Slashdot Mirror
Names of Advisors Cleared To Access ACTA Documents
1 a bee writes "With the White House claiming national security grounds for failing to release ACTA related information, including negotiating documents and even the list of participants, the spotlight is now on just who does have access. Turns out, according to James Love, hundreds of advisers, many of them corporate lobbyists, are considered 'cleared advisers.' The list looks a who's who of captains of industry."
ACTA raises serious concerns about citizens' civil liberties and privacy rights. The contents and text of ACTA remain secret, but a document leaked to the public last year shows that ACTA could include stronger criminal measures, increased customs border search powers, and requirements for Internet service providers to cooperate with copyright holders. Some public suggestions from content companies have included requiring ISPs to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adoption of "Three Strikes" policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement.
Corporate control that bypasses government via international treaty. Welcome to the new world order.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
The constitution still requires treaties to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate. Quoting from article 2, section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Without Senate approval, any treaty is just a worthless piece of paper.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Can we look back in four years time and think of George Bush as a benevolent caretaker in light of the atrocities commited by the new administration? YES WE CAN! -- It's more and more obvious with each news week that all the glitzy promises and election rhetoric that came Barack Obama was a load of meaningless drivel to deceive people - please don't expect things to be better, lest you sink into complacency and don't notice the BS until it's up to your armpits.
For anyone who wants some objectivity (unlikely to include the parent poster) there's always the Obameter, which tracks election promises kept and broken. So far it's showing that it's early days but the USA is getting pretty much what it voted for.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
"Can we look back in four years time and think of George Bush as a benevolent caretaker in light of the atrocities commited by the new administration?"
So far, no.
There have been no new wars, no warrantless wiretapping scandals, very little outright idiocy. It's going to take eight years of consistent underhandedness, deviousness and violence before anyone else can get close to the bush administration.
In 1998, the UK government devolved ruling power to the Scottish Executive, Jackass.
Did you bother to read the article you posted? Here's the second paragraph:
"Now President Obama's White House has tightened the cloak of government secrecy still further, saying in a letter this week that a discussion draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and related materials are "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." "
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
For anyone who wants some objectivity (unlikely to include the parent poster) there's always the Obameter
Lets see how the Obameter holds up... heres what it says about Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
On Jan. 21, 2009 â" his first full day in office â" President Obama met privately with the military commanders in charge of Iraq.
...
After the meeting, Obama issued a statement, included below in its entirety:
"This afternoon, I met with our ambassador to Iraq, the commander in Iraq, and the overall theater commander in the region in order to get a full update on the situation in Iraq. Key members of my Cabinet and senior national security officials also participated in this meeting.
"The meeting was productive and I very much appreciated receiving assessments from these experienced and dedicated individuals. During the discussion, I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq.
"In the coming days and weeks, I will also visit the Department of Defense to consult with the Joint Chiefs on these issues, and we will undertake a full review of the situation in Afghanistan in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region."
Promise kept.
Well that's all fine and dandy right? And after he gets the boys out of Iraq he's going to get the boys out of Afghanistan, right?
A recent article from the LA Times proves enlightening:
Reporting from Baghdad and Washington -- The U.S. will reduce its military presence in Iraq by 12,000 troops over the next six months as part of the first major drawdown since President Obama announced his plan to end combat operations in the country next year, U.S. military officials in Baghdad said Sunday.
[...]
The plan would reduce U.S. troop strength by nearly 10% just as Iraq is preparing for nationwide elections in the fall -- a step that would have been unthinkable at the height of the insurgency but was endorsed in this case by top U.S. military officials.
[...]
The plan calls for the number of U.S. brigade combat teams to drop from 14 to 12. Two brigade teams that had been scheduled to redeploy in the next six months will not be replaced.
[...]
When the American move is completed, it would reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq to about 128,000 troops, dipping for the first time below the number of troops in the country before then-President Bush ordered the buildup he referred to as the "surge" in 2007.
The schedule for the withdrawal represents a compromise between the 16-month timetable President Obama had advocated during his election campaign and a 23-month plan that had been pushed by the military.
Under the compromise, all combat forces would be pulled out of Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, but a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops would remain for training and support missions.
The Iraq withdrawals are crucial to the administration's plans to devote more military resources to Afghanistan, as well as to limit spending at a time when the government is facing record deficits.
Senior U.S. national security officials are nearing completion of a strategic review of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, a step that Obama has described as an effort "to stabilize a deteriorating situation," one he has implied was neglected by Bush.
[...]
Last month, Obama announced plans to send 17,000 additional U.S. soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan -- deployments that would more than offset the troop reductions in Iraq.
Yep. So
This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
reneges.
your racial slur attempt to re-work the spelling shows that you don't care WHY Obama is bad, he's BLACK! He MUST be bad! He MUST be a muslim ('cos they aren't quite as white as the WASP, though often still whiter than Obama, that to you means he's MORE Muslim!).
Bush had thousands of innocent lives ruined by his McCarthy style of leadership and left a legacy of worldwide hate (and justified at that, unlike even the Regan era) against America that you will be reaping the harvest from for the next three generations.
"As an aside, the US is only two states away from a constitutional convention. I recommend we get two more states on board and try to retake some power from the federal government. It's already far more powerful than intended."
If this is true (big IF), I think nothing would make me happier. Could you please post where you got this information from. I'm usually on top of all things political in the USA and this one has flown under the radar.
Seems to be mentioned on a lot of blogs, rather than mainstream news. That makes me take it with a grain of salt. Perhaps the states are calling conventions on different points. I thought I read something like that, and the 32 figure is over the balanced budget amendment (of course, the constitution could be tossed or revised in other ways).
Here, here, and here, though slightly less credible.
This is a pretty slow process, and happens at the state level, so I'm not shocked the national news has missed it. This magical 32 number keeps coming up, so I'm guessing there's something to it. I can't confirm it without some help, though. Any thoughts on who would potentially know?
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci