Warning: LOST again (Law of the Seas Treaty)

One of the first questions asked of Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearing, came from Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Richard Lugar. He asked her if the administration would support ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty. Her answer was an unequivocal "yes."

Before he popped the question, with TV cameras running, Lugar said that claims by critics that the treaty would result in the loss of national sovereignty, and that the treaty authorized the UN to collect taxes--were false.

"... sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law."

The exercise of sovereignty over territorial seas--subject to any authority other than the Congress of the United States--is a loss of sovereignty, which cannot be denied.

Moreover, section XI of the Convention establishes the International Seabed Authority, which has the power to collect an "application fee," from anyone wishing to mine the seabed, as well as the authority to collect a "royalty," based on the value of minerals mined from the seabed.

Mr. Lugar does not call this a tax. Whatever it may be called, whenever government has the power to require payment from individuals or from corporations--it is a tax.

These are only two of the many reasons why this treaty should not be ratified by the United States. There is literally no benefit provided by this treaty to the United States that is not already available--without the entanglement of the UN.

So then I suppose that Japaneese and Russian fleets have unlimited rights to fish for cod in the Grand Banks in international waters with factory trawlers?

Spend more tiem worrying about the black helicoptors circling overhead and the cryptic messages scrawled on the back sides of roadsigns telling the U.N. troops which way to invade, and less time worrying about countries trying to co-exist on this planet with the establishment of international law.

If it makes you feel any better, we still have the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as the ultimate veto over anything we disapprove of in international courts.

"Sorry, yo-yo, but we don't need international law."

Any guess how airplanes from all over the world are allowed to safely land in each others country?

Any idea how ships enter ports and goods move all over the world?

How does the money denominated in different currencies move internationally?

How is it your pc is able to access a newspaper in England?

My guess something is working.

"Those things you mentioned work because we AGREE with other countries on those things"

Not necessarily. We may very well DISAGREE but we assent to the "regulation" because the benefits out weighthe dissent.

To those ends the UN or other organizations are a republican form of representation where each country state has thier input. Far from a Coumminist cenralized gov't.

Now if you'd like to argue that some two bit dictator run bassackwards third world country shouldn't have a vote that carries the same weight as the US and other industrialized countries, I'd agree.

I'm not familier with this treaty of this article but I am familiar with SOLAS - Safety of Life at Sea, an int'l treaty.

The IMO, Int'l Maritime Org. and Solas grew out of ....

The concept of IMO was born after the RMS Titanic disaster. By modern standards, the design of the Titanic made her appallingly vulnerable. Her "watertight" bulkheads, by design, did not extend all the way to the overhead because the engineers, in their infinite wisdom, calculated that it was impossible for the ship to take on a trim or list sufficient for water to cascade over their tops if the bulkheads were of a certain height.

When Titanic struck the iceberg, these calculations were proven dismally incorrect. When people began abandoning ship, it became obvious that not nearly enough lifeboats were available. Many lives and much money were lost in this tragedy.

Up until that time, each nation had made its own rules about ship design, construction, and safety equipment. The "International Maritime Consulting Organization" was formed in response to the Titanic event, but was "put on the back burner" when World War I broke out. After the war ended, IMCO was revived and produced a group of regulations concerning shipbuilding and safety called "Safety Of Life At Sea"..."SOLAS". Through the years, SOLAS has been modified and upgraded to adapt to changes in technology and lessons learned.

What do you think? Good idea or not?

Basic maritime design standards for saftey issued by an international body is one thing; I'm doing construction management work and the code book we and the building inspectors are now using is international in its origin; this treaty is something else entirely.

And I am ashamed that Senator Lugar is from my state. I have not voted for the SOB for some time (he's been in DeeCee way too long), but most everybody here thinks he's fine, so what to do?

Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearing, came from Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Richard Lugar. He asked her if the administration would support ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty. Her answer was an unequivocal "yes."

WHAT'S UP WITH THIS...will the Bush administration support ratification of LOST after Reagan wouldn't hear of it!!!! Do 'WE THE PEOPLE' NOT have any say in this?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.