Law of the Sea Treaty Balances U.S. and World Interests

US Senate ^ | April 2004 | Senator Luger

[PghBaldy]

I searched for this, couldn't find it - there are other threads about the President possibly planning on bringing this up again. I hope he doesn't.

[Uri’el-2012]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832878/posts

[Quix]

Another power grab by the globalists

eroding our sovereignty and giving the world court more power over the USA and it’s citizens

as well as eroding advantages we have had for decades.

[sageb1]

Law of the Sea = bad.

[taxesareforever]

Ah, the U.S. giving up more of our sovereign rights. It stinks.

[Bonaparte]

This is one of those things that has made it so hard for me to respect Bush and Cheney, who both support this abandonment of American sovereignty and wealth.

[ScaniaBoy]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832878/posts

That’s a great thread and a must read. The treaty, aptly named LOST, is another power grab by the tranzies (trans nationals) which includes granting the International Seabed Authority the power to tax.

It is interesting to compare Sen Lugars comments regarding Reagan with post #13 on the thread above:

“The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was a terrible idea when President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and fired the State Department staff who helped to negotiate it.”

[marron]

Our armed forces rely on the ability to navigate freely on, over, and under the world’s oceans to protect U.S. security interests worldwide. The convention reinforces U.S. national security by preserving the rights of navigation and overflight across the world's oceans... UNCLOS advances U.S. economic interests by enshrining the right of the United States to explore and develop the living and nonliving resources of the oceans.

We have those rights now. Signing a treaty implies that without the treaty, we wouldn't have those rights. We have them with or without a treaty.

This is just a move by the Liliputians to tie us down, creating a layer of law where no layer of law is needed, and an authority where none is needed.

[Man50D]

The Bush administration supports ratification and is joined in that position by a leading member of the U.S. Senate.

The President is sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of The United States. Ceding at least part of our sovereignty to a worldwide order is a violation of his oath.

Existing U.S. laws for the protection of rare and fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species are already consistent with UNCLOS.

It would be redundant and unnecessary for the U.S. to be part of an organization whose regulations are the same as our laws.

[mkjessup]

I am more in favor of the United Nations Convention on Moving the U.N. Headquarters Out To Sea.

Boats are available, and as Charles Lichtenstein said oh-so-well in 1983, “The members of the U.S. mission to the United Nations will be down at the dockside waving you a fond farewell as you sail off into the sunset.”

[philman_36]

Senators hear how UN Law of the Sea Treaty will cripple national security March 25, 2004
Advocates of a United Nations treaty that would severely erode US sovereignty and national security were stealthily trying to push the measure through the Senate - until Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma invited Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney and former treaty negotiator Peter Leitner to tear the treaty apart.
With the Bush Administration focused on fighting terrorism, arms-controllers within the bureaucracy have been working quietly with their allies in the Senate to ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) without the proper vetting from senior officials appointed by the president. In a recent meeting with conservative leaders, President Bush, when asked, said he new nothing about the treaty.

Flawed Sea Treaty Rises from the Deep February 25, 2004
President Ronald Reagan refused to sign it 22 years ago, and the Senate refused to ratify after President Bill Clinton signed it 12 years later. But it's back, says national security expert Frank Gaffney Jr.: the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is on the agenda of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).

Looks like it's rising again.

[philman_36]

Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent Passage
The "right of innocent passage" is the right of any nation's ships to traverse continuously and expeditiously through the territorial waters of a coastal nation, subject to certain conditions.1 Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, such passage is conditioned on passing in a manner that isn't threatening to "sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence" or the "good order and security" of that nation.
By this definition, if the Law of the Sea Treaty was a ship, it would fail to qualify.
That's because there are serious flaws in the treaty that - if U.S. ratified the treaty - could place U.S. sovereignty, security and political independence in doubt.
This analysis of the Law of the Sea Treaty will focus on the threats to political independence, particularly as they relate to environmental policy, and to threats to security.

Pirates of the High Seas: Robbing with the Law of the Sea Treaty
Study urges Senate to reject the treaty as not in the American interest
A new study by the Cato Institute argues forcefully against the US Senate ratifying an international measure that would allow the United Nations (UN) to subject navigation and seabed to questionable international control.
According to the study, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which the UN has been urging the US to pass since the 1980s, would discourage resource and mineral development and wouldn't help the US and allies to intercept shipments of weapons of mass destruction.

Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty! March 7, 2005
Conservative Americans who consider George W. Bush a champion of national sovereignty have been shocked to learn that the president seeks Senate ratification of the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Despite the Senate's refusal thus far to ratify the treaty, it went into effect in 1995, and elements of the vast regulatory apparatus it outlines are already in operation. When fully implemented, LOST would consummate the largest act of territorial conquest in history, turning seven-tenths of the Earth's surface over to the jurisdiction of the United Nations. It would create a mammoth bureaucracy to regulate exploration of the ocean depths and commercial development of the seabed's riches. The UN would also be empowered to collect royalties on seabed mining, thereby providing the world body with a potentially enormous independent source of revenue to fund its agenda for "global governance."

!NUTS (!snoitaN detinU ehT wercS)

[philman_36]

Something else I'm sure you're familiar with and where your 'big ping list' [;^)] might help.

[Ben Ficklin]

"In addition, the convention accords the coastal nation sovereign rights over the continental shelf within and beyond the EEZ, where the geologic margin so extends."

The US has extensively mapped the shelf over the last 25 years. Consider the amount of shelf the US will not be able to claim without signing the treaty and who will claim that shelf if the US doesn't.

[editor-surveyor]

We don’t need no steeenking sovereignty...

[RightWhale]

The earth is pretty much all claimed. However, the greater universe is not, except the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty extends sovereignty to the Hubbble limit if not beyond and effectively precludes development of the practically unlimited off-earth resources .

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[JB in Whitefish]

New World Order, here we COME....!!!

Think Globally, Act STUPID.

[Zon]

This is just a move by the Liliputians to tie us down, creating a layer of law where no layer of law is needed, and an authority where none is needed.

That's great.

[ChildOfThe60s]

I called both my KY Senators and politely told them that the treaty was bad twice.
1-Bad for the country
2-Bad for the Republican party. The party base has had it with giving away US sovereignty and security. Crap on anyone enough and eventually they will quit even bothering to vote against the Rats. Forget even voting for Republicans.