Anti-trade deal protesters hijack Senate TPP hearing

[Natural Citizen]

Protesters opposed to a major, multi-national trade deal being negotiated in secret by a dozen countries – including the United States – hijacked a US Senate hearing early Tuesday to speak out against the proposal.

Capitol Police removed no fewer than three demonstrators Tuesday morning during testimony delivered before the Senate Committee on Finance by US Trade Representative Michael Froman concerning the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), the Committee’s chairman, attempted to rein the hearing in while acknowledging the ambivalence concerning the TPP — a 12-nation proposal that would encode new trade rules for intellectual property and market access and eliminate long-existing tariffs while, according to opponents like intellectual Joe Stiglitz, "restrict access to knowledge."

In addition to IP restrictions, critics have also taken issue with the lack of transparency concerning meetings between potential TPP partners, including the US and several nations in the Asia-Pacific region. Draft documents have previously been published by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks in an effort to disclose as much of the agreement as possible before it is adopted, but opponents of the proposal in the US have expressed concern that Congress could “fast track” the deal to expedite authorization by presenting it to the House and Senate with no amendments attached.

Continued - Anti-trade deal protesters hijack Senate TPP hearing

 

[Peace Piper]

 

[muh_roads]

Isn't Rand Paul FOR this?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Isn't Rand Paul FOR this?

Well. That remains to be seen. The oligarchs who want to influence our election process certainly are for this screed. They'll want a hand puppet who will empower them in the oval office, for sure. The TPP is mercantilist by any sense of the practice.

 

[muh_roads]

Well. That remains to be seen. The oligarchs who want to influence our election process certainly are for this screed. It is mercantilist by any sense of the practice.

I'm pretty sure he made calls for Obama to pass it.

 

[Peace Piper]

Isn't Rand Paul FOR this?

Rand Paul is most certainly for the TTP, and not only that, he favors fast tracking

Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership

Politics, the saying goes, makes strange bedfellows. In presidential politics, the cozy compromises with the unconstitutional seem even more unsettling.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a man whose personal popularity and political fortunes have increased in direct proportion to his spreading of his libertarian-leaning ideals, has now publicly embraced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an unprecedented sovereignty surrender masquerading as a multi-national trade pact.

Paul’s speech coincided with the TPP ministerial meeting conducted October 19-24 in Sydney, Australia...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ioritize-passage-of-trans-pacific-partnership​

This was posted here and then disappeared into the hidden Rand forums

 

[Natural Citizen]

You have to be careful with that, Peace Piper. The fact is that the thing is dying as the rest of the world wakes up to it and learns more about it. The U.S. is one of the nations where not much is discussed about it just because the corporate media stands much to gain from it and so we have crickets chirping over their way about it but around the world it is a different story. People are going nuts. They are taking to the streets. Particularly farmers. I've shared news of that here in this thread... Monsanto in US Foreign Policy . and they have some interesting political partners with regard to what we are seeing it play out here in the states. The same company (Monsanto) joined up with the Koch network to pen legislation that specifically protects them from the free market and destroys the sovereignty of states if said industry feels that laws will hurt their profits. Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

Of course, that is merely one area of economic infratructure where the TPP would be dangerous to sovereignty here and abroad but it is, at least, indicative of how the players will align themselves politically with regard to it.


Then again, It could be said that junior may just be kind of challenging Obama to get something through that he knows won't make it. But the company he keeps would indicate ultimate support for it.

Is interesting. That is for sure.

 

[Peace Piper]

You have to be careful with that, Peace Piper. The fact is that the thing is dying as the rest of the world wakes up to it and learns more about it. The U.S. is one of the nations where not much is discussed about it but around the world it is a different story. People are going nuts. They are tking to the streets. Particlarly farmers.

It could be said that juniuor may just be kind of challengong Obama to get something through that he knows won't make it. But then again the company he keeps would indicate support for it.

Is interesting. That is for sure.

I'd bet money if I had any that this will be done by summer, and will be law.

Washington DC gets what it wants, or it bombs and invades.

And you can twist Rand's position any way you want but you can't fool all the people all the time.

"Free Trade" - ROFL

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'd bet money if I had any that this will be done by summer, and will be law.

Washington DC gets what it wants, or it bombs and invades.

And you can twist Rand's position any way you want but you can't fool all the people all the time.

"Free Trade" - ROFL

Yeah, I'm not trying to twist it. Just thinking out loud with regard to what we already know and actions that we have seen from various players in industry and politics here in the states that would be similar abroad should the thing become authorized. It's kind of like the old "by their fruits you shall know them" gag.

 

[muh_roads]

The title doesn't even have the word trade in it. Just a partnership for crony corporatism. I've heard that even in the language of the bill the word "trade" is barely used...

 

[CaptUSA]

I'm sorry, folks. This is crap. There are good reasons to oppose TPP, but these aren't those. Their reasons for opposing this stem from protectionism.

NC, we have been over this. There is just so much misinformation about what TPP really is that it's hard to have a rational discussion.

We can't even discuss the IP implications, or the sovereignty concerns... No. We're caught up in this ridiculous Marxist notion that if America trades with poor countries, that we will lose our jerbs.

Here are some quick points:
1. No one knows what's in the "deal" because it hasn't been reached yet. All we have are selectively leaked documents from Wikileaks from a midstream negotiation.
2. Fast track does NOT bypass Congress. It allows a provisional deal to be brought before Congress for a vote. Now, Congress can't add amendments to the deal, which means if it were voted down, it would have to be restructured.
3. "Manufacturing" 10 years from now is going to look a lot different than it does now. Regardless of any deal. We are not "protecting" manufacturing by opposing this deal.
4. There are serious IP discussions that need to happen. IP is strictly utilitarian in my opinion. I can agree with limited protections for a short period of time, but that's it. The only reason a drug company spends on R&D is because they expect a return. Ok. But they shouldn't be allowed to use that forever. We need to see the final details of the structure.
5. There are serious sovereignty questions that could arise if a government - federal, state, or local - passes a law which could impact a market. For example, let's say Peru decides to put heavy taxes on tobacco. Does that mean that Phillip Morris can now sue in international court under provisions of TPP that Peru has impose a tarrif on trade? This is a serious issue that could be extremely harmful. Imagine the reverse.

The problem is that we never get to 4 and 5 without hearing the BS from 1-3.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm sorry, folks. This is crap. There are good reasons to oppose TPP, but these aren't those. Their reasons for opposing this stem from protectionism.

NC, we have been over this. There is just so much misinformation about what TPP really is that it's hard to have a rational discussion.

We can't even discuss the IP implications, or the sovereignty concerns... No. We're caught up in this ridiculous Marxist notion that if America trades with poor countries, that we will lose our jerbs.

Here are some quick points:
1. No one knows what's in the "deal" because it hasn't been reached yet. All we have are selectively leaked documents from Wikileaks from a midstream negotiation.
2. Fast track does NOT bypass Congress. It allows a provisional deal to be brought before Congress for a vote. Now, Congress can't add amendments to the deal, which means if it were voted down, it would have to be restructured.
3. "Manufacturing" 10 years from now is going to look a lot different than it does now. Regardless of any deal. We are not "protecting" manufacturing by opposing this deal.
4. There are serious IP discussions that need to happen. IP is strictly utilitarian in my opinion. I can agree with limited protections for a short period of time, but that's it. The only reason a drug company spends on R&D is because they expect a return. Ok. But they shouldn't be allowed to use that forever. We need to see the final details of the structure.
5. There are serious sovereignty questions that could arise if a government - federal, state, or local - passes a law which could impact a market. For example, let's say Peru decides to put heavy taxes on tobacco. Does that mean that Phillip Morris can now sue in international court under provisions of TPP that Peru has impose a tarrif on trade? This is a serious issue that could be extremely harmful. Imagine the reverse.

The problem is that we never get to 4 and 5 without hearing the BS from 1-3.

I don't think that enough support exists abroad for it to come to fruition personally. Not in any real way.

 

[phill4paul]

I only have this to say. Any legislature written regarding trade agreements is not written to better the lot of the "everyman." It is written for the masters of commerce to gain greater control of the market. They are the ones that own PACs. They are the ones that put the meat on the table for politicians and their progeny.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

TPP protesters in action..

 

[The Free Hornet]

We can't even discuss the IP implications, or the sovereignty concerns... No. We're caught up in this ridiculous Marxist notion that if America trades with poor countries, that we will lose our jerbs.

Speak for yourself and shitcan the 'jerbs' nonsense.

4. There are serious IP discussions that need to happen. IP is strictly utilitarian in my opinion. I can agree with limited protections for a short period of time, but that's it. The only reason a drug company spends on R&D is because they expect a return. Ok. But they shouldn't be allowed to use that forever. We need to see the final details of the structure.

Running cover for TPP again? You got to go pre-Berne just to pretend these restrictions are limited.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Some leaks are breaking on TPP:

Go to Prison for File Sharing? That's What Hollywood Wants in the Secret TPP Deal
...
It will force other TPP signatories to accept the United States' excessive copyright terms of a minimum of life of the author plus 70 years, while locking the US to the same lengths so it will be harder to shorten them in the future.
...
And in the most recent leak of the TPP's Intellectual Property chapter, we found an even more alarming provision on trade secrets that could be used to crackdown on journalists and whistleblowers who report on corporate wrongdoing.
...
The US is pushing for a broad definition of a criminal violation of copyright, where even noncommercial activities could get people convicted of a crime.
...
"penalties that include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement, consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity"
...
What's more alarming is that countries without existing criminal penalties or whose penalties are not "sufficiently high" to satisfy the US government, may be forced to enact harsher rules.
...
Property Seizure and Asset Forfeiture
...
Criminalization of Getting Around DRM

www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/go-prison-sharing-files-thats-what-hollywood-wants-secret-tpp-deal

So I don't know who the insiders are and I have ZERO expectation of the Rand camp actively opposing TPP. But for the love of liberty, do not get in front of this train wreck! Measure your words and watch the counter campaigns. Play this wrong, and all the urban outreach and civil rights and prison-industry reform mumbo jumbo will go out the window.

If it's going to pass, it can pass with little or no help from KY's junior senator (or is that Hollywood's junior senator?).

Do not lead the charge on this train wreck!

 

[The Free Hornet]

Sorry to panic. The leak itself might be old ... October. I guess they just finally read it:

https://www.wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/#article_h7