The Law of the Sea Treaty = LOST sovereignty

American_Jihad

Flaming Libs/Koranimals
May 1, 2012
11,534
3,715
350
Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
Law of the Sea Treaty once again rears its ugly head in U.S. Senate

Friday, May 18 2012
By Steven Groves
The Heritage Foundation

Summary A proposed treaty would redirect countless U.S. dollars to an international organization that could then redistribute that money to corrupt developing countries around the world.

That's what will surely happen if the U.S. Senate gives its advice and consent to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a deeply flawed treaty that was rejected by President Ronald Reagan in 1982. (The treaty was revived by President Clinton, who sent it to the Senate in 1994. It has languished there ever since.)

Like a vampire, the Law of the Sea Treaty (a.k.a. "LOST") is never quite dead. It rises from the grave every few years for Senate hearings, as it has done in 1994, 2003 and 2007. And so it is again in 2012. The Obama administration is pushing for Senate action on the treaty, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is currently scheduling a series of hearings to extol the purported benefits of LOST, the first of which is set for May 23.

Of course, the vampire must feed, and its sustenance is American dollars, sucked out of the U.S. Treasury by a provision of LOST known as Article 82. If the U.S. joins LOST, it will be required by Article 82 to forfeit royalties generated from oil and gas development on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — an area known as the "extended continental shelf" (ECS).

Currently, oil companies pay 100 percent of the royalties generated from such development to the U.S. Treasury based on the value of oil and natural gas extracted from the Gulf of Mexico and in the Arctic Ocean. The Treasury retains a part of those royalties, and the remainder is divided between Gulf states and the National Historic Preservation Fund.

But under LOST, the United States would be forced to transfer a part of that revenue to the International Seabed Authority, a new international bureaucracy created by the treaty and based in Jamaica. Voila! What was once income paid into the Treasury for the benefit of the American people is transformed into "international royalties" by LOST. To borrow a phrase from former presidential candidate Ross Perot, that "giant sucking sound" you hear is American dollars heading from Washington to Kingston.

Unfortunately no one will hear about Article 82 at the May 23rd hearing. That's because Sen. Kerry is permitting testimony only from witnesses who already favor LOST: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey.

No Abraham Van Helsing, ahem, opposition witnesses have been invited to testify. After all, it is in the interests of those who favor U.S. membership in LOST that the treaty not be exposed to direct sunlight.

Law of the Sea Treaty once again rears its ugly head in U.S. Senate | Deseret News

Law of the Sea Treaty

Read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty here.
 
Last edited:
Hatch: Law of the Sea Treaty will sink the economy

May 23, 2012 By Rick Moran


This Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has got to be stopped if what Senator Orrin Hatch says about it is true.


Under the guise of being for "the good of mankind, " LOST would obligate the United States to share information and technology in what amounts to global taxes and technology transfer requirements that are really nothing more than an attempt to redistribute U.S. wealth to the Third World.

At the center of these taxes and transfers is the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a Kingston, Jamaica based supra-national governing body established by the treaty for the purpose of redistributing cash and technology from the "developed world" to the "developing world."


To make matters worse, the US would have no control over how or to whom the taxes and technology would be redistributed.


I doubt very much whether LOST is "for the good of mankind." Sounds like it would be good for some and crap for others - including us.

This treaty should be deep sixed.


Read more: Blog: Hatch: Law of the Sea Treaty will sink the economy


WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and military leaders implored conservative Republicans on Wednesday to approve a long-spurned high seas treaty, saying it would create jobs, open a new path to oil, gas and other resources and bolster national security.

Clinton, military leaders press Senate to finally OK sea treaty, but no election-year vote set - The Washington Post
 
Under the guise of being for "the good of mankind, " LOST would obligate the United States to share information and technology in what amounts to global taxes and technology transfer requirements that are really nothing more than an attempt to redistribute U.S. wealth to the Third World.

At the center of these taxes and transfers is the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a Kingston, Jamaica based supra-national governing body established by the treaty for the purpose of redistributing cash and technology from the "developed world" to the "developing world."


To make matters worse, the US would have no control over how or to whom the taxes and technology would be redistributed.


I doubt very much whether LOST is "for the good of mankind." Sounds like it would be good for some and crap for others - including us.

This treaty should be deep sixed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you go 200 miles out, aren't you in international waters? So why would the money go to us, when that's not even US territory.

If you're so concerned about our tax dollars being spent abroad, what about the 1 trillion tax dollars we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and got virtually nothing in return?
 
Past the 200 mile out international law rules so what is the problem?

If you really wanted to save money you would stop supporting globalization and endless war.
 
Past the 200 mile out international law rules so what is the problem?

If you really wanted to save money you would stop supporting globalization and endless war.

A closer reading of the treaty needs to be done. My understanding was all waters off our coasts fall under it. Plus, what gives the President the right to prevent us from drilling in international waters and require private companies to turn over their technology to whomever wants it? Answer me that?
 
If this treaty passes, it has the same effect as a Constitutional amendment and you'll never get rid of it.
 
Under the guise of being for "the good of mankind, " LOST would obligate the United States to share information and technology in what amounts to global taxes and technology transfer requirements that are really nothing more than an attempt to redistribute U.S. wealth to the Third World.

At the center of these taxes and transfers is the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a Kingston, Jamaica based supra-national governing body established by the treaty for the purpose of redistributing cash and technology from the "developed world" to the "developing world."


To make matters worse, the US would have no control over how or to whom the taxes and technology would be redistributed.


I doubt very much whether LOST is "for the good of mankind." Sounds like it would be good for some and crap for others - including us.

This treaty should be deep sixed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you go 200 miles out, aren't you in international waters? So why would the money go to us, when that's not even US territory.

You are indeed in international waters. All failure to sign this treaty does is limit our ability to have our voice heard in certain international forums regarding sea rights in the Arctic, etc.

The reason we didn't sign it when it was written was due to a dispute over the mining language, which was ultimately amended in the way we wanted. That's why every living President except Carter is on record as being in favor of the treaty. Every Republican Secretary of State cosigned an Op-Ed in favor of the treaty as well.


This is why the current President, as well as the last three Presidents.
 
Past the 200 mile out international law rules so what is the problem?

If you really wanted to save money you would stop supporting globalization and endless war.

A closer reading of the treaty needs to be done. My understanding was all waters off our coasts fall under it. Plus, what gives the President the right to prevent us from drilling in international waters and require private companies to turn over their technology to whomever wants it? Answer me that?

All waters off our coast fall under the treaty in the sense that the treaty affirms our rights to the areas between 3 and 200 nautical miles off the coast.
 
Morning Bell: The Danger of Article 82 and Obama’s Latest Treaty

Mike Brownfield
May 22, 2012

---

In addition to shipping America’s money overseas to unsavory recipients, LOST could have other negative consequences, as well, by exposing U.S. industry and manufacturing to baseless international lawsuits. In fact, environmental activists and international legal academics are actively exploring the potential of using international litigation against the United States to advance their agendas. And for those who say LOST is a tool for mediating international disputes, take a look at the Philippines, which signed on to the treaty and yet today is finding itself browbeaten by China and its claims in the South China Sea.

If America truly wants to preserve its rights on the sea, then it needs to bolster the one tool that has guaranteed those rights throughout history — a strong U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, under President Obama’s watch, the United States is seeing its fleet diminished in size and ability. A lone piece of paper will not defend America’s interests on the sea, and neither will transferring billions of dollars to an international authority in Jamaica for redistribution the world over. LOST should not be ratified and signed, and instead Washington should turn its attention to ensuring that the U.S. Navy has the resources it needs to protect America’s interests on the high seas.



The Danger of Article 82 and the Law of the Sea Treaty

This clown show is on C-Span...

:eek:
 
Last edited:
Our fleet is being "diminished in size" because our ships have more functions today.
 
Past the 200 mile out international law rules so what is the problem?

If you really wanted to save money you would stop supporting globalization and endless war.

A closer reading of the treaty needs to be done. My understanding was all waters off our coasts fall under it. Plus, what gives the President the right to prevent us from drilling in international waters and require private companies to turn over their technology to whomever wants it? Answer me that?

All waters off our coast fall under the treaty in the sense that the treaty affirms our rights to the areas between 3 and 200 nautical miles off the coast.

I'm sure it does.

One thing is clear, nothing this president does internationally benefits the United States.
 
A closer reading of the treaty needs to be done. My understanding was all waters off our coasts fall under it. Plus, what gives the President the right to prevent us from drilling in international waters and require private companies to turn over their technology to whomever wants it? Answer me that?

All waters off our coast fall under the treaty in the sense that the treaty affirms our rights to the areas between 3 and 200 nautical miles off the coast.

I'm sure it does.

One thing is clear, nothing this president does internationally benefits the United States.

Then don't take this president's word for it. Take the word of the last three men to sit in the Oval Office. Or every living Secretary of State in Republican adminstrations.
 
This is Lugar's Last gasp. He's been trying to get this passed since Reagan told him know in the 1980s.
 
Hatch: Law of the Sea Treaty will sink the economy

May 23, 2012 By Rick Moran


This Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has got to be stopped if what Senator Orrin Hatch says about it is true.


Under the guise of being for "the good of mankind, " LOST would obligate the United States to share information and technology in what amounts to global taxes and technology transfer requirements that are really nothing more than an attempt to redistribute U.S. wealth to the Third World.

At the center of these taxes and transfers is the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a Kingston, Jamaica based supra-national governing body established by the treaty for the purpose of redistributing cash and technology from the "developed world" to the "developing world."


To make matters worse, the US would have no control over how or to whom the taxes and technology would be redistributed.


I doubt very much whether LOST is "for the good of mankind." Sounds like it would be good for some and crap for others - including us.

This treaty should be deep sixed.


Read more: Blog: Hatch: Law of the Sea Treaty will sink the economy


WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and military leaders implored conservative Republicans on Wednesday to approve a long-spurned high seas treaty, saying it would create jobs, open a new path to oil, gas and other resources and bolster national security.

Clinton, military leaders press Senate to finally OK sea treaty, but no election-year vote set - The Washington Post


Lost Sovereignty?

The United States has sovereignty over all of the oceans of the world?

That's news to me!
 
Past the 200 mile out international law rules so what is the problem?

If you really wanted to save money you would stop supporting globalization and endless war.

A closer reading of the treaty needs to be done. My understanding was all waters off our coasts fall under it. Plus, what gives the President the right to prevent us from drilling in international waters and require private companies to turn over their technology to whomever wants it? Answer me that?

I found this in a search:

Of the 47 Republican senators how come only 27 signed the letter? Where the hell are the other 20? Notable among the missing 20 are John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. I should say 18 because Lugar and Snowe will certainly vote to ratify.

As it stands now opponents of the LOST need 7 votes to stop ratification.

Reid has a sure 53 Democrats, two independents, and two known-RINO. That means Hussein & Company need 10 more votes to ratify. The worst part is that the election in November won’t change the numbers in time.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/225605-united-nations-taxing-authority.html
 
this thing has been discussed since Reagan, but you think it is Obama that is trying to pass the treaty? Well guess what, this treaty is nothing new and will never pass Senatoral muster.
 
this thing has been discussed since Reagan, but you think it is Obama that is trying to pass the treaty? Well guess what, this treaty is nothing new and will never pass Senatoral muster.

I disagree. The salience of the issues involved have changed in a manner than favors ratification and only real debate on the issue was during the Reagan admin, when we had significant issues with some clauses (all of which have been changed to our favored position).
 
We have to rely on the Republicans in the Senate to quash this with fillibuster, and it will not have a chance in the next senate. One US Senator, our recently defeated Lugar lobbied for it, and he will be gone. His support of it was a big reason he was defeated in the May primary. They are trying to get it passed before he and other supporters (and even Obama/Panetta) are thrown out of office.
 
August 27, 2012

Inhofe opposes UN treaty

James Coburn
The Edmond Sun The Edmond Sun Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:13 PM CDT

EDMOND — This year’s failure of the Law of the Sea Treaty is nothing new to Congress. Former President Ronald Reagan blocked the treaty in 1982.

President Barack Obama’s hopes for ratifying the treaty sank in July when both U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn were among the 34 Republican senators in opposition to the treaty. The 34 signatures are enough to keep the treaty from being ratified this year because 67 Senate votes are needed to ratify a treaty.

The Law of the Sea Treaty would give jurisdiction of 70 percent of the earth’s surface and air above it to the United Nations, Inhofe told The Edmond Sun.

“For the first time in the history of America it would give a multi-national group, the United Nations, the power to tax American people,” Inhofe said. “To me, that alone is reason to oppose this.”

Royalties paid by offshore energy companies to the U.S. would go to instead to the UN, Inhofe said.

---
Inhofe opposes UN treaty » Local News » The Edmond Sun

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murkowski hopeful on passing Law of the Sea treaty

Posted: August 17, 2012 - 12:05am By Dan Joling
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Murkowski hopeful on passing Law of the Sea treaty
Dan Joling

August 17, 2012 12:05 AM EDT

ANCHORAGE — Melting summer sea ice is opening up the Arctic Ocean to commercial opportunities but the United States could miss them if it doesn’t sign the Law of the Sea treaty, according to U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

The Alaska Republican hopes the Senate will vote to sign the treaty during the lame duck session following the November election.

The treaty sets up a system for resolving disputes in international waters. It has been around since the Reagan administration, and 162 countries have signed on.

“This is a treaty that I believe very strongly will contribute not only to our national security, but will allow us a level of certainly in accessing our resources in the north,” Murkowski said Wednesday. The Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate — 67 votes — to ratify a treaty.

---

Murkowski hopeful on passing Law of the Sea treaty | Juneau Empire - Alaska's Capital City Online Newspaper
 

Forum List

Back
Top