if Transportation Security Administration screeners had union protections, he wondered if "would we have been able to move round the inspectors as quickly as possible" in the stepped-up U.S. security precautions that followed.

King would be correct in his analysis. If the bill was ever implemented as passed it would cripple our ability to make needed personel shifts, not to mention hiring and firing based on a merrit system. These are key elements to keeping the TSA as lean as possible.

I also believe that it is important to note the heavy lobbying influence from unions we have here. These are the same groups who poured millions into the Democratic candidates running for office. You do not hear anything in the media about these lobbyist either, do we?

I could go on and on about this bill and how bad it is because it creates more expansive government programs without improving our security. In fact if implemented as passed this bill would critically wound our national security efforts on both a fundamental and operational way.

Just remember this law has not gone through committee hearings and the Republicans will not be able to offer any ammendments to change this bill and it will not recieve a full debate in the public eye.

Then again, Democrats have a mandate for all this, right?

If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

were against it? A legitimate question, see below:

President Bush announced the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) on May 31, 2003 in Krakow, Poland. The PSI is an American-led 'coalition of convenience' seeking to strengthen non-proliferation cooperation and to develop legal instruments to control weapons traffic on land, in the air and at sea. Source

The Proliferation Security Initiative is one of the post 11-September measures that has contributed to shift the security paradigm... ibid.

So it's the President's initiative.
A cooperative effort with our NATO/G-8 partners (members of the UN).
Is aimed at stopping terrorists from obtaining WMD by allowing states to intercept shipments.
Needs a legal framework in iternational law because international law forbids piracy.
It's the coalition of the willing,

But, it's been around for nearly 3.5 years; not enacted by Republican Congress.

Now it's a part of a Democratic bill and it's objectionable to you because it seeks the cooperation of the UN to make sure the US doesn't violate international law to protect us from terrorists getting their hands on WMD.

The flip-flopping does not make sense.

life...unencumbered by modular time concepts

international law.

Or the UN for that matter. In the history of the UN they have proven their ability to spend money, keep high end hookers employed in NYC, molest children and rape women under the protection of UN Peace Keepers.
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Bush didnt propose to put it under the United Nations. I guess our taking out terrorist via drone or air strike is murder, right?

FWIW, Bush did not propose to allow the TSA to become unionized.

a little digging and you're somewhat right...

+Bush proposed a multilateral agreement. Just somehow expects the "member states of the U.N. to prevent proliferation" according to the PSI Whitehouse Statement 9/3/04.
- the footnotes to the following Bolton interview imply UN agencies would develop the protocol (UN Conference on Disarmament)
-so unless the PSI is made a UN law/resolution, no UN members would be compelled to permit interdictions (China and Russia are not participants to the multi-lateral either)

+the Bush PSI only allows at-sea interdictions (international waters and territorial sea of signatories), and forced landing/rights denial of airplanes (soveriegn airspace or signatory's airspace). If terrorists are in non-signatory waters, land or air, your drone example does not apply to the PSI. We have the same "rights" currently without Bush's initiative.

+the drone herring: we did it in Yemen no problem - what can they do to us. The Commander-in-Chief hasn't tried it in Iran since 9/11 - lotsa terrorist there though...

-In PSI territories, the drone could sink a ship/down an airplane. I think that's fine, and don't subscribe that it's murder. Killing, not murder. Yet, justified in advance, by rule of law.

+so there's just not going to be agreement between Democrats+Bush and you. I think the UN is the forum for Bush's international, legal agreement he has been attempting - it's the first act of bipartisianship! We need cooperation of other countries, you cannot field a military big enough to bomb everywhere you want and still have enough order for a free market economy.

The question is actually: since the President and Democrats are promoting the PSI, what is your alternate plan? What real steps would you take to counter proliferation of WMD in other countries? And specifically how is it different from the above proposals?

Finally, to unions:
I support unions (particularly marriages, heh). There's no point arguing unions with you/this site. Since this site is for/about electing Republicans, I will say that the unionization issue is something you should push.

life...unencumbered by modular time concepts

Lets set a few things straight.

First of all HR 1 is NOT bipartisan, especially when it comes to these particular provisions.

Bush never did propose to put the PSI under the UN's authority. The White House briefing you posted says that the PSI is consistent with a 1992 United Nations Security Council Presidential statement and recent statements by the G8 and European Union.

This proposal outright puts the PSI up for debate and under the authority of the United Nations Security Council (which includes member states would rather us not succeed and support places like Iran and North Korea).

That would mean that even drone strikes or similar interdicting actions to stop WMD would fall to whatever the United Nations feels like. How can I say that?

Well, if you reread section 1221 it states the United States would need to work with the Security Council to AUTHORIZE the PSI and integrate it into some time of multilateral organization.

So what? Well at that point it serves the needs of those other nations and not those of the United States first and foremost. More to the point, many of those nations may not like how when or where we interdict WMD.

So no, the drone is not a herring. Talking about "fielding a large enough military to bomb everywhere is."

What would I propose? How about the PSI staying under our authority and seeking our national security interest over making some third world dictator feel safe.

Its a disaster waiting to happen.

I am not saying I agree with privatizing the TSA, because when it comes to fighting terrorism we need to make sure that corners are not cut.

The way I personally view the TSA is that it should be much like the ATF or other similar federal organization which deals with law enforcement or national security, not like a university or the air traffic controllers before Reagan.

If the TSA were to unionize I could see not only the effciency of screening going down, but the our airports becoming vastly more insecure.

Why? Because the unions would focus on fattening up employees and "protecting" individuals who probably were no more productive than someone taking a nap.

Hey, if the TSA wasnt a government organization and if we were not fighting Al Qeada then I wouldnt be so concerned about the matter.

But we are and I am.

From what I’ve been able to find, Bush proposed this in May of 2003 but apparently as a supplemental agreement to already existing non-proliferation agreements and I didn’t see anything to indicate he wanted to do this with or through the UN.

I’m not sure if I agree with Seale’s characterization of the bill as “United States would need to ask permission before interdicting illicit WMD traffic and provide our enemies in the United Nations vital national security information contained within the PSI system.” Your point about piracy being forbidden is a good one (I never took admiralty but it seems to me that if you interdict a vessel in international waters without some law or treaty authorizing you to do so, you run the risk of committing an act of piracy or even war).

I don’t see anything which would prevent us from going forward with a separate treaty among nations that agree to cooperate to prevent materials from entering or leaving their own countries (and putting economic or diplomatic pressure on others to do the same). That’s always an option AFAIK. The only difference between what Bush has proposed and this bill is that it asks the President to look at working with the UN to get a formal regime in place that would enforceable against everyone and not just the countries that join the PSI.

I don’t see that as particularly nefarious (although I generally have little regard for the UN, I don’t burst a blood vessel at the suggestion that an agreement relying on international cooperation ought to go through or be in conjunction with the UN). The advantages in doing this in addition to what we’re doing might be that (a) you get more nations involved to cooperate, (b) you have some legal basis for compelling cooperation that may not exist already, and (c) other countries who have or are considering joined will be satisfied because many of them probably want us to take this step anyways. Heck even our closest ally Britain wanted us to go to the UN before going into Iraq.

Also, this particular provision is listed as a “Sense of Congress” provision which, correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t really have the force of law behind it any more than a resolution saying “it is the sense of Congress that Hamas is responsible for the military conflict between Israel and Lebanon.” Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about this but it seems to me that this may be much ado about nothing.

I honestly dont know much about the "sense of congress" part and will need to research that a bit more. You may have a point.

Even then I find it disturbing that we would be placing a vital program like the PSI under the authoriry of the United Nations, just as the idea of turning the PSI into a "multilateral" organization.

Organizations such as the PSI must stay under our authority first and foremost. The PSI should serve the American people and our interest, not succum to the whims of international pressures which may very well do nothing more than protect dictators.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service