Rep. Alan Grayson: I've Seen The Details And There Is No Reason To Keep TPP Secret
from the speak-up dept
Rep. Alan Grayson has apparently been allowed to see a copy of the latest text of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and he's mystified about why it's being negotiated in secret. As we've noted in the past, the USTR likes to claim how "transparent" they are because (1) they "listen" to whoever wants to talk and (2) they'll show things to Congress. Neither of those things are "transparency." Listening to people is great, but transparency is about information flowing in the other direction, from the government to the public. As for showing things to Congress, we've explained how that's not really accurate. Elected officials in Congress can see the text, but they have to go to the USTR, where they can look at the document, but they're not allowed to take notes, make copies or bring any staffers (such as experts on trade or any of the issues in the document) with them.Grayson apparently took the USTR up on that offer, and he says there's no reason that the text should be secret.
Because of this pressure, the USTR finally let a member of Congress – little ole me, Alan Grayson – actually see the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is a large, secret trade agreement that is being negotiated with many countries in East Asia and South America.Of course, the USTR argues -- ridiculously -- that the reason they can't share it is not because of "national security," but basically some crap about how they've never negotiated in public and somehow no agreement could be reached if negotiations were made public. But that's hogwash. Lots of other agreements, including ones on similar topics are negotiated with the various negotiating texts made public. And, considering these governments are all representing the public, the idea that they can't represent their constituencies is ridiculous.
The TPP is nicknamed “NAFTA on steroids.” Now that I’ve read it, I can see why. I can’t tell you what’s in the agreement, because the U.S. Trade Representative calls it classified. But I can tell you two things about it.
1) There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret.
2) This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.
3) What they can’t afford to tell the American public is that [the rest of this sentence is classified].
(Well, I did promise to tell you only two things about it.)
It's good to see that more people are realizing just how problematic the nature of the TPP is today, and questioning why the documents are secret.
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: alan grayson, national security, negotiations, secrecy, tpp, ustr
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Learn from us. Not them.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
My question
Who, exactly, gets to call things "classified?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My question
Having thought about it a bit though, I came to realize that it is Obama's dog. Anyone who wants something classified, merely brings it to the White House and lays the paper on the floor. If the dog pisses on it, it's CLASSIFIED. If the dog does a number two on it, it's SuperPenultimateScarletLetterEyesOnlyIfYouThinkAboutItTooLoudYourScrewed Callified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My question
If you have a clearance, you can make a document and classify it. No one really will bother to call BS on it either.
The reality is that most people do everything in their power to keep it unclassified or classified to it's lowest level possible.
But, on a classified system, I could mark this comment as SECRET and it would be until other authority DECLASSIFIES it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My question
http://www.tn.gov/safety/publicaffairs.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought that corporate interests already had sovereignty over that country. Maybe this just makes it official
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are the risks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the risks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the risks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What are the risks?
Oh, look! There's a Congress full of them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the risks?
google glasses...
(about the only valid use i can think for them...)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the risks?
Suppose he published it in the Congressional Record?
Under the speech and debate clause, the administration couldn't do a thing about it. But his fellow representatives could expel him from the house, with the concurrence of two-thirds.
See, generally, Gravel v United States (1972).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the risks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Effective TPP opposition
When someone like Rep. Grayson implies he has read the TPP but cannot tell us about it because he will get in trouble he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to appear as if he is on the public's side by tisk-tisking and wagging his finger but at the same time by not revealing its contents he is protecting the business interests that fund his campaigns,
When is politician with some backbone going to take up this issue for the sake of the hard-working Americans who will be negatively impacted by it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would be ridiculous. However, the idea was always about repressing the public all along. Simply persuade the representatives to keep making secret agreements that place themselves and their friends above the public and their pesky laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is part of the fascist agenda, and that is why it is classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learn from us. Not them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet, somehow magically lobbyists get to see the drafts. Funny that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he had courage.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If he had courage.....
Shows who's actually in charge of who fairly well, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can we do?
Can you tell me, what can I do? I go out on the plaza wearing a three-cornered sign denouncing this thing, as I've done for years, but before, i got a lot of interest. Now this is so obscure, I get maybe 1 taker in 2 hours. I'm discouraged.
http://www.proudprimate.com/placards/placards.htm#tpp
What can we do as citizens to stop this? I daresay, it's the worst thing that can happen in the next year, including war, financial collapse, and epidemic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trans-pacific partnership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The TPP as a security threat
"1) There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret."
If you agree with tax-payer supported U.S. security organizations that information about 911-type bombings of buildings and infrastructure are so dangerous that facts about them must be kept secret, ...
... then it should be OBVIOUS that any attack that virtually destroys our Congress, state legislatures, and local assemblies, in one, swift blow, would be the greatest danger to the continued existence of our nation ever devised — and that facts that might expose details would be considered as "SECRET" by some. Especially by those who would benefit from a successful attack.
Since the secret TPP would essentially negate people's democratic participation in decision-making across our land as well as in other "partner" nations, it would with a few pen strokes destroy democratic institutions more thoroughly than if actual bombs had been used. It represents the greatest threatened attack on Democracy the world has ever known, and THUSIS indeed a Security Issue.
In THIS case, however, the greatest threat to security is by keeping its terms secret and undebated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rep. Grayson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]