3 edits | reply to Van
Re: It really is sad that things of this nature said by Van:are kept completely secret from us (negotiation wise) It makes you wonder what exactly they are doing The NEGOTIATIONS are secret - NOT the end product, which must be approved by the relevant authorities in each country signing on to the agreement. In the US the Senate has to approve this and the language will be available for all to see at that time. Don't like the agreement, then call your Senators and tell them to vote no.
The US isn't the only participant in the negotiations. So why aren't other countries releasing the info? Because all countries know that multilateral negotiations between many countries(including non-democracies) can't ever be completed with the press reporting every zig and zag of the deal making.
And it does get approved/disapproved in each country separately based on that country's laws. There is no worldwide plebiscite capability existing(though the "1 world controlled by the UN" people wish there were). There is the UN, but that is not a democratic organization and has no capability to pass laws applicable to countries that don't agree to those laws.
P.S.>> And it is a TREATY(as opposed to what some here are saying) and needs approval by the Senate.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count···greement
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| So what good are those "negotiations" when they are made available as you claim and the citizens and/or their representation scream bloody murder?
Why not have it open and tore apart during the negotiations to have it something that would be viable in the end. Instead of trying to be secret then get it tore apart and have to start again.
At least being open would show good faith and allow many people (especially those with the technical knowledge and experience) to give input directly or indirectly. |
|
|
|
| said by Skippy25:Why not have it open and tore apart during the negotiations Because many countries wouldn't take part then. |
|
| Does that matter?
If they won't take part if it is open, what are they going to do when it does become open and up for public scrutiny? They going to step aside then? If so, then let them do it now. |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to fAcEtIOUs
All the have to do to get it passed is to tie it to a defense spending bill. No senator will vote against it. |
|
1 edit | said by NOCMan:All the have to do to get it passed is to tie it to a defense spending bill. No senator will vote against it. I bet you haven't spent a day in the military service of your country.
I suggest you put your butt on the line someday for something greater then your own self worth. Then maybe you will get an inkling of what the men and women that all volunteer to serve understand with there hearts.
Despite what you may think the USA is involved in a war not of our choosing. Do not forget it was first brought to our shores with thousands of lives lost. It was not a war of our choosing but a war of very different beliefs. I for one will not sell this country short because of the short term memory I see happening with this post.
To not fund armed forces involved in a battle that were put in harms way by the very government and people that they are willing to die to protect is in itself an act of cowardice.
If you disagree with the war effort then get them home and do what you wish. But please do not cause harm to those who are at risk doing what there countrymen sent them to do.
Nobody on earth hates war more then the military itself. Ask the next patriot in uniform I'm sure thats what they will tell you.
A USN veteran. |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
1 edit | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Does that matter? If they won't take part if it is open, what are they going to do when it does become open and up for public scrutiny? They going to step aside then? If so, then let them do it now. Worrying about negotiating partners is one worry.
Worrying about the constitutency/proletariat + agenda-ridden-press is another.
One of those worries at a time is difficult enough. Both simultaneously, while being competent in negotiations is likely impossible.
If you support the efforts of the senators, this is what you have to keep in mind.
If you are against the efforts of the senators, then transparency is your friend.
I suppose the right and wrong of the issue, depend on what your desires are.
How's THAT for Moral Equivalency brought to life?
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
thumbs down from:
fAcEtIOUs 
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Perhaps, but in negotiating, a government pretty much agrees to certain terms even before signing. Especially terms which that particular country demanded. Once negotiations are done, it's not so much a fight to avoid signing, but a lot of horse trading to get others to drink the koolaid.
That said, it's likely the USA will sign this one, as it is THAT country that is the driving force behind draconian copyright measures like ACTA. I wouldn't be overly surprised if there are some clauses involving torture and imprisonment without due process in there for alleged copyright violators (alleged, since no proof would be required, just as with your guests at the Gitmo resort). |
|
