Slovenian Ambassador Regrets Signing ACTA Agreement

We need an amendment.... by LostCluster · 2012-02-02 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can't get SOPA/PIPA passed? Just get a diplomat from the USA to sign ACTA and all you need is a 2/3 majority in the Senate with no need for the House or President to sign off. Still a tall burden but there's much fewer Senators you need to purchase versus half the House.

Re:We need an amendment.... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-02 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

The President has already signed it and is claiming the Senate doesn't need to ratify it because "executive agreement" is all you need.
Handy theory because you only have to influence one person.
This is why we need this to come before the Senate so it can be voted down.
Re:We need an amendment.... by Hatta · 2012-02-02 05:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

The President has already signed it and is claiming the Senate doesn't need to ratify it because "executive agreement" is all you need.
So, when do we impeach Obama for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:We need an amendment.... by NatasRevol · 2012-02-02 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

About the same time the last 6 presidents were impeached for similar behavior...

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:We need an amendment.... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-02 05:42 · Score: 3, Informative

The precedent for agreeing to treaties this way goes back to George Washington's neutrality proclamation in 1793. You would have to retroactively impeach EVERY US President first to have a case against Mr. Obama.
In actual practice due to the way the Constitution is written the only thing the Senate has is a veto power over treaties.
http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf
Re:We need an amendment.... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2012-02-02 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hell, Obama already signed into law the ability for the gov to take you away without a fair trial or even informing anyone of your disappearance.
Obama signed it saying he would never use it and disagrees with it...
So why did the dumb fuck sign it?
This country is corrupt as shit. Fuck America in its mouth. The constitution is worthless.
Btw a reporter was arrested in congress yesterday.
Re:We need an amendment.... by DJRumpy · 2012-02-02 05:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Because you would be considered an idiot for claiming this was unconstitutional. The executive branch can, and does sign international treaties. It is well within their authority to do so. There are three types of treaties in the U.S.
Congressional-Executive Agreements
Solo Executive Agreements
Treaties
If the president has signed one without the direct consent of congress, it is considered either a Solo Executive Agreement, or a Congressional Executive agreement. The U.S. also differs from most other nations in that they treat each of the above types of treaties as distinct classes and the treaty is incorporated into federal law, and as such, congress can go in and modify them after the fact, even though other signing nations would consider this a violation of the treaty in question. The Supreme Court can also hold a treaty as unconstitutional and null and void.
The authority of the president to do this is well known. Congress has attempted over the years to limit this authority with various versions of the Bicker Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment#Legal_background) but it has never been ratified by enough states.
Re:We need an amendment.... by orgelspieler · 2012-02-02 06:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nah. We only impeach presidents for canoodling the secretary.
Re:We need an amendment.... by Sloppy · 2012-02-02 06:13 · Score: 2

I'm not sure that's necessary in this case. If it's just an executive agreement and doesn't need to be ratified, then it's just an executive agreement and doesn't need to be ratified. It's not binding, has no legal power, and thus isn't threatening to constitutional limits.
All we have to do is keep reminding the executive that it really is merely his handshake deal, and legislated policy need not change to comply with it. If he goes to Congress and says he needs some crazy new laws to comply with the 'treaty', the response is "What treaty?"

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:We need an amendment.... by MightyMartian · 2012-02-02 06:35 · Score: 2

If Congress doesn't like it, they are most certainly free to create a bill that strips the government of any capacity to enact any policy based on ACTA. No need to impeach. Of course, since a goodly number of member of Congress are probably in full accord, it's little wonder they're not upset at being deprived of the right to rubberstamp this agreement.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:We need an amendment.... by Dahamma · 2012-02-02 07:30 · Score: 3, Informative

It's trivial to find. In fact there is a whole section about it on www.senate.gov:
Executive Agreements
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
The challenge of obtaining two-thirds vote on treaties was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate.
Re:We need an amendment.... by Nyder · 2012-02-02 07:40 · Score: 4, Funny

Except Clinton wasn't impeached for hooking up with an intern. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury about it.
We all lie about doing the fat chicks.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:We need an amendment.... by hazah · 2012-02-02 08:32 · Score: 2

I didn't lie about it. I regretted it vocally.
Re:We need an amendment.... by pclminion · 2012-02-02 09:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Well to be fair, it depends on what the definition of "is" is...

Hanlon was right by gmuslera · 2012-02-02 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity

Re:Hanlon was right by cpghost · 2012-02-02 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

In this particular case, this ambassador may not have acted out of malice (she's just one little cog in a giant machine and couldn't have prevented it anyway), but the government that ordered her to sign it certainly intended to harm Internet. There's no doubt about this. After all, ACTA has been negotiated for a long time, and those responsible in the governments knew full well all the objections that have been brought against it. So Hanlon wasn't right here: ACTA was born out of malice, not out of stupidity.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Re:Hanlon was right by MozeeToby · 2012-02-02 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sometimes stupidity is malice. Like when you're too uniformed, untrained, and unmotivated to do your very important job properly. Not admitting that and stepping down is malice.
Re:Hanlon was right by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

... ACTA was born out of malice, not out of stupidity.
Correct. But the people agreeing to it are stupid.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Re:Hanlon was right by jamstar7 · 2012-02-02 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, that went over really well at Nuremburg, too, ya know.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Hanlon was right by countertrolling · 2012-02-02 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

...the people agreeing to it are stupid.
No, they are corrupt

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:Hanlon was right by jamstar7 · 2012-02-02 07:29 · Score: 2

I was gonna say, what about My Lai, but the US lost that war, too.

An Army captain named Medina got orders from MACV in Saigon to have the village of My Lai destroyed and everybody there killed. He passed that order to Lt Calley, who followed it. Calley got prison. Medina & his superiors got off. The court martial's explaination was of course, 'Following orders is no excuse!'. However, at the time, there was no such thing as an illegal order, so Calley could have been cort martialed for refusing a direct order and gotten shot. Calley knew this, and it came out at the trial.

Later, the UCMJ was annoted to allow refusal to follow illegal orders as a defense at a court martial.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Hanlon was right by SplashMyBandit · 2012-02-02 07:43 · Score: 2

It is a fallacy that the US lost in Vietnam, although they did later "lose" Vietnam itself (there is a difference). If you read the history you'll see that the US destroyed the Viet Cong in South Vietnam and then pursued a policy of "Vietnamization" where the South Vietnamese became responsible for their own defense. Several years later the North Vietnamese Army invaded and conquered South Vietnam - a straight out civil war where the south (backed by the US) lost to the north (backed by China and the Soviet Union). So, South Vietnam was lost to US interests but the US forces were actually unbeaten in the field when they left, and had destroyed the Viet Cong (but were not permitted to destroy the North Vietnamese Army for political reasons, although it was well within US capabilities). It is good you know about My Lai. Time to read more on the bigger picture methinks.
Re:Hanlon was right by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 08:40 · Score: 2

I'd bet half of them are both.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Re:Hanlon was right by Chris+Burke · 2012-02-02 09:19 · Score: 2

It is a fallacy that the US lost in Vietnam, although they did later "lose" Vietnam itself (there is a difference).
Right we only lost in the only way that is relevant because the entire goal of the Vietnam conflict was not to lose South Vietnam to Communism. That goal was not achieved. We lost.
We "didn't lose" in a sense that is completely irrelevant because were it not for the strategic motivation for entering the conflict -- which was a failure -- then the military "wins" never would have occurred.

So, South Vietnam was lost to US interests but the US forces were actually unbeaten in the field when they left, and had destroyed the Viet Cong (but were not permitted to destroy the North Vietnamese Army for political reasons, although it was well within US capabilities).
Of course. All we would have had to do was treat Vietnam as if it was World War II and our war machine would have rolled over the NVA.
Too bad this wasn't Word War II, and the politics surrounding it, the whole reason we were there, made things more complicated and changed the meaning of "win" to something other than simply achieving military success at any cost.
Like every conflict we've been engaged in since other than Desert Storm.
We lost Vietnam exactly because we didn't understand how to use the military in a situation where winning militarily and winning in actuality were not the same thing.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Read before you sign by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-02 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Applies even more to politicians than it does to the average joe.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Read before you sign by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

But it was SO LOOOOOONG! I'll just click "accept," what's the worst that could happen?

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Re:Read Before You Sign by Hadlock · 2012-02-02 05:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think all legislation should be read aloud by the leading party member of whoever introduced it, and all legislators must be present the entire time before voting on it.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Read before you sign by cayenne8 · 2012-02-02 05:28 · Score: 4, Informative

But it was SO LOOOOOONG! I'll just click "accept," what's the worst that could happen?
Seems our politicians are too lazy to read anything these days.
Wasn't it Pelosi, who said something to the effect with regards to Obamacare..."Let's pass it so we can see what it says..."?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Read Before You Sign by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:36 · Score: 3, Funny

...and all legislators must be present the entire time...
And awake.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Re:Read Before You Sign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:09 · Score: 2, Funny

No way, they'd all die of caffeine overdose before one bill was done reading.
Wait.
On second thought, I like this plan.

In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 05:09 · Score: 3, Informative

It's easier to ask for forgiveness then permission.

Re:In other news.... by jank1887 · 2012-02-02 06:56 · Score: 3, Informative

but she had permission. Actually, she had 'instructions' from her government to sign it. And, it's disingenuous that now she's being the one taken to task for putting her name on the paper, when clearly others were responsible for the decision. Yes, she could have stepped down, someone else would have signed it after given other instructions, and we'd be right where we are, lambasting whichever other official put his signature on it. This avoids the source of the problem, and Slashdot is contributing to the confusion, by focusing on the Ambassador.
FTFA:

I signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on behalf of the Republic of Slovenia, following the directive and authorisation of the Slovenian government. ... There has been a demonization of “some sneak”, that is me, who in far-off Tokyo secretly signed something on her own initiative...it is dangerous particularly because it conceals the responsibility of those who had the power to decide, and did in fact decide, that Slovenia would be a signatory of ACTA. This was decided by the Slovenian government and by the parliamentary committee for EU matters, and before that, Slovenia was for quite some time involved in coordinating the agreement. All this was done with too little transparency, judging by the outraged responses that have appeared following the signing. Back then, the Slovenian media did not demonise this decision to the same extent as they now demonise my signature. This I consider very dangerous for the continuous (non-)development of democracy in Slovenia.

It was peer pressure by sconeu · 2012-02-02 05:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Dudes, like... you know... all the cool countries were signing it, and they were like, you know... "Sign it, man! Go ahead! It'll be fun!"

So, like, I signed it but now I'm like, really sorry and everything, you know? So we're cool, right?

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Light Applause by ackthpt · 2012-02-02 05:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

You recognised it was folly. Well done.

You recognised it a bit late. Not so well done.

Go void it.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Read Before You Sign by Jason+Levine · 2012-02-02 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I thought the problem of politicians signing stuff before they read it was limited to the US Congress. Looks like it's a global phenomenon. Could you imagine if other people did that?

Pharmacist: "Yes, those drugs I dispensed killed people. I probably should have read the labels so I didn't give people the wrong dose or pills." (Said while handing a customer Viagra instead of antibiotics.)

Surgeon: "How was I to know that the patient didn't need a quadruple amputation? I didn't get a chance to read his chart before starting the surgery. Next patient! Pass the hacksaw!"

Air Traffic Controller: "Sure, a few planes collided in my airspace. It's not like it's my fault. I had no way of knowing that was going to happen when I instructed them to land without reading what was on the tracking computer. Ok, flights 54321, 31415, and 424242. You're all clear to land on runway (rolls dice) 5."

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Re:Yea dipshit by NeutronCowboy · 2012-02-02 05:21 · Score: 2

Wow. There's some bitter people on Slashdot. I guess I should have known that someone admitting to a mistake would get excoriated even more so than someone who just keeps arguing that they were right all along. I guess that explains why people like Newt are actually being voted for - there are more people out there who will swallow someone's story about how they were right all along than who will forgive someone who admits to a mistake.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

Oh come on... by golden+age+villain · 2012-02-02 05:24 · Score: 2

I signed without reading it, honest... So sorry folks! If only I had known before.

Maybe not so bad by Per+Wigren · 2012-02-02 05:29 · Score: 2

This may actually turn out to be a good thing. If the politicians who are about to sign ACTA in june read it, maybe, just maybe, her letter will make them think twice and at least TRY to understand what the heck it's all about instead of just voting yes out of ignorance.

--
My other account has a 3-digit UID.

Bet of Both Worlds by Ambiguous+Coward · 2012-02-02 05:30 · Score: 2

This sort of approach really does get you the best of both worlds: you get to sign the agreement so you get all the backscratching that entails, and you get to publicly decry it, so you get the support of your constituents!

Politicking 101

--
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.

Is this his "anti-lynching" apology? by erroneus · 2012-02-02 05:33 · Score: 2

I think we are going to see a LOT more of this. "Oh, I signed it but I didn't know what I was signing... and I wasn't paying any attention to the protests going on outside of my windows either..."

I'm sorry, but no. I don't buy it. And if it were true, that it was some kind of "honest mistake" then they need to resign from office and forever from public service because they just admitted to not doing their job.

Re:Just an ambassador by 0123456 · 2012-02-02 05:51 · Score: 2

Yeah, and? Doesn't matter how many other people might have signed it, this is the person who did sign it.

If they'd said no and then resigned on principle, they might have created enough media buzz to stop it. Now they realise it's unpopular they're saying 'hey, don't blame me'.

Re:Hanlon was right a long time ago by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-02 05:51 · Score: 2

Sorry, no.

Always assume malice. Then when you rule out malice, assume corruption. Then when you rule out corruption, assume greed. Then when you rule out greed, you've spent enough time that by now the malice actually showed up after all.

Then if you rule all that out twice, you get to consider someone stupid, at which point you get sued for slander/libel.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Re:bitter by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-02 06:01 · Score: 2

We're bitter because "not all mistakes are created equal". We're bitter because 40-60% of the Slashdot Nerd News site knows more of the content of one of the nastiest treaties ever, than ... wait for it ... an Ambassador.

Sorry, that's just terr... er ... scary.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

I'm a Slovenian and a Croatian... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 08:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

...so I speak as a citizen of a country that has been part of the EU for 7-8 years, and as a citizen of a country who has just joined the EU (signed the agreement, joining in 2013).

This is not malice, or stupidity. Slovenia is a new member-state of the EU. And, because of that status, I believe the government is compelled to follow EU instructions without much objection.

The EU has become a political union, controlled by an EU Commission (which no one elects) and the EU President, who is elected by the Commission. Oh yeah, and the members of the Commission are picked and appointed by the EU President.

EU uses political and economical (since they control how much each country is allowed to borrow, and in this recession it is important that countries get as much as they can) pressure to have countries to whatever the EU wants. For example, many countries were denied a referendum to see whether the people want to join or not. They had a referendum in the Netherlands and France (I believe) and both those peoples said "NO" to the EU. The EU and the respective governments decided to ignore those referendums. In other countries, like Croatia, there was a referendum, but there was so much disinformation and propaganda going on that it was clear that it would pass. Around 40% of Croatians came out to the referendum. According to our original constitution from 1991/2, to have a referendum count you have to have 70%+ people come out. This, of course, was changed so that referendums like these can pass.

It is clear that the EU wants this to pass and it did. The only country that hasn't signed it is Poland. But, unfortunately, there will be consequences for Poland because of that. The EU has made it clear (you can read on their website) that they will require every country to have "compatible" laws to the EU's laws, and that if a country doesn't, they will use political and economical means to force them to.

The Slovenian ambassador takes her orders from the Slovenian government, the Slovenian government takes their orders from the EU Commission. The EU parliament rubber-stamps any decisions of the Commission with little opposition. The Parliament is made up of 754 delegates. Out of those, Nigel Farage (and his cohort) and the Pirate Party will be against ACTA, everyone else will give their support under the watchful eye of the President. 378 people WILL NOT be against ACTA in the Parliament, you can be certain of that. And if the EU signs it, so must every EU country (Poland, too).

Thank you for reading.

captcha: faulted

Re:I'm a Slovenian and a Croatian... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 11:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

They had a referendum in the Netherlands and France (I believe) and both those peoples said "NO" to the EU. The EU and the respective governments decided to ignore those referendums.
The Dutch referendum was about the first iteration of the Lisbon treaty (aka "EU Constitution", and our no was honoured -- in effect, the Dutch "no" meant the treaty was changed favourably for the Dutch. But you're right in the sense that the final treaty was not put forward in a new Dutch referendum.
From my point of view, the EU cannot afford itself an oppressive treaty like ACTA. Nationalism is on the rise in most countries, and antics like the ACTA treaty are only going to fuel the anti-EU sentiment. According to recent polls, about 55% of the Dutch would vote for a party on either the far left or the far right -- parties which are both outspoken anti-EU. On the other side, we have seen the rise of pirate parties in Sweden, Germany and Spain that advocate government transparency and copyright reform (even abolishment), and we can be sure that they will make ACTA a hot topic for the next election rounds (sadly, still far away).
American corporatism does not yet have a stranglehold on the European populace as it does in North America. That the European Commission had been bought should come as no surprise to anyone. The coming EP vote in June will determine how much of the European government is still working in the interest of the EU. Any missteps there and the EU just might fail completely.
Re:I'm a Slovenian and a Croatian... by VAElynx · 2012-02-02 16:18 · Score: 2

Slovakia didn't sign ACTA either.

Well Said by Bob9113 · 2012-02-02 08:52 · Score: 2

"[ACTA] limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children."

Regardless of the path she took to get there, she hit the nail on the head with this statement. A concise, unequivocal, and accurate assessment of the fundamental societal imbalance of ACTA and other recent attempts at centralized inhibition of copyright infringement. Well said.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Slashdot Mirror

Slovenian Ambassador Regrets Signing ACTA Agreement

47 of 149 comments (clear)