Obama Administration: ACTA Is Binding & Don't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads About TPP
from the condescension-is-king dept
We've covered how Senator Wyden has been pressing the administration on ACTA and TPP concerning the process behind both agreements. The State Department has now responded by admitting that ACTA is, in fact, binding on the United States.Under international law, the ACTA is a legally binding international agreement. By its terms, the ACTA enters into force when at least six parties have deposited instruments indicating their consent to be bound. Accordingly, once in force for the United States, the ACTA will impose obligations on the United States that are governed by international law. As in the case of other international agreements, it is possible that Congress could enact subsequent changes in U.S. law that are inconsistent with U.S. international obligations.That's interesting, because it's what many people had assumed (and what other signatories to ACTA have been saying), but actually contradicts earlier statements from the USTR suggesting that we can ignore parts of the agreement that we don't like or which conflict with existing US law. It also means that, as we've been warning, ACTA dangerously restricts Congress from passing new laws that could push back on some of the worst aspects of copyright law. Sure, Congress could ignore ACTA, but there would be substantial problems if it were to do so. In other words, ACTA is binding on the US under international law... but not under US law. Of course, international law trumps US law here, so that's kind of meaningless.
And yet, the administration still insists that it can pass and ratify ACTA without Congressional approval. In the same letter, the State Department says that it doesn't see any problem in having the President approve ACTA without Senate ratification, because it doesn't require any changes today. First of all, it's not entirely clear if that's true, and there are some areas where it is believed current ACTA provisions likely come into conflict with US law (though the USTR squeezes around this by saying that all depends on how you interpret the phrases in ACTA -- which seems like an issue of piss poor drafting of the agreement by the USTR).
Either way, the claim that this does not need Senate ratification appears to be incorrect. The fact that it is restricting Congress's ability to act on an issue which is Congress's mandate (not the administration's) suggests that there is simply no way that the President can sign ACTA without it being ratified by Congress. Even if it doesn't force Congress to change laws today, it does unquestionably hinder Congress' ability to change laws in the future.
Perhaps even more ridiculous is that earlier today, USTR Ron Kirk appeared before a Senate committee on trade issues, where Senator Wyden was able to ask Kirk about both ACTA and TPP. The answers were quite disturbing, and show the rather imperialistic attitude that the administration and Kirk in particular have taken on this issue:
Wyden points out that the public is clearly up in arms over intellectual property issues, as seen by the response to SOPA and PIPA -- and notes that, currently, the USTR is requiring people to have security clearance to see TPP. He questions what's wrong with having the USTR publicly display what its own proposals are for TPP. He's not saying they should reveal trade secrets or proposals from others -- but make the US's own proposals public. Kirk insists that it's unfair to compare TPP to SOPA and PIPA. That would be a lot more convincing if we could actually see the details, but we can't, since we don't have security clearance and we haven't been "chosen" by the USTR.
In response to the request to put the proposals up publicly on the internet, Kirk insists that if we do that, we'll "never be able to negotiate another trade agreement again" because others wouldn't come to the table. Kirk made this identical argument about ACTA. Of course, later, after the secret documents leaked, we found out that most of the other negotiators wanted the documents public... but it was the US and Ron Kirk who wanted them secret. So I'm sorry, but his claims that others would leave the table and wouldn't negotiate just don't make any sense at all.
Wyden points out, again, that "the norm" for how the public views intellectual property changed on January 18th -- and the public needs to be involved in these debates. He asks Kirk to "throw open the doors" to the USTR so that the TPP negotiation info is a lot more public. Kirk's response is quite bizarre. He talks about the importance of democracy and elections, and letting the elected officials represent the public's interest.
Forgive me for asking, but when did we elect Ron Kirk to head the USTR? He's an appointee, not an elected official. He doesn't represent the public. At all. And that needs to change.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, binding, copyright, ron kirk, ron wyden, tpp, transparency, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
--Paul Revere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even the health care reform bill was only extending Bush's actions like Medicare Part D.
And Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan (far more casualties in 3 years than under 7 years of Bush), only wound down Iraq according to Bush's existing timetable and agreements, and fought a new war in Libya.
It's remarkable that people see such a difference between them.
Obama is more similar to Bush than even McCain would have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/end sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:eyes closed:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :eyes closed:
http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/united-nations-announces-world%E2%80%99s-happiest-co untry-247768
I live in Australia (we came second on the happiest countries list), and while far from perfect, it's a pretty nice place to live. Sure, we're not a superpower, but we do have cute koalas and 17 of the 20 most venomous snakes in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :eyes closed:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :eyes closed:
OK, sometimes a snake might get into a place where a snake should not be. That can happen, snakes are not that bright. Then somebody catches it and takes it out to the bush, where it should be. We have people who do that. Only very rarely is it necessary to kill a snake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: :eyes closed:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: :eyes closed:
You're forgetting that phobias are by definition not rational. He (she?) is not afraid of snakes because of a reasoned decision that they are dangerous, he's just afraid of them*.
* yes, this is a more or less unfounded conclusion based on almost no evidence, but he can always correct me if I'm wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :eyes closed:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :eyes closed:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :eyes closed:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :eyes closed:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe Romney isn't so bad
I think I'm voting republican in the next cycle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
Vote for someone who has a shred of common sense, who isn't a greedy idiot. Vote for someone who won't take campaign contributions and then write arbitrary laws hindering the competition of those companies.
Don't vote for a party. Vote for a person who actually wants to work for the public good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
Vote for someone who has a shred of common sense, who isn't a greedy idiot. Vote for someone who won't take campaign contributions and then write arbitrary laws hindering the competition of those companies.
Don't vote for a party. Vote for a person who actually wants to work for the public good.
So you're basically saying again and again, "Don't vote."
I'm serious. There is no one running for public office who even vaguely satisfies any of your requirements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
Seriously. I wonder how many votes it would take before they started to pay attention.
I also thought to vote for "Not Sure" but I feel that would be a little too prophetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
I see what you did there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
There ARE other candidates. I just find that the Electoral College system should be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
Choices: GOP arguing over birth control from 1960's or Obama who's at least made it to the 20th century. Those are pathetic choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
Know this fact...............someday those in power will get exactly what they deserve.And that is a Historical fact as it has repeated itself many times in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
They take money from special interests then pass a law for them (SOPA in this case) that screws the 99%, always they want more money from us & want to curtail our Rights. Dodd is pure scum, he ruined finances with his buddy Barney Frank,
now the out of touch bum promised his fellow 1% hollywood &
big media THAT he could deliver "his pals in Congress" to unfairly constrain our freedom & the added perk would be that CONGRESS (1% again)would be able to shut off democracy, prevent us from connecting with one another so they could continue their backroom shenanigans that chip away at the freedom of speech & association. We have a right to appeal for a redress of grievences & they totally ignore us! If you want to know how to vote, vote OUT incumbents, our only hope is fresh blood. ( Joe the plummer is running in OHIO, please we need fresh people NOT the business as usual Repub & Dems (traitors if you ask me!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
LOL! Now that is a bumper sticker quote if I'd ever seen one. No, seriously. If I can sell them, I'll even give you half. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
Never reelectc anybody !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe Romney isn't so bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USA has been in a "state of emergency" since a few days after 9/11. Obama can do absolutely anything he wants, include extend the "emergency" indefinitely; we've effectively been a dictatorship for over a decade now.
Congress still gets to play democracy, as long as it toes the line. Remember how they reworded part of the NDAA when Obama complained that it might let Congress steal his ability to imprison people without due process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correction
Seriously, look into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correction
Yeah, but now we're at State of Emergency Level Orange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so ummm... what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you really think any of the GOP candidates have better views on IP issues than Obama? I didn't hear any outrage coming from them over SOPA/PIPA or ACTA just a few weasel words about the importance of an open and free Internet same as Obama. The bottom line is that the Internet is smarter than the people creating these bad agreements and we'll just innovate around them. Large scale mesh-networks or darknets anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Granted, he gets marginalized, ignored, and tagged as 'unelectable', but go back and listen to what he's said, over and over, about SOPA/PIPA. He was scathing in his attacks on those bills, and never changed his tune.
At this point it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the establishment won't let him anywhere near the Republican ticket in November, but I'm tired of people claiming there's not a good choice to be had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Look at Rand Paul who mirrors his dad. He's been bought since he got into office. Just like the rest of them. Rand Paul can't even explain some of the bills he cosigned because they were given to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If this is true, there is nothing stopping you from promoting an amendment to the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He sure as heck wasn't honest. It almost amazes me how he can say everything he said with such a straight face. Politicians lie but this guy acts so convinced of his lies.
"If anything, Senator Wyden was using his opportunity to speak as a means of politically pandering to a specific constituency. "
Yes, that constituency is the majority of Americans. That constituency is the people who elected Wyden.
"Perhaps Senator Wyden should reflect for a moment on what the term "representative democracy" (a republic) really means. "
Wyden was elected. and who elected Kirk? Some democracy you want.
"Perhaps Senator Wyden should reflect for a moment on what the term "representative democracy" (a republic) really means."
Yes, it means representing the republic.
"he was obviously using his alloted time to simply make pejorative jabs."
No, that's what your comment is doing.
Though, I do admit that Ron Kirck was honest enough to express who he was really representing.
Ron Kirck (quoted from that video)
"That the united states has the strongest intellectual property rights protection for our industries"
Note who he is representing, note who these intellectual property privileges are for. They aren't for the public, he's not to represent the public, he's representing industry interests. He even admits that.
Also, IP laws should not be about ensuring that the U.S. has the strongest IP privileges for industry interests. The founding fathers were very skeptical of IP laws and only accepted them under the condition that they were very limited in scope. They should be to serve the public benefit so that more things can enter the public domain. Their strength shouldn't be about just being the strongest, they should only be as strong as needed to optimally benefit the public good and not any stronger. To make them the strongest makes our government-industrial complex the very antithesis of free market capitalism.
Ron Kirk's pro-IP position, and the treaties he is trying to push, represents the public will and interests about as much as 95+ year copy protection lengths do. The republic wants ACTA and the other pro-IP laws that he is pushing for about as much as they want 95+ year copy protection lengths, they do not, and the masses are not being represented. What Kirk is doing is not indicative of a representative government, Wyden is the one representing the republic, not Kirk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Kirk reports to President Obama, who is an elected official. There is no member of the President's staff, be they a member of the cabinet or otherwise, who was elected to their position within the Executive Branch. If you are inclined to point a finger, they you should do so by directing your concerns to the President. He is, after all, the boss of the Executive Branck.
While it is not relevant to the issue of "treaty" vs. "international/executive agreement", it is useful to bear in mind that much of what is perceived as excesses in US law were instituted by Congress precisely because of "treaty" obligations". They marked a cardinal change in longstanding US law, with the excesses for the most part eminating from Europe. This is, of course, one of many concerns associated with international harmonization, as was pointed out by many legal professionals in the debate leading up to the enactment of so-called "patent reform".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Kirk himself is not elected then. Wyden was. So when Wyden talks it's more representative of democracy than when Kirk talks.
"While it is not relevant to the issue of "treaty" vs. "international/executive agreement", it is useful to bear in mind that much of what is perceived as excesses in US law were instituted by Congress precisely because of "treaty" obligations". They marked a cardinal change in longstanding US law, with the excesses for the most part eminating from Europe. This is, of course, one of many concerns associated with international harmonization, as was pointed out by many legal professionals in the debate leading up to the enactment of so-called "patent reform"."
That's the scam we have been pointing out since the emergence of this debate. U.S. industry pushes for stricter international IP laws that no one else wants, claiming that they won't and can't affect U.S. law and that Congress won't be bound by them, and then, when they pass internationally, they later try to get congress to change U.S. laws under the pretext of meeting its international obligations.
The idea that it's other countries that want to keep these negotiations a secret is a lie. The U.S. made this same lie with ACTA and everyone knew it was a lie before the ACTA leaks. and, sure enough, ACTA leaks have shown that it's the U.S. that wanted to maintain secrecy and that it was the U.S. pushing for these laws, which we already knew. and this is no different and no one believes this scam anymore (no one believed it in the first place, what makes you think we're dumb enough to believe it now). These laws are being negotiated in secret not because no one would otherwise negotiate them, they are being negotiated in secret because the U.S. wants it that way. Obama is directly responsible for this lack of transparency, he's the one that wants this lack of transparency the most, not the requests of other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OUCH
That single sentence almost burst a blood vessel in my brain. ARE YOU FUCKING NUTZ?!!!???!!!?? Did you listen to the clip at all or does the fact that he spoke at all, indicate openness and responsiveness in your mind?
Allow me to help you: When asked what would happened if Congress enacted laws that run contrary to ACTA, Kirk's response was that Congress would not be constrained in any way when passing laws that are in line with ACTA. Well DUH, we already know that. That WASN'T the question asked.
When asked about the process and transparency, Kirk's response is basically that we are doing things in secret the way they have always been done and see no need to change that because people are speaking out. He then goes on to say there is misinformation out there and we want people to know that TPP is not like SOPA/PIPA at all, but we can't tell you what it's about. This begs the question, how can we be informed about something that we can't be informed about?
Perhaps you should reflect for a moment on the fact that there are many "appointed" members of the Executive branch that are not elected nor representative of the public. Jan.18th showed the world that we may be a republic, but we will certainly not sit quietly and accept abuse from our representatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OUCH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OUCH
Humor me; What if the internet community chose a third person/party to write in for president? Who? Would there be enough numbers to win?
I know it sounds crazy but if there ever was a viable third party to develop it would have to start "under the radar" until momentum got to big to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OUCH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OUCH
Really? Does that mean Congress can pass a law that abolishes copyrights entirely?
If it's true that ACTA does not bind Congress in any way, than ACTA is not a binding agreement where the US is concerned at all, is it? I'm sure the other signatories would be interested in how they have been duped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When I can see what is being put on paper and legally binding, then I will give you some measure of authority to pontificate on the legal outcome of ACTA.
Until then, you are just another noisy shill speaking loudly to cover up the shenanigans being done behind closed doors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it too early to start talking armed revolt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How long until society collapses again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
3 months after martial law is declared in the US and the military takes to the streets. The majority of the soldiers of the US are in the age range of heavy internet users. The same age range as the SOPA-PIPA-ACTA protesters. While the majority of soldiers are not heavy social media types. Think of the wives, cousins, and siblings who are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul
All in all I don't think he's the least of the three evils.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Paul
He's a little nuts on a couple of things, but by and large he seems to be the sanest on a whole host of issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
If you've looked at Virginia's "state rape" law, you can see how this won't go well for what he's thinking.
He also seems confused on allowing states damn near free reign on gay rights. This is a very dangerous stance to take.
And I would not even get into the judge nominations. Having an even more conservative justice system would equate to more "technical" judges that avoid using the Constitution to understand issues and merely following procedural issues that make the system slower and more bureacratic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
Paul's stances make sense to me in that he's for putting much of our lives out of the federal government's reach. At state levels, the representatives are more closely tied to their constituency, and so the true will of the people should be more clearly heard.
I've always heard him loud and clear on abortion, in that he says clearly that he's personally against it, but that it's just not the federal government's job to legislate what people can and cannot do with their own bodies.
Regarding gay rights, I think he addressed what is a core semantic hurdle in the gay marriage argument when he stated that, for purposes of government, hetero or same-sex unions should be termed "civil unions", which suddenly makes all 'marriage' arguments moot. As far as government is concerned, it becomes a matter of contract law, neutered and stripped of religious overtones.
Marriage is more a religious term than anything, and if it suddenly wasn't about some Bible-thumper's hackles being raised about a perversion of marriage, then they'd have to set the religious objection aside and admit that it's about bigotry.
Power corrupts, and what Paul is advocating would be to reduce the corruption by reducing the amount of power held in DC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
I agree after reading alot about the founding of this nation, it was to be a UNION of STATES, currently we have states that are ruled over by the feds and even if the citzens of a state want to for example legalize pot, they cant really do it because the feds say "no, is bad, no pot for you"
I would welcome states having more power/control of whats allowed in said states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
If the government is reduced to zero then that's close to what Somalia is. That's not what I want. I think there is a place for government, specifically in the area of consumer protection. What we have now is more like "capitalism gone wild".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Paul
Vote new blood PLEASE, no incumbents we MUST send them a message or this will go on & on !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
The STOCK Act has no teeth to it. The part that takes away the insider trader... Got traded away. It's legislation with no meat to it. Crony capitalism ftw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
republican: cut taxes on the rich, convence poor its a good thing.
demicrieten: pretend to tax the rich, as you give them more tax loop holes to insure they pay no taxes or even get money back from govt, as you convince the poor your taxing the rich...
they both screw us in the arse and expect us to supply the lube....one just talks nice to us and the other slaps us around...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Paul
Paul still advocates a high degree of diplomatic involvement in global issues, just not the gonzo military involvement that's bankrupting us and making us enemies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
Diplomacy without a credible threat of military involvement is what France and other pussy nations do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
No, I'm saying that diplomacy without the ability or will to back it up is futile. Why do you think US diplomacy is so effective? Because our diplomats are so fucking eloquent?
We can back shit up militarily or economically. What does France have? They won't fight so all they have left is the threat of a cheese embargo. BFD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
...
We can back shit up militarily or economically."
IOW, it's not diplomacy you are advocating, it's do as we say or else ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
It's the world equivalent of being a playground bully!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
That's not to say that that force or threat of force is right. But sometimes there is no other way. With Iran we have been adding trade sanctions for years and they aren't getting the hint. They probably won't get it until the missiles start landing on their heads, and by then there is no going back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
IOW, forget diplomacy, just force them to do what you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
Consider arbitration that most banks and other services require agreement with - do they back it up with military force? Diplomacy is more like arbitration.
Who gave the US the entittlement to police the globe and expect everyone to agree with us anyway? If people want kings and queens or a socialist government, let them have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul
Paul is closely tied to the heads of several of the largest white supremacist groups in the US and Canada. The Mises Institute, the founders of which he has been friends with for years, and whose ideas he repeats almost verbatim just leaving out the bits about how women and minorities shouldn't have the same rights as white men. Don't let them sell you the BS that it's just Austrian Economics and you don't understand. Modern Austrian Economics is simply the use of economic ideas to bring about changes that forward their causes. Look into that, if you don't know who David Duke is - look him up & realize that he and Paul were mutual admirers & supporters of each other. Look into who oversaw the controversial 'I didn't write those' newsletters - Paul's wife, Daughter & one of his closest friends (who would go on to form Mises).
He is a very skilled liar and following many years of 'this is how to sell this to the general populous' instructions from Christian Extremist and White Supremacist groups. These are not hypotheticals or loose connections, these are facts and can be backed up by Paul's own history, words, business filings, etc. Unfortunately most of his most blatant exposure stretches back to a literal paper trail that was never digitized. If someone has the time to start digging into that, what they'd find would cause much of Paul's support to evaporate almost over night. Unfortunately the media has never taken him seriously enough to bother doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Paul
I'm not seeing any evidence of Paul himself being a white supremacist. Maybe I'm just not finding the really bad bits.
Even if that's all true, though, and you take the very worst interpretation of all the evidence presented, I rather seriously doubt that his voting record and libertarian philosophy are some curtain that he's going to throw back at some point to reveal sudden world domination by the KKK.
I like Paul's foreign policy. I like his domestic policy of small federal government. I like the ways he says he's going to accomplish his goals. If he became president, and if he did then suddenly support some obviously racist policy or other, the backlash would be so sudden and so severe, he'd think he'd been teleported out of DC.
As it is, though, I don't hear anyone else even pretending to advocate libertarian philosophies, so I'm still for Paul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul
Paul is closely tied to the heads of several of the largest white supremacist groups in the US and Canada. The Mises Institute, the founders of which he has been friends with for years, and whose ideas he repeats almost verbatim just leaving out the bits about how women and minorities shouldn't have the same rights as white men. Don't let them sell you the BS that it's just Austrian Economics and you don't understand. Modern Austrian Economics is simply the use of economic ideas to bring about changes that forward their causes. Look into that, if you don't know who David Duke is - look him up & realize that he and Paul were mutual admirers & supporters of each other. Look into who oversaw the controversial 'I didn't write those' newsletters - Paul's wife, Daughter & one of his closest friends (who would go on to form Mises).
He is a very skilled liar and following many years of 'this is how to sell this to the general populous' instructions from Christian Extremist and White Supremacist groups. These are not hypotheticals or loose connections, these are facts and can be backed up by Paul's own history, words, business filings, etc. Unfortunately most of his most blatant exposure stretches back to a literal paper trail that was never digitized. If someone has the time to start digging into that, what they'd find would cause much of Paul's support to evaporate almost over night. Unfortunately the media has never taken him seriously enough to bother doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Paul
"Christian Extremist and White Supremacist groups."
He's a libertarian, and as such uncomputable with those groups.
"Modern Austrian Economics is simply...the skillful use of math to rob people from their money, and create profits from nothing."
FTFY
BTW, have you seen the 'formulas' they use on wall-street? Its a giant pyramid scheme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just disobey it. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Their" Plan
Penting +4 User is deleted by ACTA User is deleted by ACTA
Jumat, 2 Mar '12 13:30, dibaca 144 kali
Just got this e-mail. Don't take your freedom for granted. Earn it. It's not something you should receive on a silver platter. Help us fight the TRUE CONSPIRACY:
Dear friends,
In days, the European Commission will try a last ditch attempt to revive ACTA. But we can shine a light on their dirty trick and foil their plans.
Governments are turning their back on ACTA one by one, so the EC is asking their Court of Justice to give the treaty the greenlight and renew its momentum -- but they plan to manipulate the process by giving the court only a narrow, uncontroversial question to consider, hoping it will lead to a positive outcome.
We can push the court to see though the EC's ploy and look at all the legal implications of this censorship treaty on our freedoms -- forcing a negative decision that kills ACTA for good. Click below to sign the call:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/acta_time_to_win//?vl
The European Commission spent five years negotiating ACTA in secret with corporations, but in the last five weeks we've blown the ACTA debate into the open. Now the Commission is fighting to keep ACTA alive by getting the blessing of the EU�s highest court. Unless we step in now the Commission, well-versed in bureaucratic dodges, may only present the court with a narrow question, preventing it from assessing ACTA's impacts on our freedom of expression, privacy and democracy.
We�ve forced governments in Poland, Germany, Bulgaria and other countries to freeze ratification. And now, if we win this battle in the European Commission, we can stop ACTA for good. If the EU does not ratify, ACTA will never become a global agreement and negotiators will have to go back to the drawing board to produce a treaty that stops genuine abuses but protects our rights.
Let's urgently call on the Commission and Court to give ACTA a full and fair hearing, and make sure the whole truth about this threat to our fundamental freedoms is revealed. Sign now and send this to everyone:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/acta_time_to_win//?vl
Millions of us joined together to fight for Internet freedom and stop the US censorship laws. We won, but now this threat is back on a global scale with ACTA. We've done what no one thought we could and stopped the treaty's march to ratification. Let's finish what we started and beat back ACTA, for good!
With hope and determination,
Alex, Pascal, Laura, Alice, Ricken, Dalia, Diego and the whole Avaaz team
PS. Check out the media coverage of our 2.4 million strong petition delivery to the European Parliament on Tuesday -- we caused quite a stir!
Activists present anti-ACTA petition to EU (Associated Press)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5goN98YMyvwPqQiW31gBs8U-xnvIg?docId=7afd9ee f4f6b44acbb43b1029820bc87
Anti ACTA petition hits European Parliament (The Inquirer)
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2155775/anti-acta-petition-hits-european-parliam ent
ACTA opponents present 2 million petition to EU (Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/opponents-of-acta-anti-counterfeiting-treaty-present-p etition-with-2-million-names-to-eu/2012/02/28/gIQAmHCsfR_story.html
More Information:
ACTA approval stalled by European commission (Guardian):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/22/acta-stalled-european-commission?newsf eed=true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely. King Obama can do anything he wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
Anyway, this is getting more and more ridiculous, but in the light of this revelation, could the congress or the people do something about it since it is a clear violation of the US constitution that Obama signed the treaty without congress ratification? I hope there is still something that can be done...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YOUR ALL DOOMED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this a big scoop? Treaties are binding, why else would anyone bother negotiating them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Treaties require ratification in the Senate.
I'm glad to see you finally admitting that ACTA is a treaty.
Now, will you come out in support of having it ratified in the Senate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From Findlaw:
"The capacity of the United States to enter into agreements with other nations is not exhausted in the treaty-making power. The Constitution recognizes a distinction between �treaties� and �agreements� or �compacts� but does not indicate what the difference is. The differences, which once may have been clearer, have been seriously blurred in practice within recent decades. Once a stepchild in the family in which treaties were the preferred offspring, the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification.
During the first half-century of its independence, the United States was party to sixty treaties but to only twenty-seven published executive agreements. By the beginning of World War II, there had been concluded approximately 800 treaties and 1,200 executive agreements. In the period 1940-1989, the Nation entered into 759 treaties and into 13,016 published executive agreements. Cumulatively, in 1989, the United states was a party to 890 treaties and 5,117 executive agreements. To phrase it comparatively, in the first 50 years of its history, the United States concluded twice as many treaties as executive agreements. In the 50-year period from 1839 to 1889, a few more executive agreements than treaties were entered into. From 1889 to 1939, almost twice as many executive agreements as treaties were concluded. In the period since 1939, executive agreements have comprised more than 90% of the international agreements concluded."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Everyone on Techdirt argued that Hollywood et al would later argue that the act is binding after it passed despite the fact that IP extremists (likely including yourself) argued that it's not binding before it passed.
Typical flip flopping. You're right, it's no surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For instance
"Executive agreements do not change US law."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/01545117544/as-ustr-insists-acta-doesnt-need-cong ressional-approval-wyden-asks-state-dept-second-opinion.shtml#c626
IOW he is arguing that executive agreements do not / can not change U.S. law, as in they are not binding.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1505538101.shtml
There are other articles about this, they date back a while, including how Hollywood lobbyists would argue that these treaties are not binding before hand and later change their mind about how we need to follow our international obligations once they pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/01382311559/us-basically-says-it-ll-ignore-anythi ng-in-acta-that-it-doesn-t-like-so-how-about-everyone-else.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articl es/20110209/00065113017/eu-acta-is-binding-treaty-us-acta-is-neither-binding-treaty.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, look at the comment that Mike was responding to.
Looks like Mike's response was right on the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some quotes
MARCH 9, 2011
Senator Wyden
"If the Administration signs ACTA, doing so will not prevent the U.S. from changing its law, including in a number of specific areas like injunctive relief, damages for patent infringement, access to orphaned copyrighted works, and statutory damages, correct?"
AMBASSADOR RON KIRK (response)
"The ACTA was drafted to reflect both the general principles and specific provisions of U.S. law in the areas the agreement covers. That said, the agreement does not constrain Congress� authority to change U.S. law. "
Ron Wyden
"Does the Administration believe that the Congress and the courts are not bound by ACTA? If they are not bound by ACTA, they are therefore not constrained from developing guidelines that pertain to the issuance of injunctions against third parties, providing statutory licenses as an appropriate remedy, awarding continuing royalties in lieu of injunctions, or to implement reasonable exceptions to remedies in order to advance the public interest or to combat anti-competitive practices, correct?"
Ron Kirk
"The ACTA was drafted to reflect both the general principles and specific provisions of U.S. law in the areas the agreement covers. As a result, U.S. courts can continue to apply U.S. law and remain in conformity with the agreement. As noted above, ACTA does not constrain Congress� authority to change U.S. law. "
http://keionline.org/node/1115
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I do find curious is why a senator is writing a letter to the Department of State and not the USTR, Mr. Kirk. The DOS does not have cognizance over trade agreements. I believe I am accurate is saying that Ron does not report to Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine, but I am the biggest criminal in IP history for here now on.
The problem is the granted monopolies that are the root cause of all this BS, now it is time to start pirating and bootlegging in an scale never done before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And those areas are...?
"[T]he claim that this does not need Senate ratification appears to be incorrect. The fact that it is restricting Congress's ability to act on an issue which is Congress's mandate (not the administration's) suggests that there is simply no way that the President can sign ACTA without it being ratified by Congress. Even if it doesn't force Congress to change laws today, it does unquestionably hinder Congress' ability to change laws in the future."
There is nothing in the agreement that binds the hands of Congress with respect to its Article 1 powers. US law already comports with the agreement's provisions, and even if Congress later decides to scale back some US law, it does not necessarily follow that the US would not be in compliance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is pretty clear that congress is as bound in respect to international law as a citizen is to congressional law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It binds them from making any change that would make the US non-compliant. The fact that there remains a degree to which the laws could be scaled back is a far cry from the Constitutional provisions which do not even go as far as mandating copyright law exists. Also, as Senator Wyden pointed out, ACTA binds Congress in ways not present in the TRIPS agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one is ever simply wrong, there is always a reason they are wrong. If you can't provide that reason, then it is likely that you don't really possess a suitable understanding of the topic to engage in debate over that topic. In other words, your assertion carries no weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you know nothing about my legal background in constitutional law matters, your ending sentence is most surprising. It seems to me you are a bit uncomfortable entertaining the notion that perhaps what you have been reading here, and perhaps elsewhere, is not an accurate explication of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, ACTA is binding, because if it conflicts with US law, one of them has got to go. "Not binding" means Congress could pass a law that conflicts with ACTA, and we could still remain an ACTA signatory with no problem. That is the opposite of what you described, namely, "binding".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
US statutes are law. Provisions in ACTA are not law. Statutes always control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or the US law is repealed or amended (it "goes").
US statutes are law. Provisions in ACTA are not law. Statutes always control.
'Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land."'
So are you saying ACTA is not "made pursuant to the US Constitution"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me know if I misunderstand your use of "it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. ACTA is an international agreement
2. ACTA is made pursuant to the Constitution
3. The Constitution's supremacy clause says that the Constitution and international agreements made pursuant to the Constitution are the supreme law of the US
4. Federal statutes are superior to ACTA
What am I missing here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Statutes and treaties, as the term treaties has been interpreted for well over two centuries, each share equal dignity so long as they comport with the Constitution.
Executive agreements are neither statutes nor treaties, and, thusly, do not enjoy the status of federal law as is the case with statutes and treaties.
The above are general observations since there are several permutations of the treaty "process". Those that are self-executing immediately assume the same status as federal statutes. Those that require federal legislation in order for them to enter into force do not enjoy the same status unless and until legislation is duly enacted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you should tell that to the other signatories of ACTA. I'm sure they would have just loved to sign if they had known the U.S. - the prime mover behind the agreement - could just opt out any time it wanted.
You're also ignoring the consequences of the agreement. Theoretically, the U.S. could opt out of ACTA if Congress passed a law that conflicted with it. However, if they did so, they would face international sanctions. This would make Congress loathe to pass such laws; so much so, that it would effectively tie their hands.
There's also the small issue that, as a tradition, executive agreements can only be negotiated if the subject of the agreement falls under the President's Article 2 powers. This agreement does not. It involves copyrights and patents, which fall exclusively under Congress' Article 1 powers.
For example, neither TRIPS nor Berne could be entered into without Congress' approval (and the passing of two acts, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and the Berne Convention Implementation Act). ACTA is as far-reaching as these in some ways, yet the White House is claiming it can be entered into as a sole executive agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Constitution is superior to everything...period.
Actually treaties are at an equal level with the Constitution if I understand correctly.
I also found this tidbit: "Likewise, a sole-executive agreement can only cover matters within the President's authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President." It seems to me ACTA covers a bunch of stuff not within the President's authority, so signing this as a sole-executive agreement (rather than an executive-Congressional agreement requiring Congressional approval) should be unconstitutional.
And it does appear that CEAs and sole-executive agreements are at an equal (not inferior) level to federal statute. "American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
CEAs and SEAs are quite different from treaties, and do not carry the force of US law over which jurisdiction can be asserted by a US court. By themselves they are inferior to statutes and treaties.
International accords, no matter the form, may become a part of the body of US law, but this is not the proper forum to explore all the possible permutations because they are so numerous. Suffice it to say that only treaties and statutes comprise the corpus of US law.
Importantly, when I use the term statutes it is a general reference to legislation duly enacted by Congress and agency regulations duly enacted under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Once again, this is not the proper forum to explore this subject simply because it too does not admit to simplistic explanations. Legal treatises are typically what are needed to explain this in a comprehensive manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" It doesn't say the Constitution is supreme and treaties are right below it, it describes their supremacy in the same way.
Yet other texts describe a treaty as equal with an act of Congress (which I assume means an ordinary federal statute), without really mentioning the wording of the supremacy clause. Do you know anything about the discrepancy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the "Honourable" Ron Kirk
For the democratic process to function, while there is no requirement that the public are allowed to speak with you directly, there is a requirement that that public be informed.
Further, direct interfacing with the public was unwieldy in large part because of disinterest and a high cost in gathering opinion with the communications abilities present at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.
The second point has been solved as of a number of years ago as Internet bandwidth passed a certain threshold that allowed for forums (a name which just so happens to have meaning in the history of democracy, see Athens). The first point, at least with regard to Internet policy was provably flipped as of January 18th of this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> implying the US cares about or follows international law to begin with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Paul research
Ron Wyden too, since he seems to be one the few who gives a damn anymore about our rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civics classes as a prerequisite for the job should be mandatory. Our government isn't that complicated, but these clowns have no idea what checks and balances are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Violating his oath to uphold the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ocd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ocd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wake up we live in an authoritarian regime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recently, Congressional action saved Igor Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" from being played by music students and school bands without paying corporate royalties, so they'll get there eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't work as well when you've cut the stick down to have part over here, part over there, some sitting in another place, and spread over 155 countries. There's a reason the US has to spend so much more than anyone on military, even before the same force levels got 30% more expensive in the last few years to bolster Halliburton and Bechtel profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruled by content industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone in your state can't come to Washington
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't americans start a petition to remove Ron Kirk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why don't americans start a petition to remove Ron Kirk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why don't americans start a petition to remove Ron Kirk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess that buying off Obama is a lot expensive than running a write-in campaign for Chris Dodd for President.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Democracy" is an economic term for corporations to operate freely using tax dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]