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.

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.)

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.

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.

Filed Under: alan grayson, national security, negotiations, secrecy, tpp, ustr

Rep. Grayson: Let Me Tell The NSA: There Is No Threat To Our Nation When I Call My Mother

from the so-why-do-you-have-the-records? dept

So far, we've seen lots of Congressional Representatives falling over each other to attack Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald over the NSA surveillance efforts. A few have raised concerns, but if you want to see an elected official say what's on many of our minds, listen to Rep. Alan Grayson's speech about the NSA scooping up all phone records. He points out that the NSA is only supposed to be collecting foreign data, highlights how extreme it is that they're collecting all phone records and says that he's shocked this is happening.

Let's be clear about this. This appears to be an order, providing that our telephone companies turn over call records for every single telephone call, regardless of whether it's international or not. Now, if someone had come to me nine days ago and said, 'Congressman Grayson, do you think that the Defense Department is taking records of any telephone call that you make or I make?' I would say 'no, I have no reason to believe that. It would shock me if it were true.' Well it is true and it DOES SHOCK ME. Why should we have our personal telephone records, the records of who we call, when speak to them, how long we're talking... why should we have that turned over to the Defense Department?

What possible rationale could there be for that?

Well, I'll tell you what I think their rationale would be: "because somehow that makes us safer." Well, let me say to the NSA and the Defense Department: there is no threat to America when I speak to my mother.

It goes on, in much greater detail about why this is such a problem. He points out that the order "clearly violates the 4th Amendment," which is the first time I've seen a politician finally admit that. He highlights that there's no probable cause and no particularity, as required by the 4th Amendment. And, for those who immediately, like rote, spout out Smith v. Maryland and the third party doctrine, Grayson responds to that as well, calling those who make that argument a "farce," noting the differences in that case, which involved seizing a single record once, not all records all the time.

Towards the end of his speech, he notes that the intelligence agencies have a long history of abusing surveillance:

You know, this is not the first time we've had this problem. This is not the first time that the government has entered into surveillance on people without probable cause. Many of us remember that there was FBI surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, including wiretapping and bugging his personal conversations. I thought -- perhaps naively -- that we'd moved beyond that. And, in some sense, we have moved beyond that. Because now, they're doing it to everyone.

One could well say that we are reaching the point where Uncle Sam is Big Brother.

...though its proponents depict this is American as apple spy (sic?), this program is an anti-American program. We are not North Koreans. We don't live in Nazi Germany. We are Americans and we are human beings. And we deserve to have our privacy respected. I have no way to call my mother except to employ the services of Verizon or AT&T or some other phone company... that doesn't mean that it's okay with me for the government -- and specifically the Department of Defense -- to be getting information of every phone call I make to her. It's not okay with me.... and I know for most of the people listening today, it's not okay with you either.

As he concludes: "this has gone way too far."

Filed Under: 4th amendment, alan grayson, constitutionality, nsa, nsa surveillance, privacy
Companies: verizon

How Not To Respond To An Online Political Critic: Ask The Attorney General To Jail Her For Five Years

from the that-congressman-is-nuts dept

When will they learn? Slashdot points us to the story of Congressional Rep. Alan Grayson from Florida. Like most any elected official, there are people who oppose him and are trying to convince people to support his opponents. That's part of the ballgame that you play as a politician. In Grayson's case, one of his critics is a woman named Angie Langley, who set up a website called MyCongressmanIsNuts.com, which is a parody of Grayson's own CongressmanWithGuts.com (not linking to either, as I don't wish to link to any political sites). Again, this shouldn't be a surprise. Now, it turns out that Langley is not actually a constituent in Grayson's district, but lives nearby. That is a bit misleading, but hardly a major issue.

Until, that is, Grayson turned it into one by sending a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder (pdf) asking for an investigation of Langley and the eventual jailing of her for five years over falsely representing herself as a constituent:

These matters were brought to Ms. Langley's personal attention through complaint to the FEC weeks ago, but she and the Committee continue to solicit contributions fraudulently, and have stubbornly refused to return the contributions that they already have, received. Therefore, Ms. Langley and the Committee should be fined, and Ms. Langley imprisoned for five years.

Again, there is an issue with falsely soliciting political contributions, but the thing is, she wasn't getting much attention for her campaign, and the issue of where she lives is really quite minor. There are always people who oppose elected officials. But sending this letter and requesting five years in jail for Langley suddenly made this a national story -- and guess who that's helping? It's certainly not Grayson. But I understand that Langley has suddenly found a lot more willing donors to her campaign. Wouldn't Grayson have been better off just focusing on his "guts" and not why someone outside his district thinks he's "nuts"?

Filed Under: alan grayson, angie langley, streisand effect