The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 4 of 11)

Sadly, Mr. Lerner and others who have the sense to see what's coming with LOST, it appears that our Senate does not.

p>I wrote to both of my Senators with reasons to not vote to ratify. One answered with a short form letter saying that he would keep my thoughts in mind. The other answered with a long form letter br> obviously written by some research group, repeating the history of the treaty. /p>

I responded to the latter and asked him about one particular part of his response -- "accession to the treaty would not result in any changes to current U.S. domestic or foreign policy" and asked him these questions:

"1. Is the following clause not in the treaty: participating states, 'shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards applied through competent international organizations'?" [It's in the treaty several times, by the way.]

"2. Will not application of that clause require us to adopt laws and regulations because of the treaty, and, as a result, require the very "changes in current U.S. domestic or foreign policy" that you say will not result?

"3. And will not application of that clause require those changes whenever a "competent international organization" requires it?

"4. Would not such a requirement invade our sovereignty?"

This was his first answer: "Your message has been received by my office and will be carefully reviewed by a member of my staff." At least the other Senator used the first person singular.

His second answer will be his vote to ratify.

p>If I added to this letter the rest of what I want to say, you wouldn't print it. br> -- A. C. Santore /p>

topics:
Foreign Policy, Trade, John McCain, Business, Islam, Books, Law, Iran, Israel, NATO, Socialism, Fascism, Energy, Oil