Kill the Law of the Sea Treaty

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The commentator appears to know little about the Law of the Sea Convention. If all current and former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chiefs of Naval Operations and Commandants of the Coast Guard support U.S. ratification, then I think one could reasonably assume its supports U.S. national security, rather than causing "harm" to our military. Similarly, if all living Presidents, including George W. Bush, and all living Secretaries of State, including Reagan's, support ratification, then the Convention must have benefits for the U.S. Finally, if U.S. industry, including the Chamber of Commerce, the oil and gas industry, the shipping industry and the communications industry, among others, support ratification, then it must be good for business.
The extreme right seems to oppose this Convention for reasons of mythology because there are simply no facts to support the U.S. joining Iran, North Korea and Syria in not ratifying this important international agreement.

Independent Voter of MN 2:10PM September 02, 2012

Oh, sure, turn everything over to the UN--that club for mass murderers and tyrants. That collection of mob bosses which votes AGAINST American interests --while being supported by American money--99% of the time.

Marina of UT 11:05PM June 07, 2012

Letter to Editor to my local Newspaper:
This month, the Senate could vote to give the UN total control over our oceans. Obama’s comrades have already testified in favor of giving the UN control of 70% of the earth's surface including the air space above the oceans.
The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is undoubtedly a gigantic ste...p toward world government. The treaty's preamble supports the “realization of a just and equitable international economic order.” The United Nations solemnly declared that the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States. In other words, no country on earth can claim anything above, on, or in the oceans to benefit itself. We all have to share everything with any country the UN dictates -- even the countries which are enemies of the US. And Americans will have to pay for it.
Any nation’s territorial sea jurisdiction extends up to 12 nautical miles from baselines determined by the UN. According to the UN, the sovereignty over this territorial sea is exercised subject to LOST and to other rules of international law: under LOST, the US will not have veto power -- only one vote among over 150.
LOST also says: "no State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area (70% of the earth) or its resources. No such claim or exercise of sovereignty or sovereign rights nor such appropriation shall be recognized."
Are you going to allow these anti-Americans to get by with this?
Save our sovereignty: GET THE US OUT OF THE UN!

Shannon Driscoll of CT 8:33PM June 05, 2012

To "theRepublicanCultofstupidityof CO"
Why is compromise always to the LEFT and never to the right?
As to Republicans being part of the problem, realize that "punting" and "leading from behind" as Obama does is not part of the solution. It is simply probing to find how far he can go while washing his hands if it goes wrong and taking credit if things go right (Osama Bin Laden).
Definition of insurgent - One who tears down
Definition of One who tears down - Liberal

Mike of OR 10:05PM May 25, 2012

TheRepublicanCultOfStupidity of CO
Copy your comment 10 times in a roll or place in different articles. Is still stupid remark. You're stupid to repeat it.
Full control Democrats bills were so "ideologically extreme". They ignored polls against the bills especially bumcare, YOU ALL EARNED Nov. 2, 2010 GREAT LOSS of seats in D.C. and across this nation.
So CAN IT...

Bill Hedges of MO 4:30PM May 14, 2012

The thesis of the piece was contained in the title: "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem."
In case that was not clear enough, the authors elaborated: "We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional.
David Frum"In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
"The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

theRepublicanCultofstupidity of CO 3:23PM May 14, 2012

RitchBitchMitch of CO
One small detail. First prove it happened.
I understand buma was born on moon and has 15 moon children all living in WH with Elvis their babysitter.
Looney tunes is looking for you...

Bill Hedges of MO 12:46PM May 13, 2012

But about the hair-cutting story. When Mitt was asked about it, he said he did not “recall the incident.”
This puts a whole new spin on things. The idea that Romney could have absolutely no recollection of this event is way more shocking than the incident itself. Did he engage in this sort of behavior so often that things just sort of ran together?
I don’t believe he’s that lacking in feeling. So I propose that we give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that he is lying through his teeth.
Yes! And, honestly, it’s a good bet. We have seen far less evidence of Romney as a guy with a mean streak than of Romney as a robotic campaigner who finds it impossible to speak in an open, unprogrammed manner — particularly about any incident that makes him look bad.

RitchBitchMitch of CO 7:25PM May 12, 2012

As I understand it, for the first six years, the revenues from oil and mineral discoveries, would go to the United States.
After year six, the revenues would go to the Seabed Authority, based in Kingston, Jamica. They would have total control over the funds and would be able to distriubte them as they see fit.
This Treaty would also affect the freedom of our Naval operations.

Ruthie Allan of VA 5:21PM May 12, 2012

I have yet to find the section of the treaty that discusses oil royalties. If the oil is in our waters, we do not need to give away the royalties just like the Arab states don't have to give away their royalties. Being conservative, I worry that the people who are against this treaty may be giving a slanted view much like I know the liberal communists are.

Richard McCabe of OH 8:49AM May 12, 2012