What do you know about CIFTA?

If your answer is either “not much” or “Siff-what?”, don’t feel bad - this ‘stealth’ bit of American-Rights-abdication nearly got past me, too.

“CIFTA” is the “Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms” (no, it doesn’t match – the Acronym was built around the Spanish-language version), and is billed as an international treaty intended to prevent/curtail/stop the movement of arms across international borders.

This LINK will take you to the full-text of the treaty as it’s been written.

Now, the bulk of this piece is full of such well-worn phrases as “urgent need” and “illicit trafficking”, not to mention such favorites as “terrorism” (which I thought was called ‘man-caused-disasters’ these days) and touting people’s “right to live in peace”… certainly all the sorts of ‘we can’t afford to do nothing’-talk we’ve come to expect these days.

But if I’ve learned nothing else in all my life, I’ve learned that the Devil is in the Details – and this case is no different.

This is (ordinarily) the part where I would shout “Let’s Review” and dive straight into the text of this particular assault on American sovereignty, but this time there are a few other details to be considered from outside the document and those go a long way toward creating a context for this – sort of a “consider the source” data-point, if you will – so I’m going to hit those first…

This treaty was first introduced in 1997, by the international body known as the Organization of American States (OAS) – essentially made up of ‘Every Central/South-American Country… + the US & Canada’ – and as such, includes such august pinnacles of international leadership as Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), the MercoSur Trading Bloc (Brazil… let’s be honest) and Fidel Castro (Cuba).

Wait…Cuba? Yes, as it happens – as you’ll see at the bottom of THIS page (pdf here in the event of memory-holing) :

(1). On June 3, 2009, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Americas adopted Resolution AG/RES.2438 (XXXIX-O/09) which resolves that the 1962 Resolution that excluded the Government of Cuba from its participation in the Inter-American system, ceases to have effect in the Organization of American States (OAS). The 2009 resolution states that the participation of the Republic of Cuba in the OAS will be the result of a process of dialogue initiated at the request of the Government of Cuba, and in accordance with the practices, purposes, and principles of the OAS.

…and yes, that says that “the participation of Cuba Will Be The Result…”.

Oh, and let’s not forget that second footnote there:

(2). On July 5, 2009, the Organization of American States (OAS) invoked Article 21 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, suspending Honduras from active participation in the hemispheric body. The unanimous decision was adopted as a result of the June 28 coup d’état that expelled President José Manuel Zelaya from office. Diplomatic initiatives are ongoing to foster the restoration of democracy to Honduras.

While Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama may agree with that takeaway, people actually enamored of such things as facts and legality think that the Constitution of Honduras is actually there for a reason :

“On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.”

“Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.”

“Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”

“The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.”

So - Zalaya trying to go ‘President-for-Life’ + Honduran Constitution saying ‘No’ + Honduran Supreme Court ordering Zalaya arrested in accordance with Constitution = OAS, in alignment with Chavez & Obama, suspends Honduras for “coup”.

Last piece of context:

Bill Clinton signed this ‘treaty’ in 1997 but, curiously, wasn’t able to get Congress to ratify it.

So now that we have a clear understanding of the ‘who’ involved in this piece-of-work, it’s time to move on to the ‘what’.

Let’s Review:

You don’t have to go too far to find the first objectionable bit (though I’m going to jump around a little at first, just so all of the applicable definitions are in one place):

ARTICLE I
Definitions

For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply:

1. “Illicit manufacturing”: the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.

4. “Ammunition”: the complete round or its components, including cartridge cases, primers, propellant powder, bullets, or projectiles that are used in any firearm.

“1.” + “b.” + “4.” = No reloading your own brass without a government license – you go on a list and there’s no provision there for ‘personal use’.

Next…

2. “Illicit trafficking”: the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it.

You have to look hard at this one, but the tricky part is not what it does say – but rather what it doesn’t say – and what it doesn’t say is: “Illegal” – as in ‘illegal firearms, ammunition etc., etc.’

Ostensibly, this provision would seem to have come from the ‘Office of the Redundancy Office’, since you already can’t import, export, sell, deliver or transfer illegal contraband weapons or ammunition and further, no Government would be legally able to ‘authorize’ such activities – which leaves only one remaining purpose for this piece: The institution of separate and even greater governmental authority & controls over international trade that the OAS finds objectionable.

How could that be a bad thing, or an opportunity for abuse?

Onward (yes, there’s more):

6. “Other related materials” (from #1 – Ron) : any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.

So – No making of grips, sights, scopes, balancers, slings/straps, pads, locks and No Repair/Replacement parts (which I personally would fabricate for myself out in the shop) – unless the Government says you can – again, you’ll notice no provision for ‘private use’.

Now I’m going to skip around a bit, hitting only on the more egregious parts (see how considerate I am?)

ARTICLE IV
Legislative Measures

1. States Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

2. Subject to the respective constitutional principles and basic concepts of the legal systems of the States Parties, the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses.

That says that signatories of this ‘treaty’ agree to adopt legislation to make all of the things I’ve pointed out above into criminal offenses, complete with all aiding/abetting/conspiracy applications - Ordinarily, you’d expect that sort of imperative to originate internally but, of course, this is a Brave New World, after all.

ARTICLE VII
Confiscation or Forfeiture

1. States Parties undertake to confiscate or forfeit firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials that have been illicitly manufactured or trafficked.
2. States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.

This would involve changing existing US laws that allow police auction-sales to law-abiding citizens around the country - another one ofthose unintended (?) consequences…

Here’s a part that ought to hit your “No-Duh” meter pretty hard:

ARTICLE XIII
Exchange of Information

1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on matters such as:

b. the means of concealment used in the illicit manufacturing of or trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and ways of detecting them;

c. routes customarily used by criminal organizations engaged in illicit trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;

e. techniques, practices, and legislation to combat money laundering related to illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

2. States Parties shall provide to and share with each other, as appropriate, relevant scientific and technological information useful to law enforcement, so as to enhance one another’s ability to prevent, detect, and investigate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials and prosecute those involved therein.

Okay – now is it just me, or do you see the potential ‘down-side’ to sharing all of our knowledge of concealment-techniques, smuggling-routes, money-laundering-detection, and technological advancements…

…with countries where the Government, Law Enforcement & Military are routinely corrupted by those groups most likely to exploit that information?

…and from that sense, Articles XIV (Cooperation), XV (Exchange of Experience and Training) and XVI (Technical Assistance) seem just as counter-intuitive.

But, far more than just counter-intuitive, THIS PART is a real sovereignty-killer:

ARTICLE XIX
Extradition

1. This article shall apply to the offenses referred to in Article IV of this Convention.

2. Each of the offenses to which this article applies shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offense in any extradition treaty in force between or among the States Parties. The States Parties undertake to include such offenses as extraditable offenses in every extradition treaty to be concluded between or among them.

3. If a State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it does not have an extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition with respect to any offense to which this article applies.

4. States Parties that do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize offenses to which this article applies as extraditable offenses between themselves.

5. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided for by the law of the Requested State or by applicable extradition treaties, including the grounds on which the Requested State may refuse extradition.

6. If extradition for an offense to which this article applies is refused solely on the basis of the nationality of the person sought, the Requested State Party shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution under the criteria, laws, and procedures applied by the Requested State to those offenses when they are committed in its own territory. The Requested and Requesting States Parties may, in accordance with their domestic laws, agree otherwise in relation to any prosecution referred to in this paragraph.

Chase that one back-and-forth and what you get in a nutshell is:

1) Any of the ‘offenses’ listed here will be considered ‘extraditable’ (with applicability defined by who?)

2) If you don’t have an extradition treaty with the country trying to extradite someone – this treaty counts as one.

3) If you refuse to extradite, you are required to try the case criminally in your own country (D.A.-be-damned)

Remember – we’re talking about the extradition of CITIZENS here, based on charges leveled in a foreign country that we need not even agree with, in terms of applicability…

…let that sink in for a minute.

Okay - Let’s try something – let’s say that Obama signs this and the filibuster-proof Congress actually ratifies it, since ‘we can’t afford to do nothing’ (whatever that even means).

Then let’s say that everything I’ve pointed out here turns out to be absolutely correct (or even just correct-enough) and we suddenly realize that it’s time to call this foolishness ‘quits’.

Turns out they’ve thought of that, too:

ARTICLE XXVI
Denunciation

1. This Convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but any State Party may denounce it. The instrument of denunciation shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. After six months from the date of deposit of the instrument of denunciation, the Convention shall no longer be in force for the denouncing State, but shall remain in force for the other States Parties.

2. The denunciation shall not affect any requests for information or assistance made during the time the Convention is in force for the denouncing State.

That’s right – there’s no ‘just walking away’ from this.

Oh, you can say “We’re getting the short end of this and we’ve had enough” if you want to but, as a signatory of this ‘treaty’ – “enough” will actually come Six Months Later.

And #2 … ASSURES … that you will be bled for that Six Months.

An opportunity to have US Rights criminalized, legislation dictated to us by the likes of Chavez, Castro, Morales & Zelaya, criminal prosecution directed by edict from abroad, and all wrapped in an inability to leave the ‘treaty’ should we decide we are being harmed by it…

…and that’s not even getting into the power-extension necessary for our OWN federal government under these ‘requirements’.

Oh, indeed… where DO we sign up?

- Ron

P.S. - On the chance that you’re thinking “Well, just like Clinton, Obama can sign it - but that doesn’t mean that Congress has to ratify it.”

…doesn’t mean Congress has to ratify it…

Yeah - That very notion seems to have already occurred to Obama earlier this year… he doesn’t seem to think that Congress ‘has to ratify’ treaties either.