WendyMcElroy.com
Secret TreatiesI don't know how this slipped by under my radar last month. My thanks to Lorianne on the forum for calling it to my attention:
Copyright treaty is classified for 'national security'
Excuse me? A copyright agreement is a matter of "national security"? By what possible stretch of the imagination can only 10 pages of the 806-page treaty be free for citizens to read? Will the Defense Department be prosecuting copyright cases now?
Leaving aside the Obama administration's embrace of the Bushian (and Nixonian) proclivity for stamping "national security" on anything and everything -- and vigorously fighting to justify that stamp -- how is there supposed to be informed comment and debate on a sweeping trade agreement whose contents can't be revealed?
Further, treaties have the power of law in the U.S. So U.S. citizens will be required to observe laws which will not be disclosed to them. How can one follow a secret law? How will this be adjudicated? "I can't tell you what the defendant did wrong, Your Honor, but I can assure you it was against the law."
I suspect the only "security" involved here is that of the recording- and entertainment-industry lobbyists who are greasing palms to get some special favors in this newlegislation treaty. Once again, we see the sham of Changey McHopeful's promises for openness, transparency, and a new way of government.
More at PC World and Ars Technica.
Update: (click "read the rest")
Copyright treaty is classified for 'national security'
Now President Obama's White House has tightened the cloak of government secrecy still further, saying in a letter this week that a discussion draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and related materials are "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958."
Excuse me? A copyright agreement is a matter of "national security"? By what possible stretch of the imagination can only 10 pages of the 806-page treaty be free for citizens to read? Will the Defense Department be prosecuting copyright cases now?
Leaving aside the Obama administration's embrace of the Bushian (and Nixonian) proclivity for stamping "national security" on anything and everything -- and vigorously fighting to justify that stamp -- how is there supposed to be informed comment and debate on a sweeping trade agreement whose contents can't be revealed?
Further, treaties have the power of law in the U.S. So U.S. citizens will be required to observe laws which will not be disclosed to them. How can one follow a secret law? How will this be adjudicated? "I can't tell you what the defendant did wrong, Your Honor, but I can assure you it was against the law."
I suspect the only "security" involved here is that of the recording- and entertainment-industry lobbyists who are greasing palms to get some special favors in this new
More at PC World and Ars Technica.
Update: (click "read the rest")
In response to some comments: Yes, I am aware that this is a draft treaty and not yet adopted. It is possible that when the treaty is presented for legislative approval, it will be declassified.
However, resorting to the pretext of "national security" to enforce confidentiality during the negotiations leaves open the possibilty that the final treaty will also have "national security" implications. Furthermore, the time to discuss such a treaty is now, during negotiations, and not when it's presented to Congress as a "take it or leave it" package...and if recent experience is any indication, presented with a panicked gotta-approve-it-now deadline, and with too little time for anyone voting on it to read it, even if they were so inclined.
I suspect that one reason they cite Executive Order 12958 (which has been largely superseded) is because of that order's expansive definition of "national security":
Yes, you read it right: anything at all to do with foreign countries is "national security." If the U.S. and Costa Rica start discussing standards for bananas, that's "national security." At least if either party has "the expectation that the information, the source of the information, or both, are to be held in confidence" (not an agreement, mind you; merely the "expectation").
They seem to have overlooked Sec. 1.2 (a) (4), which says that such things can only be classified if
Not that that's a particularly big hurdle to jump; I imagine a big rubber stamp with the words "disclosure will impact our credibility with foreign countries" would meet the letter of the law. Of course, Sec. 1.2 (b) says "If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified." But the weasel-word "significant" gives them an out.
Bottom line: we need to know now (a) why this information is classified, (b) what damage will be done if this information is published, and (c) when this information will be declassified.
And my verdict remains: this kind of government is nothing like "open and transparent." Favored friends are getting a chance to peek at this draft treaty. Why not the public?
However, resorting to the pretext of "national security" to enforce confidentiality during the negotiations leaves open the possibilty that the final treaty will also have "national security" implications. Furthermore, the time to discuss such a treaty is now, during negotiations, and not when it's presented to Congress as a "take it or leave it" package...and if recent experience is any indication, presented with a panicked gotta-approve-it-now deadline, and with too little time for anyone voting on it to read it, even if they were so inclined.
I suspect that one reason they cite Executive Order 12958 (which has been largely superseded) is because of that order's expansive definition of "national security":
(a) "National security" means the national defense or foreign relations of the United States. (emphasis added)
Yes, you read it right: anything at all to do with foreign countries is "national security." If the U.S. and Costa Rica start discussing standards for bananas, that's "national security." At least if either party has "the expectation that the information, the source of the information, or both, are to be held in confidence" (not an agreement, mind you; merely the "expectation").
They seem to have overlooked Sec. 1.2 (a) (4), which says that such things can only be classified if
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage. (emphasis added)
Not that that's a particularly big hurdle to jump; I imagine a big rubber stamp with the words "disclosure will impact our credibility with foreign countries" would meet the letter of the law. Of course, Sec. 1.2 (b) says "If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified." But the weasel-word "significant" gives them an out.
Bottom line: we need to know now (a) why this information is classified, (b) what damage will be done if this information is published, and (c) when this information will be declassified.
And my verdict remains: this kind of government is nothing like "open and transparent." Favored friends are getting a chance to peek at this draft treaty. Why not the public?
| Donate with Paypal |
 | Donate Bitcoins! |
New Bitcoin address - 30 Nov 2020
1Ee7g7zAUReViPRWtLPBEgnPDRP62qxq3J
1Ee7g7zAUReViPRWtLPBEgnPDRP62qxq3J
Our news can be syndicated by using these rss feeds.
