Friday, March 5, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Obama Finds Legal Way around The 2nd Amendment
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
By: Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT
Tue, Oct 6 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"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," Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.
A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
By: Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT
Tue, Oct 6 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"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," Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.
A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Georgia Senate Votes to Protect Citizens from being Involuntarily Implanted with a Microchip
THINK IT CAN"T HAPPEN IN THE US?
THEN WHY ARE LAWMAKERS DEALING WITH LAWS ABOUT IT???
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
ATLANTA (Feb. 4, 2010) – The Georgia State Senate today voted to protect Georgians from being involuntarily implanted with a microchip. Authored by Sen. Chip Pearson (R-Dawsonville) to uphold Georgians’ constitutional rights of protection of person and property, Senate Bill 235 also provides for penalties and lays out guidelines for voluntary implantation.
“By passing this bill, we are sending the message that Georgia is committed to upholding its citizens’ constitutional rights and protection of their person,” said Sen. Pearson. “Advances in technology are moving fast, and while most of these are for the good, we must be careful that it doesn’t come at the harm of citizens. The benefits of a microchip that can be internally implanted are also available in many external forms.”
Under the bill, no one can be required to be implanted with a microchip against their will. Microchips are considered to be any microdevice, sensor, or transmitter that is capable of transmitting or receiving information. Microchips can be used as tracking devices or to store medical information. This bill does not affect the use of pacemakers.
Anyone who violates this law by implanting a microchip in someone against their will shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in the legislation will prevent someone from being able to voluntarily have a microchip implanted. The bill also mandates that voluntary implantation of a microchip may only be performed by a physician and will be regulated by the Georgia Composite Medical Board.
Sen. Chip Pearson serves as chairman of the Economic Development Committee. He represents the 51st Senate District, which includes Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer, Lumpkin, Pickens, and Union counties and portions of Forsyth and White counties. He may be reached at 404.656.9221 or via e-mail at chip.pearson@senate.ga.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
February 4, 2010
For Information Contact:
Raegan Weber, Director
Kallarin Richards, Senior Communications Specialist
kallarin.richards@senate.ga.gov
404.656.0028
Posted February 4th, 2010 in Chip Pearson, Senate Press Release. Tagged: Senate Votes to Protect Citizens from being Involuntarily Implanted with a Microchip.
THEN WHY ARE LAWMAKERS DEALING WITH LAWS ABOUT IT???
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
ATLANTA (Feb. 4, 2010) – The Georgia State Senate today voted to protect Georgians from being involuntarily implanted with a microchip. Authored by Sen. Chip Pearson (R-Dawsonville) to uphold Georgians’ constitutional rights of protection of person and property, Senate Bill 235 also provides for penalties and lays out guidelines for voluntary implantation.
“By passing this bill, we are sending the message that Georgia is committed to upholding its citizens’ constitutional rights and protection of their person,” said Sen. Pearson. “Advances in technology are moving fast, and while most of these are for the good, we must be careful that it doesn’t come at the harm of citizens. The benefits of a microchip that can be internally implanted are also available in many external forms.”
Under the bill, no one can be required to be implanted with a microchip against their will. Microchips are considered to be any microdevice, sensor, or transmitter that is capable of transmitting or receiving information. Microchips can be used as tracking devices or to store medical information. This bill does not affect the use of pacemakers.
Anyone who violates this law by implanting a microchip in someone against their will shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in the legislation will prevent someone from being able to voluntarily have a microchip implanted. The bill also mandates that voluntary implantation of a microchip may only be performed by a physician and will be regulated by the Georgia Composite Medical Board.
Sen. Chip Pearson serves as chairman of the Economic Development Committee. He represents the 51st Senate District, which includes Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer, Lumpkin, Pickens, and Union counties and portions of Forsyth and White counties. He may be reached at 404.656.9221 or via e-mail at chip.pearson@senate.ga.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
February 4, 2010
For Information Contact:
Raegan Weber, Director
Kallarin Richards, Senior Communications Specialist
kallarin.richards@senate.ga.gov
404.656.0028
Posted February 4th, 2010 in Chip Pearson, Senate Press Release. Tagged: Senate Votes to Protect Citizens from being Involuntarily Implanted with a Microchip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
