Wikileaks Posts Entire Secret Trade Deals OnLine - Liberals Stroking Out

WikiLeaks offering cash for leaks on Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal
As of early Wednesday, at least 421 people have donated $36,000 for the cause
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...eaks-on-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal/

"The treaty aims to create a new international legal regime that will allow transnational corporations to bypass domestic courts, evade environmental protections, police the internet on behalf of the content industry, limit the availability of affordable generic medicines, and drastically curtail each country's legislative sovereignty," WikiLeaks said in a statement.

WikiLeaks releases secret TISA docs: The more evil sibling of TTIP and TPP
The new agreement that would hamstring governments and citizens even further.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...a-docs-the-more-evil-sibling-of-ttip-and-tpp/

WikiLeaks has released 17 secret documents from the negotiations of the global Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which have been taking place behind closed doors, largely unnoticed, since 2013. The main participants are the United States, the European Union, and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan and Israel, which together comprise two-thirds of global GDP.

Significantly, all the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—are absent, and are therefore unable to provide their perspective and input for what is essentially a deal designed by Western nations, for the benefit of Western corporations. According to the European Commission's dedicated page: "TiSA aims at opening up markets and improving rules in areas such as licensing, financial services, telecoms, e-commerce, maritime transport, and professionals moving abroad temporarily to provide services."

TISA's focus on services complements the two other global trade agreements currently being negotiated in secret: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the corresponding deal for the Pacific region, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which deal with goods and investments. Like both TTIP and TPP, one of the central aims of TISA is to remove "barriers" to trade in services, and to impose a regulatory ratchet on participating nations. In the case of TISA, the ratchet ensures that services are deregulated and opened up to private companies around the world, and that once privatised, they cannot be re-nationalised.

The 17 documents released today include drafts and annexes on issues such as air traffic, maritime transport, professional services, e-commerce, delivery services, transparency, and domestic regulation, as well as several documents on the positions of negotiating parties. The annexe on e-commerce is likely to be of particular interest to Ars readers, since, if adopted, it would have a major impact on several extremely sensitive areas in the digital realm.
Thou shalt not...

For example, the question of data flows—specifically the flow of European citizens' personal data to the US—is at the heart of disputes over the EU's proposed Data Retention rules, the Safe Harbour agreement, and TTIP. Here's what Article 2.1 of TISA's e-commerce annexe would impose upon its signatories: "No Party may prevent a service supplier of another Party from transferring, [accessing, processing or storing] information, including personal information, within or outside the Party’s territory, where such activity is carried out in connection with the conduct of the service supplier’s business."

What that means in practice, is that the EU would be forbidden from requiring that US companies like Google or Facebook keep the personal data of European citizens within the EU—one of the ideas currently being floated in Germany. Article 9.1 imposes a more general ban on requiring companies to locate some of their computing facilities in a territory: "No Party may require a service supplier, as a condition for supplying a service or investing in its territory, to: (a) use computing facilities located in the Party’s territory."

Article 6 of the leaked text seems to ban any country from using free software mandates: "No Party may require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition of providing services related to such software in its territory." The text goes on to specify that this only applies to "mass-market software," and does not apply to software used for critical infrastructure. It would still prevent a European government from specifying that its civil servants should use only open-source code for word processing—a sensible requirement given what we know about the deployment of backdoors in commercial software by the NSA and GCHQ.

Without WikiLeaks, the presence of these far-reaching proposals would not have been revealed until after the agreement had been finalised—at which point, nothing could be done about them, since the text would be fixed. With the publication of these documents, civil society has an opportunity to find out what is being discussed behind those closed doors, and to analyse and discuss the implications. Whether the negotiators will take account of what ordinary people think is another matter.


TTIP explained: The secretive US-EU treaty that undermines democracy
A boost for national economies, or a Trojan Horse for corporations?
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-polic...etive-us-eu-treaty-that-undermines-democracy/

-t
 
WikiLeaks offering cash for leaks on Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal
As of early Wednesday, at least 421 people have donated $36,000 for the cause
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...eaks-on-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal/

From arstechnica.com:

The secret-spilling site is offering as much as $100,000 to somebody who forwards to WikiLeaks the 26 chapters of the 29 that have not been disclosed so far.

So only 3 of the 29 chapters have been reportedly leaked so far (not the "entire secret trade deal"). Probably the 3 chapters that were "planned" to be leaked?? I don't see any new news on this since 6/3....
 
From arstechnica.com:



So only 3 of the 29 chapters have been reportedly leaked so far (not the "entire secret trade deal"). Probably the 3 chapters that were "planned" to be leaked?? I don't see any new news on this since 6/3....

Don't know if they paid the reward, just pointing out that they were crowdfunding for it.

I think they got the whole thing now.

-t
 
Also seeing as how the information contained in the bill is already made public, I guess there is no need continuing with the secrecy right?
 
From the libertarian standpoint, it doesn't hurt as much as it helps.

You couldn't pick the libertarian standpoint out of a lineup in three tries. There is only one other person on this board dumbass enough to believe that handing sovereign regulatory powers to a cartel of anti-competitive Fascists is a good idea.
 
You couldn't pick the libertarian standpoint out of a lineup in three tries. There is only one other person on this board dumbass enough to believe that handing sovereign regulatory powers to a cartel of anti-competitive Fascists is a good idea.

Well. I'll say this. I actually think that angela is one of the, if not, THE most "libertarian" person(s) on the entire board. This is a problem for me. And it is why I've found myself gradually separating myself from my political peers in the movement or demograph. I'm seeing libertarianism hijacked much in the way that we saw with the TEA PARTY.

Libertarianism , unfortunately, has been relegated to serving as the stalking horse for our mercantilist friends in various circles. Now, with this so called trade agreement, all it really does is protect our mercantilist friends from free trade. It protects them from a free market. And, I know that many here know that. No sense in going over it.

At the end of the day I maintain that the entire thing will fall flat on it's face. Meaning this power grab. The rest of the world isn't having any of it. But the great thing about it is that we get to see who is whom in our "libertarian" group. We get to see who really understands the nature of foreign policy and who doesn't. Further, we get to see who would contribute further to such a failure in foreign policy and who would not. And, really, it is unfortunate that it has to be that way. But it must be that way.
 
Last edited:
Every one in the group could just do what New Zealand did and uni-laterally remove all tariffs and other trade barriers and subsidies.

It actually worked really really well.
 
My biggest fear is that it will turn over regulatory authority to a UN-type body, which seems far more likely than governments banding together to stop regulations.

I see Obama as likely to push for such things. Why? Because he will want to be chief of such a globally over-arching institution... with no term limit, of course. He appears to be of the personality type that views his stint as POTUS to be nothing but a stepping stone to ever bigger things. In fact, at this point he probably views the Oval Office as global chump-change
 
See the Maastricht Treaty. It started off in a similar manner and eventually the EU was created. I have no doubts that TPP is based on a similar strategy. First, weave global commerce together and then follow it up with the governmental coalescence.

That would certainly fit the pattern.

It is telling to note that these things are now set into place with what is effectively zero resistance. Loud, angry talk does not count. Theye are now basically able to do anything they please with little fear of dangerous reprisals. That, of course, does not preclude other, equally dangerous consequences, but I suppose only time will tell. And that last bit applies mostly to the USA mainly because we remain well armed, which I am sure sticks in Theire craws as another obstacle to be removed... in time. Note how lately there are more noises on back-door means of furthering so-called "gun control". But if Theye are patient, and they appear to be losing that quality of character for whatever reason, once the strategy to which you refer cements sufficient coalescence of government authority, it will become a cakewalk to sew up the small vestige of individualist resistance to global hegemony. It may still be very bloody, but it would likely not last that long. Time is on Theire side, if they will simply wait for the right circumstance.

When that day comes and the American people say "fuck you" to Theire latest and greatest fiat regarding private ownership of weapons, Theye will simply move foreign troops into North America, staging in MX and Canada perhaps, or just landing on the shores of each coast by perhaps the millions, and begin the wave inward, house by house, to confiscate every weapon they find and murder anyone who so much as opens their yaps in anything other than smiling, eager obedience. That is how I would do it, anyway.

Seriously now - if the US military is rendered a non-factor, something that can be readily accomplished logistically at the very least - imagine in your mind's eye what the public result would be when assault forces appear and land on Redondo Beach, Seaside, and so forth. Think carefully before concluding. What will the average American individual in the area, capable of witnessing the actual events, do? Will they grab their rifles and organize to repel the invaders? Not on your life. The average man will stare and stare, at first in confusion. Once they realize those are not Americans rushing toward them, they will shit in their pants and allow anything the uniformed thugs demand. There will be no resistance of which to speak, especially when any such effort is met with shock-and-awe massacre. Grown men will be so terrified, they will hold up their 10 year old sons and daughters in offer to the soldiers' pleasure in exchange for not being hurt.

It should be plenty clear that this globalization thing is a very serious matter to Themme. The rest of the world is lined up, save perhaps some of the wilder elements of the middle-eastern Islamic jihadist. Once those have served their political purposes, they may be wiped from the earth as easily as I'd clean the blackboard for my German Language teacher in high-school. But the Americans will be a slightly different issue - more work, more area, more potential threat. But I hold little doubt that when the physical reality is upon us with a million or more foreign troops coming ashore in coordinated, blitzkrieg fashion, the average American will definitely fold as a cheap suit. I am not sure how to assess the so-called "3%" in terms of their abilities to fight off what could ultimately be several millions of well-armed invaders. I can assure you that it will not be as depicted in "Red Dawn" - not with fifth-generation night vision and computerized targeting in Theire hands but not ours.

This is all speculative, naturally, and may never come to pass. But were it to, I would not in any way be surprised. I would, however, be scared sheet-white and shitless.
 
Secret transnational agreements not available to the public sounds extremely bad to me. We have no idea nor any input as to the final results.

Agreed. However, I am not sure that it makes any difference at this point, unfortunately.

Consider the real game at hand, and there are several in play. There is the game of the cheaply-for-sale US politician. His obvious personal interests might be cause to believe that public outrage would make a difference. But do his interests really make a difference? I suspect that this is more and more inching toward "not at all". So what if some punk senator doesn't get reelected? Those playing the other game, the REAL game, could give the least damn, save for the inconvenience such outcomes might pose.

One way or another we are going to have one-world government, all else equal - and please let all else not be so. Theye are taking over - HAVE taken over - and are now putting the finishing touches on their initial work. Theye will stop at nothing to have that which they seek. Theye will kill you, your children, and everyone you know. I hold no doubt whatsoever that if Theye had to, they would murder every living soul in America. THAT is what we are up against, and at this moment things are not looking very rosy.
 
We'll learn a lot (perhaps much more than we really want to know) from what the GOP controlled Senate does with this (treaty?).

Yessir... the result their will tell you immediately whether America is screwed. I say we are, but thinly hope to be surprised and made the fool.

If Congress does not slap these down with unequivocal force, you'd better start making whatever preparations you have in mind - whether to simply give in or to die fighting - because the time will be upon us.

Time is here.
 
Yessir... the result their will tell you immediately whether America is screwed. I say we are, but thinly hope to be surprised and made the fool.

If Congress does not slap these down with unequivocal force, you'd better start making whatever preparations you have in mind - whether to simply give in or to die fighting - because the time will be upon us.

Time is here.

We've all been made fools of, some just are unfortunate enough to see it.
 
LEAKED E-MAIL: TTIP VOTE SUSPENDED BY EURO AUTHORITIES, FARAGE SAYS ‘EU RUNNING SCARED’

Last night Breitbart London reported that the European Parliament’s plans to vote and debate on the “shady” Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal with the United States had been thrown into disarray on the back of major public backlash.

E-mail from Martin Schulz delaying TTIP
E-mail from Martin Schulz delaying TTIP

The planned parliamentary activity today was called into question late last night, as a leaked e-mail from the Parliament’s president at 10pm reveals. Sent directly from Martin Schulz, it reads:

“Group leaders representing a majority in the Conference of Presidents have informed me that they want the report by Mr Lange on TTIP to be postponed.

“At this stage, such a change can be made only on a proposal by the President to amend the agenda in accordance with Rule 152. In order to enable the House to vote on the change suggested, I have agreed to make such a proposal.

“Therefore, at the opening of the sitting at 8 a.m., the proposal to postpone the report by Mr Lange will be put to the House.”

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...ro-authorities-farage-says-eu-running-scared/
 
OBAMATRADE SUPPORT FALLING APART IN HOUSE DESPITE LEADERSHIP PUSH

Republican members aren’t buying what President Barack Obama and House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)40%
are selling when it comes to Obamatrade, and support for the president’s key trade agenda item is starting to fall apart rapidly amid grassroots pressure.

“I’m voting against Trade Promotion Authority,” Rep. Paul Cook (R-CA)50%
told Breitbart News on Tuesday.

I don’t trust President Obama to negotiate in good faith. In November, I signed a letter to President Obama highlighting Congress’ authority to set the terms of trade in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Voting for Trade Promotion “Fast Track” authority would essentially give President Obama a blank check to negotiate trade deals without Congressional input. We’ve seen too many bad deals happen on his watch, and his abuse of executive orders has demonstrated his complete disregard for the law. I don’t want to see it happen one more time.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)80%
, through a spokesman, confirmed he’s leaning no on Obamatrade.

“As of now, Congressman Gosar is leaning no,” Gosar spokesman Steven Smith said in an email. “He has concerns about the consequences of granting the president fast-track authority which would force Congress to vote on his trade agreement without any opportunity to offer amendments.”

Both Gosar and Cook were previously publicly undecided.

Many more Republican members who are publicly undecided are actually planning to vote against the legislation should leadership take it up for a vote, sources in many of their offices tell Breitbart News.

According to a whip list that The Hill newspaper has been keeping since early May—it was last updated on Tuesday shortly after noon—at least 30 Republicans will vote no, (which includes several “lean” no votes). Those include Reps. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)95%
, Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA)38%
, Dave Brat (R-VA), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)80%
, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO)80%
, Rep. Curt Clawson (R-FL)89%
, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY)32%
, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)34%
, Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC)95%
, John Duncan (R-TN), Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY)42%
, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)67%
, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)70%
, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)92%
, David Joyce (R-OH), Rep. John Katko (R-NY)20%
, Rep. Steve King (R-IA)79%
, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)95%
, Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)32%
, Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ)40%
, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)91%
, Rep. David McKinley (R-WV)45%
, Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL)100%
, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)32%
, Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK)40%
, Chris Smith (R-NJ), Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)65%
, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL)73%
, Rep. Don Young (R-AK)38%
, and Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT)40%
.

Add Gosar and Cook to that list and GOP opposition that’s public is now at 32, but The Hill also misses some members who are publicly against it as well.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)80%
told the New York Times he’s against it, and the Times reported in that piece that Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)94%
is against it as well. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX)79%
is against it, as he told Breitbart News before, and again there are several more Republicans who have expressed either serious concerns with the deal or have privately told Breitbart News or other conservative groups who have confirmed those members’ positions in opposition to Obamatrade to Breitbart News.

The total number of definite Republican no votes on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast track the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal—the text of which is currently being kept hidden from the American people—is probably higher than 123, some sources close to the process tell Breitbart News, despite GOP leadership’s public statements that they will pass by voting on it soon — perhaps this week.

One aide who works for a member who isn’t publicly against it yet but is opposed to Obamatrade said that Boehner will probably will probably have to break the so-called Hastert Rule, which informally requires a majority of Republicans — 124, since there are 246 total House Republicans — to support a piece of legislation before it’s called to the House floor for a vote.

If that’s the case, with less than 20 Democrats supportive of the deal publicly, Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)7%
would need to deliver close to or more than 100 Democrat votes to get over the golden 218 marker to pass a bill. That seems, quite frankly, impossible if Republicans are as opposed to this as it seems.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ite-leadership-push-123-against-and-counting/
 
Significantly, all the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—are absent, and are therefore unable to provide their perspective and input for what is essentially a deal designed by Western nations, for the benefit of Western corporations

It is a trade deal - who the hell else would it benefit?

Also I'd like to point out that real mercantilism uses high tariffs to balance trade. I think that the word is just currently being coopted by socialists who don't like private property and business in general.

Aside from a ban on open source software - what is in this treaty that wouldn't be considered a step to a free market?
 
Yessir... the result their will tell you immediately whether America is screwed. I say we are, but thinly hope to be surprised and made the fool.

If Congress does not slap these down with unequivocal force, you'd better start making whatever preparations you have in mind - whether to simply give in or to die fighting - because the time will be upon us.

Time is here.

I sadly agree and say that Amerika is too (again). :( Long before either you or I were even born. ;)


"Our forefathers would be firing by now."
 
Back
Top