LOST

[Tigermike 3,029]

Law of the Sea Traty

Are you for or against? What are your thoughts? What is the truth?

Just because more than 140 nations have ratified the Law of the Sea treaty, is that reason enough for the United States to ratify? The treaty governs use of the world's oceans and addresses issues including navigation, use of airspace, exploitation of ocean resources, and protection of the marine environment. But it also curtails freedom of the sea. It would place management and control with the United Nations. If they do as well with that as they have done with Iraq and the Oil for Food Scam, then I would have to say no to ratification.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (commonly known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST) that Ronald Reagan refused to sign is exactly the same treaty as the one the Senate is being asked to approve today. It has not been amended or otherwise formally altered since 1982. To be sure, President Clinton reached an accord called “The Agreement” in 1994 that purports to address some of President Reagan’s concerns. Since the Agreement does not actually replace or modify the relevant sections of LOST, however, the Treaty is still fatally flawed and objectionable on national security, sovereignty and legal grounds.

One of the most important post-9/11 efforts made to counter terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction is President Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Dozens of nations have agreed to join in monitoring and, if necessary, intercepting and boarding ships on the high seas in the event they are suspected of engaging in one or both of these threatening activities.

Unfortunately, LOST does not provide for these as reasons which one can under the Treaty engage in such interceptions. To the contrary, LOST establishes that the transport of arms is a perfectly legitimate activity.

Moreover, several nations – among them China and India – have already said they consider PSI to be illegal under LOST. And it is a safe bet that, if the United States becomes subject to this treaty, PSI will be taken up by the Law of the Sea Tribunal and almost certainly will be found to violate the Treaty. Such an outcome would, of course, be completely contrary to our national security interests and unacceptable.

link

AGAINST

Law of the Sea Treaty threatens sovereignty

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weyrich/041123

The Law of the Sea: A Crossroads for American Foreign Policy

link

Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-12-04.html

Law of the Sea Treaty Is Stealth Back-Door Effort to Implement the Global Warming Treaty; Anti-War Pacifist Group Had Behind-the-Scenes Role in Drafting the Pact

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck020705.shtml

WHY WE MUST STOP THE

UNITED NATIONS LAW OF THE SEA TREATY NOW!

http://www.scamsandscandals.com/NoUNSeaTreaty.htm

Opportunity Knocking: Defeat Law Of The Sea Treaty

link

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R.-ALA.): I don't plan to vote for it. I don't think it's critical. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I've not seen a lot of big, critical issues that would be solved by it. I mean, you could conjure up things that might happen way out in the future, but they haven't happened yet. We're talking, virtually, about an international tax. And I'm not for international taxation. We'll have to look at it carefully. I would hope the President wouldn't bring it up or push for it, but he may.

It's something the Reagan Administration vigorously opposed. Why now do you think there has been a change of heart?

SESSIONS: They [the Bush Administration] contend-I don't think totally accurately-that the objections that Reagan had have all been resolved in this treaty. I don't think that's quite correct. And I'm sure President Reagan didn't list every objection that he had. They listed some of the ones he thought were most egregious-and probably would suffice to say no to the treaty-but basically, Reagan opposed the treaty. I don't know why we've got to do this. I just don't see any reason yet.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...502/ai_n9521991

FOR

Right Wing Threatens to Scuttle the Oceans Treaty

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=92863

[WarTim 3,456]

Scuttle "right wing" SCUTTLE ! ! !

[AURaptor 1,125]

Send it to the briney deep!

[Tigermike 3,029]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH LOST?

On the surface, there are some short-sighted benefits to LOST, but there are more -- very big -- catches...

LOST will give the United Nations sole power to issue permits for fishing, drilling and mining operations at sea. Basically the United Nations will be able to collect exorbitant fees and taxes from companies that want to mine and drill at sea -- fees that will be passed on to each and every one of us.

LOST will give the United Nations sole power to levy taxes and impose production quotas on mining and oil production. And because the United Nations will be able to tell companies how much they are allowed to produce, the very next gasoline shortage can and may be caused by a group of rogue Third World nations literally cutting off our oil supply.

LOST will give the United Nations sole power to establish international courts and other agencies to enforce its dictates. The United Nations will be able to set up "kangaroo courts" to punish any American company that does not comply with its arbitrary rules.

Provisions in LOST mandate that the United States must share certain technologies with other countries. These technologies could include some of our military secrets.

[AURaptor 1,125]

LOST will give the United Nations sole power to establish international courts and other agencies to enforce its dictates. The United Nations will be able to set up "kangaroo courts" to punish any American company that does not comply with its arbitrary rules.

In light of the Food for Oil scam, it's not a stretch by any means to see how a corrupt UN 'Court' could arbitrarily fleece anyone/ everyone who find their way into their jurisdiction. Pay up, or else.

No thanks