The Law of the Sea Treaty = LOST sovereignty

Discussion in 'Congress' started by American_Jihad, May 21, 2012.

  1. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,634
    Thanks Received:
    1,902
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +3,249
    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: May 22, 2012
  2. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,634
    Thanks Received:
    1,902
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +3,249
    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


    [​IMG]
    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
     
  3. Billo_Really
    Offline

    Billo_Really Litre of the Band

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    21,907
    Thanks Received:
    1,786
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Long Beach, Ca
    Ratings:
    +3,261
    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?
     
  4. jack113
    Offline

    jack113 Jack

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    311
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +46
    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.
     
  5. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,258
    Thanks Received:
    11,923
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,194
    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?
     
  6. MuadDib
    Offline

    MuadDib He's called The Stig

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    962
    Thanks Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +258
    If this treaty passes, it has the same effect as a Constitutional amendment and you'll never get rid of it.
     
  7. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    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.
     
  8. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    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.
     
  9. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,634
    Thanks Received:
    1,902
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +3,249
    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: May 30, 2012
  10. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    Our fleet is being "diminished in size" because our ships have more functions today.
     

Share This Page