A recent op-ed from the Heritage Foundation published in the Deseret News tried to convince readers to oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty ("Law of the Sea Treaty once again rears its ugly head in Senate," May 18).
When it comes to national security and American sovereignty, the citizens of Utah should listen to America's military leaders — those who exercise the sacred responsibility of defending the nation and safeguarding the lives of our men and women in uniform. What they tell us is that America's need for the Law of the Sea Treaty has never been greater. That's why General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or JCS, and all living former JCS chairmen and secretaries of defense have called upon the U.S. Senate to ratify this agreement.
President Reagan played a critical role in strengthening the treaty, making it a great deal for America's national security and commercial interests. That is why the Chamber of Commerce, representatives of energy, defense and telecommunications corporations and other business leaders have called for ratification. The Law of the Sea is good for American security and good for American business — and the Senate should ratify it without delay.
Jeffrey Pike
The American Sovereignty Campaign, Washington, D.C.
- Dan Liljenquist: Chaffetz's search for truth...
- In our opinion: Frances B. Monson's...
- Matthew Sanders: Imploding trust in America's...
- Michael Gerson: As government's ambitions...
- What others say: Assault on core values
- Letters: Deception and government
- Letters: Paycheck Fairness Act
- My view: Climate argument is shortsighted
Subscribe
Mobile
RSS
From what I can tell, this treaty sounds like a really bad deal for the U.S. It's another way for other countries to tear down the wealth, power, and sovereignty of the United States.
Interessting that someone working for an outfit called The American Sovereignty Campaign would favor a treaty that sacrifices our sovereignty
What I read in the article from the Heritage Foundation that recommended against ratifying LOST was a series of adverse effects.
What I read in this article in favor of ratifying LOST is nothing but a series of other people and More..