Sep 262013
 

Yesterday John Kerry signed an treaty purporting to control the international small weapons trade.  I think such a treaty is desperately needed to lessen the needless deaths from genocide and war crimes.  I have an article here, that explains the treaty quite well, but it fails explain that it’s all for show.

25John-KerryUS Secretary of State John Kerry will this week sign the first global treaty to regulate the $80 billion annual trade in conventional arms, seeking to stem the flow of weapons used in war crimes and genocide.

A source familiar with the diplomatic maneuvers confirmed to AFP that Kerry would sign the treaty on Wednesday after it was adopted earlier this year by the United Nations to regulate trade in tanks, armored combat vehicles, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, missiles as well as small arms.

The treaty, which has been years in the making, was only adopted after tough negotiations at the United Nations. The talks had deadlocked last year after the United States asked for more time to pour over the draft text.

Kerry praised the adoption of the treaty in saying it was “strong, effective and implementable” and insisted it would not infringe on the US Constitution and the Second Amendment right to bear arms…

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Here’s the problem.  In order to be ratified, it needs 2/3 of the Senate or 67 votes.  If 34 Senators vote against it, it fails.  Unfortunately 35 senators have already signed a resolution to outlaw this treaty. They include 33 Republicans and two other goose-steppers: Max “BARF” Baucus (DINO-MT), who helped Republicans weaken ObamaCare, and Joe Manchin (DINO-WV), hostage to Gun and Coal manufacturers.  The current Republican conspiracy theory is that this treaty is socialist plot to take away their guns.  Of course the real reason is that the same gun manufacturers who insist that anyone be able to purchase guns, even those forbidden by law to do so, also demand the right of terrorists and militias, foreign or domestic, to buy guns.  It’s all about blood money.

Share

  10 Responses to “The Arms Control Treaty That Isn’t”

  1. Treaties are all well and good but the signers have to abide by them in order to be effective. An what of the nations who don't sign?

  2. Anything good can be derailed by evil and indifference…. sigh!

  3.  If 34 Senators vote against it, it fails.  Unfortunately 35 senators have already signed a resolution to outlaw this treaty.

    The treaty, which has been years in the making, will be derailed by the G-NO-P. sigh

  4. So this is just another waste of the taxpayers money.  I am almost starting to wish that I could ignore all tis and just watch Entertainment Tonight. 

  5. "…the pact only referred to “international trade, and reaffirms the sovereign right of any state to regulate arms within its territory.”"

    There has been more than enough time to review the treaty.  Before the ratification vote, all members of the Senate (I believe the Senate is the one that ratifies treaties for the US) should have personally read the treaty and prepared any questions to bring up in the debate.  This should be a bipartisan vote, not a "blacktracing" vote.

    "It would also “help reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes, including terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.”"

    I wonder, if another terrorist attack were launched against US interests by terrorists using US made weapons purchased directly from a US weapons manufacturer, what would be the fallout from such a situation?

    At the very least, Republicanus/Teabaggers would be filled with such vitriole and pointing at the administration's perceived ineptitude.  They would never take responsibility for their own role, that of not ratifying an arms treaty that may have made a difference.

    Again, we see that profits trump people!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.