Alan Grayson On Trans-Pacific Partnership: Obama Secrecy Hides 'Assault On Democratic Government'

[marmar]

WASHINGTON -- Progressive Democrats in Congress are ramping up pressure on the Obama administration to release the text of Trans-Pacific Partnership, a secretive free trade agreement with 10 other nations, amid intensifying controversy over the administration's transparency record and its treatment of classified information.

The only publicly available information on the terms of the deal has come from leaks, some of which have alarmed public health experts, environmentalist groups and consumer advocates. According to a document leaked in the summer of 2012, the deal would allow corporations to directly challenge government laws and regulations in international courts.

Members of Congress have been provided with only limited access to the negotiation documents. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) told HuffPost on Monday that he viewed an edited version of the negotiation texts last week, but that secrecy policies at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative created scheduling difficulties that delayed his access for nearly six weeks. The Obama administration has barred any Congressional staffers from reviewing the text and prohibited members of Congress from discussing the specific terms of the text with trade experts and reporters. .................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/alan-grayson-trans-pacific-partnership_n_3456167.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. How can President Obama really see this as a good thing? What is he thinking?

Thank you, Rep. Alan Grayson.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. I have to admit. Alan Grayson did the right thing.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. It appears that he is working on his retirement plan. If not, is there any other explanation?

[WinkyDink]

8. Thinking of JFK?

[treestar]

10. It appears to be gospel that "free trade" is always bad

Clinton signed NAFTA too, so maybe Democrats can see advantages to it. It is probably not so simple as "free trade" always bad.

[Hydra]

13. Lots of Dems have buyers remorse over NAFTA

Trusting Big Dog seems to have been as bad an idea at the time...some people should take notes.

[Lasher]

70. I have buyer's remorse over Clinton.

And Obama too.

[glinda]

75. ha! Good one!

[HooptieWagon]

15. Everything Ross Perot claimed about NAFTA turned out to be true.

And if memory serves correctly, didn't Clinton recently comment that he wishes now he hadn't signed it? It was a bad agreement, that hurt both US and Mexican economies, but enriched multi-national corporations.

[zeemike]

20. I am sure free trade is great for the traders.

But for people that depend on working to make ends meet not so much...
But we should all be willing to sacrifice to help the traders do well...cause we know they will trickle down on us.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

30. Are we praising NAFTA now?

Hahahaha. I thought you seemed a bit off in the Keystone Pipeline thread.

[treestar]

53. That kind of response is why a civil discussion is rare on DU

You get snarky when someone is on the opposite side. I'm sort of neutral here and just asking questions. But you call that "praising NAFTA." Well, that's dishonest. I can't imagine being so upset that someone does not agree with you 100%. And of course the limitations of your knowledge and understanding are not to be discussed. How do I know your opposition is based on anything other than emotion?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

57. Emotional?

Why would anyone be emotional about environmental catastrophes and unemployment?

[treestar]

62. Non sequitur

[ForgoTheConsequence]

67. I don't think you know what that term means.

But then again whenever you hint at supporting a conservative Republican policy (free trade, keystone pipeline/fossil fuels) you chicken out and say "well I haven't made up my mind". Playing ignorant isn't befitting, embrace your inner Republican.

[treestar]

76. I think I do

And you do not seem to understand the meaning of "straw man."

[Union Scribe]

83. He's consistent, anyway.

My only memory of him is the time he told us all about how losing manufacturing jobs to China was no biggie (and that whining about losing those jobs was the province of snobby plant workers, lol).

[sabrina 1]

34. Unfortunately yes, one of Clinton's big mistakes, well, for the people. For Wall St and Big

Corporations, it's been a wind fall.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

81. It appears to be gospel that secrecy is always good

And since we are now more than a decade out from NAFTA (among many others), we have a very long list of all the negative consequences Americans have suffered from "free trade", do you think that is why secrecy is required now, because the 99% would understand what is good for us?

Or is there some other reason... terrorism, maybe?

[JDPriestly]

87. NAFTA has been a disaster for American workers.

And for Mexican farmers. It's sheer disaster for everyone except the big corporations.
No thanks to trade agreements.

[Populist_Prole]

24. Being a technocrat, and the use of plausible deniability no doubt

Those who push free trade agreements never come right out and say it'll be bad for you, tough sh*t. They'll seek refuge in macroeconomic theory, interpreted broadly enough to show that free trade is "good". If one is sufficiently technocratic themselves, they can honestly believe it too. It's not that he is biased against the hoi-polloi per se: It's just how he and his ilk see the world.

[bbgrunt]

89. or, as the statistician with feet in the freezer and

head in the oven said: "on average, I feel fine"

[Populist_Prole]

91. Spot on. n/t

[xchrom]

2. Du rec. Nt

[Whisp]

3. phffft. Grayson is still using Greenwald's/Snowden's lie about 'direct access'

so forgive me if I don't fall all over him because he happens to post here once in a while (and not reply).

[Fearless]

11. Interesting how quickly

Democratic stalwarts are branded liars when we disagree with one of their positions and how other Democratic figures are beyond criticism when we agree with them.

Funny.

[Whisp]

14. Greenwald is not a democrat, he's a Fuck Ron Pauler. n/t

[sabrina 1]

36. Too bad he was ever believed about Bush then. I guess Bush was right after all.

I remember people rushing to see his blog every day, Democrats, knowing they would get a daily dose of anti-Bush policies there. I'm sure if I went back in the archives here I would find his posts all over the place. He started on DK airc.

Greenwald has always said the same things about these Surveillance programs and Democrats like Wyden and Grayson and Nadler among others, haven't changed their views either.

If you want people to stop criticizing this administration for, as Obama himself said last week in his statement, 'keeping Bush policies' then direct your anger towards them and ask them to do what we elected them to do, get rid of Bush policies and further stop boasting about 'keeping them'. That is nothing to boast about.

Because people are not going to get on a see saw and one year oppose these policies, then the next depending on who is in power, support them. Either they were right when Bush was in the WH or they were not.

[sibelian]

98. You rule.

[ljm2002]

12. What lie was that again?

The PowerPoint slide in question states that the NSA has direct access. As Greenwald says:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism

"we did not claim that the NSA document alleging direct collection from the servers was true; we reported - accurately - that the NSA document claims that the program allows direct collection from the companies' servers. Before publishing, we went to the internet companies named in the documents and asked about these claims. When they denied it, we purposely presented the story as one of a major discrepancy between what the NSA document claims and what the internet companies claim"

So either there actually is direct access, or the NSA is training its analysts with incorrect information. Either one of those is still a newsworthy revelation.

Now you may disagree with Grayson's position on the NSA surveillance issue. But making unfounded accusations of lying (and not even by Grayson himself) in order to disagree with him on this issue is ridiculous.

[Maedhros]

35. The point of contention regarding the "direct access" quote

does indeed hinge on the slide you link to. The slide may have been misinterpreted, but misinterpretation does not constitute lying.

From what I can tell, the NSA is constantly and indiscriminately gathering as much information as it can and storing it all in a huge database. Individual agents have "direct access" to the database, and can pull information from it without any judicial (or other) oversight. It's a way around subpoena/warrant requirements - investigators would need a warrant to get information from the service provider, but no such warrant is needed to get information from the NSA database.

A semantic difference for the most part - agents end up with the same information.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

84. which is from the NSA's own TOP SECRET document, not sure why Greenwald is getting heat for it

as you noted in your post.

well, actually I do know why, totalitarians and/or partisans will do or say anything to try and put the genie back in the bottle.

Unfortunately (for them) it ain't gonna happen, and now is the time for even more daylight, and the SCOTUS to weigh in on these programs in regards to their constitutionality.

[backscatter712]

21. You throw Grayson under the bus, I throw you under the bus.

*PLONK*

[ReRe]

22. What are you talking about, i.e. "direct access?" n/t

[Whisp]

23. this was the initial claim made by snowden.

that the NSA had 'direct access' to all the heavyweights like Google, Facebook. That they could see and hear everything on their servers. Content of anything.

That is not true, the 'direct access' is an FTP server that the google or FB put the legally obtained metadata. It is a server away from their main servers, it's like a mail tube thingie where the NSF picks it up.

And it's only numbers and times and duration of calls. There is no content other than that.

but the lie has been told and there is little chance of the truth hitting the 'press' (lol, press. whata laugh)

They are liars.

[ReRe]

27. What press?

The M$M is all over Snowden.

And the direct access business.. WhoTF knows? Have you worked in the intelligence arena? You haven't bothered to listen to any of the other intel whistle blowers, have you?

Don't listen to Snowden, if you think he's a liar. Listen to the veterans! Thanks for answering my question.

[sabrina 1]

38. Actually the initial claims by Snowden were that the NSA was 'collecting and storing' PHONE records

of Verizon Customers airc. As for the direct access:

That is not true, the 'direct access' is an FTP server that the google or FB put the legally obtained metadata. It is a server away from their main servers, it's like a mail tube thingie where the NSF picks it up.

And?? The question is, does the NSA have the ability to directly access that server? Do their agents, or more importantly, those Multi Billion Dollar Security Corporations the country is littered with who are not accountable to anyone, Clapper, our current Dir. of Intel. is a former CEO of one of them, do they have access to this 'meta-data'? How many times has the FISA court turned down a request for a warrant? I believe the President was unable to provide an answer to that question.

So, we have a Secret Court that, as the argument went when they changed the FISA Bill, very, very rarely has ever turned down a request for a warrant, and another Secret Agency we know little to nothing about, or didn't until now. And then we have these Mega Rich Security Corporations also collecting data.

And you can say without a doubt that with all thise obsession with 'data', no one has ever directly accessed the STORAGE servers of FB and Google, or that they COULD NOT?

[reusrename]

69. It appears they use contractors for the direct access to servers.

There are contractors that provide the direct access.

http://www.subsentio.com/service-providers/electronic-surveillance-standards/


That way the telecoms still enjoy their not-so-plausible deniability.

In the industry it's referred to as "safe harbor" or "lawful compliance."

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

63. What about NSA saying that in their official docs

Oh, right... They don't count for some bizarro reason

[Union Scribe]

85. what's your position on the actual topic of the thread? nt

[AzDar]

5. K & R

[Melinda]

6. "...a secretive free trade agreement...". Talk about a convoluted oxymoron.

K&R

[treestar]

9. It will have to come out before being voted on

There's still some sense of being able to say whatever you want without public reaction for a while and then release the final product. That can be debated.

[HooptieWagon]

16. If Congress has restricted access to the text of the agreement...

...staffers forbidden access...forbidden to discuss with trade experts...etc...
It sounds like the fix is in. Looks like Congress is going to be forced to vote on TPP without being fully informed of whats in it. There will be heavy lobbying from the corporations who will profit.

[treestar]

55. Impossible

They cannot be forced to vote on it without seeing it.

[HooptieWagon]

58. Sure they can.

They voted on Patriot Act and Iraqi War resolution without full details. There's no reason to believe Obama admin will release full content of TPP when its been kept secret to date. Lack of transparency is looking to be Obama's legacy... a leopard doesn't change its spots.

[treestar]

79. They weren't forced to

They should read things before they pass, just like voters should try getting some information before they vote.

We all have those options. I don't agree with sitting there being victims of others when we had other choices. It's lazy.

[sabrina 1]

39. Members of CONGRESS, our Reps, have been denied access to information on these 'agreemenet'.

How can that be? This is the people's business, the people are represented by Congress. Congress cannot do the people's business if it is kept secret from them.

[treestar]

56. Of course Congress will see it eventually.nt

[HooptieWagon]

60. Yeah, right. Then why the secrecy?

"We'll tell you what's in it...you don't need to see for yourself...just vote in favor...trust us"

[treestar]

78. They can vote against it

If they don't like the final product.

I don't know why the secrecy but can guess maybe they want to get to the final product without distraction.

[HooptieWagon]

88. If they want Congress approval...

it would make sense to have at least some congressional input in the crafting of the agreement. If they stick a completed agreement in front of Congress and demand an up or down vote, Congress will tell them to go fuck themselves.

[bread_and_roses]

93. What distraction? Those pesky citizens? Just who is being served here?

I'm sorry - this is just nonsense. Who benefits from this secrecy? We're not talking about troop movements in war here, we're talking about trade agreements - the people's business, no?

This secrecy is totally undemocratic - that's small d democratic - and serves no one but our Corporate Overlords.

[sabrina 1]

86. Members of Congress ARE the US Government. What do you not get about that??

So who is so powerful that they can decide when the US Government gets to see the laws THEY are supposed to be writing? Congress is supposed to write our laws. NOT Foreign Corporations. Wtf!!

So tell me, why do we vote here in this country? Is Congress just window dressing now?

No wonder young people have lost faith. Seeing this kind of justification for EVERYTHING, no matter how bad, is enough to make them either give up completely, or as is now being said, leave both major parties who apparently have given up their jobs and have handed them over to Foreign Corporations. Who will let Congress know when they will allow them to see the laws THEY are writing for us. Unbelievable.

[bvar22]

17. If you Work for a Living, and are against "Free Trade",

you should have voted for THIS guy!

Whatever happened to that guy?
He would have made a good President.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS[/font],
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.[/font]
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Doctor_J]

43. Hey, bvar22. Do you have links to all the videos of candidate Obama lying about

his proposed presidency, all in one list somewhere? That would include these two, the "comfortable shoes", "I won't use the chained CPI", "transparency", etc. It would be nice to have all of them handy whenever her perpetrates another Reagan outrage.

TIA, keep the faith.

[Egalitarian Thug]

90. A YouTube play list would be quite convenient. n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

18. If you are aware of ALEC, this is it on steroids. It must be stopped! n/t

[midnight]

95. And it's being fast tracked...

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

19. A secret free trade agreement, members of Congress can't discuss

specific terms, staffers barred from reviewing the text.
Remind me again, who was it that ran on a campaign promise of more transparency in government?
Hmm.

[Doctor_J]

42. He also ran a campaign on promise of "Change"

that was also a lie

[forestpath]

25. Sounds like Obama is trying to sell us out and I have no doubt that

most other members of Congress have both hands out too.

[MotherPetrie]

26. K&R Good for Grayson and shame on Obama.

[ReRe]

28. I don't trust ANYTHING that's done behind closed doors.

K&R

Thanks for the news, marmar!

[WillyT]

29. K & R !!!

[Divine Discontent]

31. whatever AG is researching and speaking upon, then I'm gonna listen

Thank you, Representative Grayson.

[HooptieWagon]

61. Yes, a big thank-you to Alan Grayson.

A Congessman who actually does his job. Shame on the DUers throwing him under the bus.

[redqueen]

32. At this rate, the GOP is going to take the Senate next year.

Then the real fun will start.

Corporations and big banks own most of the entire world. There is really almost nothing in their way.

[Doctor_J]

41. And it will be liberals' fault for not voting for this kind of shit

don't forget that part.

[redqueen]

46. No, it will be liberals' fault for listening to 'but liberal candidates are unelectable' crap

and voting for the photogenic, M$M-friendly candidates who can win!

[NorthCarolina]

50. +1000 nt

[G_j]

33. damn it!

so sick of this shit! At least Elizabeth Warren is on our side (the 99%)


http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=440

Back up Elizabeth Warren: Support transparency in trade negotiations

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is standing up to the Obama administration and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office–demanding they release trade documents used as part of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

"I appreciate the willingness of the USTR to make various documents available for review by members of Congress, but I do not believe that is a substitute for more robust public transparency. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States."

- Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Sign the petition to back up Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s request that all documents being used to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership be released for review by the public.

To U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman:

Negotiating new trade deals should be done in full view of the public. We support Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s request that all trade documents being used in negotiations by the United States as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership be released–as you promised during your confirmation hearings.

[MrSlayer]

37. Obama is a Reaganite.

Just like all the other "leaders" of the Democratic Party. He's more Reagan than Reagan. He's selling us out just as Clinton did with NAFTA.

We have very little real representation in Congress. Grayson is one of the few good ones.

[Doctor_J]

40. It's Obama versus Dems - has been since day 1

we need a petition for him to switch parties. his membership in ours is destroying it.

[agent46]

44. We must pray harder to Obama

He is our president but he can't do anything unless we pray to him harder.

[TheJames]

45. I don't understand

how any of these "Leaders of The World's Nations" think they can pass a "Free Trade Agreement", the very existence of which I not allowed to know about, much less the content of, and then pronounce that it is binding on me.
How do they think that it is OK to negotiate away my legal rights and the sovereignty of my nation.

[TheJames]

47. By the Way,

Fuck the NSA!

[NorthCarolina]

51. Because if you're not part of the 1%,

you simply don't matter. The Oligarchy has been brought to you by Neo-Conservative, Third-Way, DLC, New 'dems'.

[treestar]

54. Of course they can't pass it

Not here anyway. Apparently they are just negotiating it that way.

[blackspade]

48. I'm glad Grayson is on the case.

[Enthusiast]

49. The American people do not want the TPP!

We do not want it.

Why would the President do something so obviously against our best interests?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

52. The corporations are running this world and there's

nothing you can do about it.
Just bow down and accept it, either join in the feeding frenzy of our resources, or be content with the leftovers.

[pa28]

59. Obama wants fast track authority for this deal.

As a result he can sign it in advance and Congress has to vote up or down in a short period of time with no amendments or no filibuster in the Senate.

We need disclosure right now.

[Lasher]

72. We hated fast track when Junior had it.

How could it possibly be a good thing if Obama gets it? And why would he want it if he's that much different from GWB?

[pa28]

77. Because this pile of manure is so huge there has to be a pony hidden inside.

Obama just doesn't want to spoil the surprise.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

64. WTF: do you want the terrorist to win? Secrecy is MANDATORY

To keep us safe.

[blkmusclmachine]

65. .

.

[The Straight Story]

66. 54 pages of comments submitted on the TPP by businesses/citizens/etc here:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=Trans%252BPacific%252BPartnership;dct=PS

American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA)
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USTR-2013-0022-0073

is but one example of the comments from companies and what they are looking for.

[mountain grammy]

68. This is far more disturbing than anything Snowden can spill.

[QC]

71. Alan Grayson never really loved him!

[hay rick]

73. K&R

[Starry Messenger]

74. k&r

[glinda]

80. K & R n/t

[TheKentuckian]

82. Gotta love Grayson, that dude is one of the few in the "Doing the People's Business Party".

[ctsnowman]

92. K & R

[Civilization2]

94. yet more gov. secrecy, and again in service of the corporate-military NOT the people.

Why let the people representing us work in secrecy? The only leads to power misused.
We need to demand a free and open society.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023043507

[abelenkpe]

96. This should be the top story. Nt

[Maven]

97. Oh, I'm sure these closed door negotations will turn out fine. Just look at the health care bill!