Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Administration Says Treaty Text Is State Secret [ACTA]
PC World ^ | Mar 13, 2009 | Grant Gross

Posted on 03/27/2009 1:07:36 PM PDT by Lorianne

The Office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), part of President Barack Obama's office, has denied a company's request for information about a secretive anticounterfeiting trade agreement being negotiated, citing national security concerns.

The USTR this week denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Knowledge Ecology International, an intellectual-property research and advocacy group, even though Obama, in one of his first presidential memos, directed that agencies be more forthcoming with information requested by the public.

The USTR under Obama seems to be taking the same position about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as it did under former President George Bush, that the treaty documents are not open to the public. One of Obama's campaign promises was to make government more open and responsive to the public.

The USTR, in a letter to Knowledge Ecology International's director James Love, said information in ACTA, an anticounterfeiting and antipiracy pact being negotiated among the U.S. and several other nations, is "properly classified in the interest of national security."

Critics of the secrecy say the treaty could have a major impact on the way the U.S. enforces intellectual-property law, including the potential for U.S. law enforcement agencies arresting U.S. residents for breaking other countries' IP laws.

(Excerpt) Read more at pcworld.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: 111th; acta; bho2009; bho44; bhotrade; democrats; first100days; lping; obamasecrets; ustr
AT&T, Comcast, Cox Aiding RIAA Anti-piracy Actions

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2009/03/25/%2526amp%3Bt%2C-comcast%2C-cox-aiding-riaa-anti-piracy-actions

Obama Justice Dept. Sides With RIAA in File-sharing Lawsuit

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2009/03/23/obama-justice-dept.-sides-riaa-file-sharing-lawsuit

Why Is ACTA Being Negotiated In Secret?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080609/0319221344.shtml

US Using Bogus Excuses For Denying Access To ACTA Documents

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090129/1955073576.shtml _________________

1 posted on 03/27/2009 1:07:36 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

AT&T, Comcast, Cox Aiding RIAA Anti-piracy Actions
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2009/03/25/%2526amp%3Bt%2C-comcast%2C-cox-aiding-riaa-anti-piracy-actions

Obama Justice Dept. Sides With RIAA in File-sharing Lawsuit
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2009/03/23/obama-justice-dept.-sides-riaa-file-sharing-lawsuit

Why Is ACTA Being Negotiated In Secret?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080609/0319221344.shtml

US Using Bogus Excuses For Denying Access To ACTA Documents
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090129/1955073576.shtml


2 posted on 03/27/2009 1:08:17 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

bookmark


3 posted on 03/27/2009 1:08:58 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; bamahead
Critics of the secrecy say the treaty could have a major impact on the way the U.S. enforces intellectual-property law, including the potential for U.S. law enforcement agencies arresting U.S. residents for breaking other countries' IP laws.

Anyone here who still genuinely believes that this is a Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" needs to put down the bong and enter detox.

4 posted on 03/27/2009 1:10:07 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

If this is about currency counterfeiting, and IF this contains sensitive information about methods or processes, I can understand that move.


5 posted on 03/27/2009 1:11:07 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Most transparent administration ever!
6 posted on 03/27/2009 1:14:15 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (American Revolution II -- overdue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Booking for a later, scrutinized read.

Off the cuff observation: We're gonna be the MOST OPEN, TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION, ever, sayeth the obamination.

7 posted on 03/27/2009 1:14:47 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (my tagline is over-stimulated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

It’s not about currency counterfeiting.


8 posted on 03/27/2009 1:17:26 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

I realize after I read the full thing after commenting. :->
Glad I put that big IF in there.


9 posted on 03/27/2009 1:18:14 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Saved by the IF .... :)


10 posted on 03/27/2009 1:22:14 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
I can understand that move.

No way !

Treaties are supreme to laws of Congress and maybe even to the Constitution. We deserve to know what they are and have our input heard about them, or they are invalid so far as I am concerned.

That's it! How about a secret amendment to the Constitution. (No more elections. Obama is King! All Hail Obama!)

ML/NJ

11 posted on 03/27/2009 1:23:08 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Someone should tell the New York Times about this and hint that it’s designed to stop America’s enemies.

Then they would be able to read about it on the front page.


12 posted on 03/27/2009 1:25:09 PM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Catch the IFs and see point #10- IF it was what I thought (which it wasn’t) it would be like military technology classifications. It wasn’t, so moot point.


13 posted on 03/27/2009 1:25:20 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Agreed!


14 posted on 03/27/2009 1:27:30 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
My guess is-- it is about stealing, copying intellectual properties. Or, patents would be worth zero, especially high-tech patents.

That's just a guess; I don't pretend to know anything about it.

15 posted on 03/27/2009 1:29:12 PM PDT by lonestar (Obama is turning Bush's "mess" into a catastrophe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

This is not the first time that I think I wish Scott hadn’t rolled.


16 posted on 03/27/2009 1:35:39 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Reynolds vs. United States of America


17 posted on 03/27/2009 1:36:30 PM PDT by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

So satan is basically asking his message to be taxed and shoved and paid for.

Counterfeit prez hidding birth certificate hides also “anticounterfeit” treaty. It’s no wonder counterfeits are available to government officials working abroad.


18 posted on 03/27/2009 1:36:33 PM PDT by JudgemAll (control freaks, their world & their problem with my gun and my protecting my private party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin
Reynolds vs. United States of America

Not sure which Reynolds you are referring to. I found this one which maybe you thought relevant:

Facts of the Case:
An airplane carrying several military personnel and several civilians crashed while conducting tests of "secret electronic equipment." The widows of the three civilians killed sued and asked for full disclosure of the Air Force?s accident investigation report. The report included information pertaining to the secret electronic equipment. The Air Force refused to provide the information, saying that to do so would threaten national security. Absent the report, the District Court and Court of Appeals viewed the question of negligence in the widow's favor and ruled for the plaintiffs.

Question:
If the government invokes privilege to withhold information in civil proceedings, must the trial court view the point on which evidence is withheld in the plaintiff's favor?

Conclusion:
No. In a 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice Fred Vinson, the court held that cause for privilege must be reasonably demonstrated. As a result, the government may withhold information for reasons of national security even when that information is vital to the plaintiff's case. On remand, the plaintiffs lost.

This is very different from anything involving a treaty which has to be ratified by the Senate, to my mind at least.

ML/NJ

19 posted on 03/27/2009 2:24:03 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll

The previous admin hid the details of this treaty as well.


20 posted on 03/27/2009 4:03:01 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

Treaties are subsummed to the Constitution.


21 posted on 03/27/2009 4:13:02 PM PDT by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
How about a secret amendment to the Constitution.

The people in Washington no longer govern America...

22 posted on 03/27/2009 4:15:51 PM PDT by EBH (The world is a balance between good & evil, your next choice will tip the scale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Treaties are subsummed to the Constitution.

I wish you were correct, but I not sure you are.

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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It's a hole big enough for a liberal to drive a truck through. So if you favorite politicians agree to a treaty that you cannot say anything bad about Islam, the first amendment is toast. (It's toast anyway, in case you haven't noticed.) The laws of Congress must be pursuant to the Constitution, but not the treaties. I don't like it but even I think this is a reasonable interpretation of this clause, and considering that half the Court already wants us to be bound by foreign law, I'd say we're in trouble.

ML/NJ

23 posted on 03/27/2009 4:36:49 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

“any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. “

I understand your point and am not trying to be argumentative.


24 posted on 03/27/2009 8:15:39 PM PDT by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ..
Among the supporters of ACTA are the Business Software Alliance and the Recording Industry Association of America.



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
25 posted on 03/27/2009 8:38:17 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

From what I have studied, that is subordinating STATE judges; STATE laws; and STATE constitutions. Just as states have no power to negotiate treaties, they are also bound by treaties negotiated by the federal government.

It has nothing to do with the US Constitution.

That is not to say that five Ginsburgs couldn't rule otherwise.

26 posted on 03/27/2009 8:38:25 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (The mob got President Barabbas; America got shafted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
From what I have studied, that is subordinating STATE judges; STATE laws; and STATE constitutions.

I agree that the part you quoted does just that. The part I quoted is the one that puts treaties on an equal plane with the Constitution itself, and since the treaties come after what exists at the time they are written, it's really not hard to argue that they are superior to it just as the Amendments are.

ML/NJ

27 posted on 03/28/2009 4:59:25 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

...The more they fast track and cover up, the better it is to see through them...


28 posted on 03/28/2009 6:50:28 AM PDT by gargoyle (...Lincoln abolished slavery, Obama wants it back, for most of us...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson