[SoConPubbie]

Well, at least Mr. Keyes never supported the Law of the Sea Treaty. In fact, he was part of the Reagan foreign policy team that killed that sovereignty-killing monster back in the Eighties.

So, do you support LOST?

Yea, the LOST treaty is so much worse than supporting Reparations for Blacks.

Stop being a hypocrite EV.

As far as supporting LOST is concerned, I have not read up on it enough to fully understand it's impacts and the Pros and Cons.

My understanding, and it is a very surface understanding, is that it cedes some sovereignty, if that is the case, I am against it.

Furthermore, the last time Sarah said anything about the LOST Treaty was when she was a VP candidate for John McCain, and as you, and any other intelligent American Citizen knows, when you are VP, you publicly support the POTUS on his positions, period, even if you disagree with him on the issue.

So there is a bit of disenguous behaviour on your part on this issue where Sarah is concerned.

[EternalVigilance]

Actually, her support for LOST was official support, on Alaska state gubernatorial letterhead. It had nothing to do with the McCain campaign.

And you’re doing nothing more than trying to deflect the matter.

[Al B.]

As far as supporting LOST is concerned, I have not read up on it enough to fully understand it's impacts and the Pros and Cons.

There are plenty of pros and cons. The U.S. Navy, for instance, has supported ratification of LOST since it was negotiated in the late '70s and further negotiated during the Reagan Administration. Their position is that it codifies very favorable "customary practices" as it relates to access to certain territorial waters to keep sea lanes open.

There are sound reasons to oppose this treaty and, on balance, I'm against it as long as we are willing to protect undersea resources (that the treaty grants to us as "ours") whether we are a signatory or not.

This was Palin's concern as governor of Alaska and she had every reason to be concerned about it with 25% of the undeveloped oil & gas reserves on the planet sitting off the coast in interrnational waters in what would have been the "Exclusive Economic Zone" of the U.S. under the treaty, and with Russia and others chomping at the bit to get at these resources while we do nothing to develop or protect them.

My understanding, and it is a very surface understanding, is that it cedes some sovereignty, if that is the case, I am against it.

John Bolton testified before the Senate in confirmation hearings on April 11, 2005. Here's the relevant portion on LOST sovereignty and taxation. It's Bolton's take:

LUGAR: [D]o you see any potential entanglement of the United States with the Law of the Sea Treaty and loss of sovereignty to the U.N. or to any other world body?

BOLTON: No, I don't see that the Law of the Sea Treaty implicates the United Nations in any material respect. And those that have gone over the question of the seabed conclude there's no risk of taxation or anything like that.

That's what he said. He has since turned against the treaty and I think his current reasoning is sound. He has said nothing further that I'm aware of to amend his 2005 position on sovereignty and taxation.

The U.N doesn't even administer this treaty but the treaty DOES set up international tribunals to arbitrate seabed disputes. As the only major power not to ratify the treaty, we don't participate. Fine by me, but we must assert our rights to seabed resources that are ours. This was Governor Palin's concern. Presidential candidate Sarah Palin might very well "revise and extend" her position.; Maybe she'll station a couple of carrier battle groups in the Aleutians to protect the resources...LOL.

As I said, I'm opposed to the thing on balance, but the Navy and others disagree. There are plenty of pros and cons but it's extremely easy to demagogue this thing and that's exactly what's going on here.