Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND.
Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev
Concern is mounting among experts in the arena of international treaties that the Obama administration is forcing U.S. senators to ram through a new strategic arms reduction document with the Russians without fully understanding the implications or its provisions – described by critics as unverifiable, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
"(President Barack Obama's) demand that senators approve this defective accord during the few days remaining in the lame-duck session amounts to contempt of Congress," said Frank Gaffney who is president of the Center for Security Policy. "It must not be tolerated, let alone rewarded."
Critics say the treaty could "restrict" the nation's ability to defend itself, and suggest that there may be provisions Obama doesn't want members of the Senate to analyze, and possibly oppose.
Gaffney, a former acting assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, is versed in START treaties; he was involved in arms reduction negotiations during the Reagan administration.
He claims that senators have not had time to review the extensive negotiating record which reflected Russian opposition to U.S. positions while the administration decided to push for its approval anyway.
He and other critics claim that the treaty sets up a Bilateral Consultative Commission that will affect the treaty's terms materially – and make those changes without giving the Senate its constitutionally outlined advise and consent process.
The Senate requires a two-thirds vote, or approval by 67 members, before it is ratified.
Now, the Senate leadership has announced that it will hold a weekend session in an effort to ratify the treaty.
But critics are alarmed the treaty draft establishes a relationship between missile offense and missile defense, and as the U.S. shrinks its inventory of strategic nuclear weapons, it presents less latitude to beef up U.S. defenses against potential missile attacks not just from the Russians but other countries as well.
Critics are concerned that limitations in this treaty will preclude bolstering missile defenses against such countries as North Korea and Iran which are developing their own intercontinental ballistic missiles that soon could reach the U.S.
The net effect of any changes that could occur without U.S. approval would restrict U.S. missile defenses and make other reductions in U.S. nuclear deterrent forces, Gaffney said.
Other former leaders from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, along with top nuclear weapons and arms control experts, oppose the new START.
In a Dec. 13 letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, they raised objections to consideration of START, especially in a lame-duck session, given all of the issues that still persist with the treaty draft.
"It is our considered professional judgment that this treaty and the larger disarmament agenda which ratification would endorse are not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and that both should be rejected by the Senate," they wrote.