Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government United States Politics Your Rights Online

Names of Advisors Cleared To Access ACTA Documents 186

Posted by kdawson
from the who-sees-what-you-can't dept.
1 a bee writes "With the White House claiming national security grounds for failing to release ACTA related information, including negotiating documents and even the list of participants, the spotlight is now on just who does have access. Turns out, according to James Love, hundreds of advisers, many of them corporate lobbyists, are considered 'cleared advisers.' The list looks a who's who of captains of industry."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Names of Advisors Cleared To Access ACTA Documents

Comments Filter:
  • by ph4s3 (634087) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:15AM (#27208655)
    weird how things seem to stay the same
    • by conureman (748753) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:22AM (#27208689)

      Relax, our Fearless Leaders always do the right thing.

      • by aurispector (530273) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:27AM (#27208727)

        Corporate control that bypasses government via international treaty. Welcome to the new world order.

        • The constitution still requires treaties to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate. Quoting from article 2, section 2:

          He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

          Without Senate approval, any treaty is just a worthless piece of paper.

          • by Verteiron (224042) on Monday March 16, 2009 @09:07AM (#27208979) Homepage

            Yes, and the ratification will pass buried deep inside the Save the Children and Orphans act. Anyone who opposes it will be labeled a child and orphan hater. Probably a terrorist and pedophile, too.

            Sorry, Monday mornings make me cynical.

          • by Duradin (1261418) on Monday March 16, 2009 @09:39AM (#27209267)

            Don't worry, the President will just issue an executive order stating that the treaty was ratified.

            Really, I don't know why we keep congress around. They just slow down legislation and we've got the President to make laws for us.

            </sarcasm>

          • by dwiget001 (1073738) on Monday March 16, 2009 @10:11AM (#27209579)

            Well, our current Senate will rubber stamp anything, including passing a bill to grant a representative to Washington D.C, in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution (on and on top of that, TARP, Stimulus, Omnibus spending, etc.)

            Don't expect the current Senate to do anything that might possibly weaken their power and political contribution base.

            For quite some time now, the Congress and Senate have not served the good of the U.S. citizens. And, they have constantly violated their sworn oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic...."

            Next election cycle: Each and every Democrat and Republican currently in office should A) not be re-elected and B) neither of the major parties candidates should be voted into office to replace them, vote "some other party or candidate" into office. The Democrats and Republicans are hell bent on completely destroying this country. Wake up people.

            • by wealthychef (584778) on Monday March 16, 2009 @01:33PM (#27213113)
              Actually, to really understand them, you should give up stories like "The Democrats and Republicans are hell bent on completely destroying this country." What they are really hell bent on is just staying in power. So yes, vote them out of office. But we need a new conversation to replace the old one, or the "new boss will be the same as the old boss," as I believe the old Who song goes.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Garrett Fox (970174)
              A few people, notably Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have been trying to start a movement to oppose current abuses of power. To some extent they're still wedded to the Republican Party, which has not shown itself to be a friend of small government or the Constitution.

              Because the Congress is in fact doing whatever is necessary to buy votes, it's hard to unseat anyone even if they're violating their oath of office. For that reason, it's time to start considering a wider range of (peaceful) options.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                A few people, notably Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have been trying to start a movement to oppose current abuses of power.

                Social conservatism is probably the worst abuse of power the US has ever seen.

          • Sure, the wording there from your citation is also important: two thirds of the senators present. If ACTA gets drafted, the 'on-board' senators will simply schedule a weekend or holiday session quietly and hope no one notices. Once in session, even if there's only 3 of them, they could call the vote unanimous of senators present. The treaty portion you quoted simply needs to be re-worded as follows to fix this:

            He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The "right thing" being whatever it takes to expand the lucrative business of government.

      • by Goffee71 (628501) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:56AM (#27208903) Homepage
        Being going for ever, may I quote the almost obligatory Blackadder:

        Melchett: Ah, yes, the special mission. At ease Blackadder. Now, what I'm about to tell you is absolutely tip-top-secret, is that clear?
        Blackadder: It is sir.
        Melchett: Now, I've compiled a list of those with security clearance, have you got it Darling?
        Darling: Yes sir.
        Melchett: Read it please.
        Darling: It's top security sir, I think that's all the Captain needs to know.
        Melchett: Nonsense! Let's hear the list in full!

        Darling: Very well sir. "List of personnel cleared for mission Gainsborough, as dictated by General C. H. Melchett:
        You and me, Darling, obviously. Field Marshal Haig, Field Marshal Haig's wife, all Field Marshal Haig's wife's friends, their families, their families' servants, their families' servants' tennis partners, and some chap I bumped into the mess the other day called Bernard."
        Melchett: So, it's maximum security, is that clear?
        Blackadder: Quite so sir, only myself and the rest of the English speaking world is to know.
      • by skeeto (1138903) on Monday March 16, 2009 @10:04AM (#27209519)
        I am still crossing my fingers that some low level person who has access to the documents will have the bravery, forethought, and knowledge to carefully leak them to Wikileaks.
        • One of the reasons I haven't believed the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is that is seems to me essentially impossible for so many people to be involved without a single one having a twinge of conscience to come forward. It gives me pause, though, that so many people have access to the ACTA document without anyone grasping the bogus nature of the "national security" claim and the importance of making it public, and just leaking it anonymously.
        • I am still crossing my fingers that some low level person who has access to the documents will have the bravery, forethought, and knowledge to carefully leak them to Wikileaks.

          Why wait? If this is being kept so tip-top secret from us, and it is going to be applied to us, it must not be a good thing for us. The only logical conclusion is to fight it tooth and nail. I recommend you call your senator (not mail or email!) Get the bastard on the phone and ask how they feel about ACTA, and tell them not to vote for it. Record the conversation and send it off to the local TV station.

          • by Tuoqui (1091447)

            Too bad the TV station is probably owned by someone on the tip-top secret ACTA list and will probably squash the story like a bug.

            • Too bad the TV station is probably owned by someone on the tip-top secret ACTA list and will probably squash the story like a bug.

              Sugarcoat it so the talking heads think it's some kind of treaty that doesn't think of the children.

    • by Nutria (679911) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:24AM (#27208705)

      weird how things seem to stay the same

      Nah, it's a zombie movie come to life: Hope and change... hope and change... hope and change... hope and change... hope and change... hope and change... hope and change...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Why is it that so many 'merkins seem to think that Obama was considered "the second coming"? As far as I could dell, the ones who thought that were about equal in number to those who said that Obama was the New Dark Lord Of Evil (tm).

      I.e. nutters.

      Most seemed glad of a change because it wouldn't be Bush.

      And you know what? It isn't Bush. Even if he screws up as badly as Bush did, it still wouldn't be Bush.

      But the same people who seem to forgive Shrub for being as thick as a yard of treacle or making mistakes

      • by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld@gmai l . c om> on Monday March 16, 2009 @10:45AM (#27210103)

        Actually most of the people who painted him as the Dark Lord of Evil are now the ones complaining about the rest of us treating him as the Second Coming. See, they are so invested in the idea that having a black/Democrat/non-neocon president running things will be the end of the world, that they've assumed the only way the rest of us could vote for him was if we had the same level of opposite worship.

        In reality, we picked him because having lived through eight years of the Dark Lord's reign while the neocons praised him as the Second Coming responsible for revitalizing the American Empire, we just wanted change.

      • The reason that people think that Obama was considered the "second coming" was because of the iconography that was in the media concerning him. Magazine covers of him that were photo shopped to give the impression he had a halo, photos of him that were posed/photo shopped to resemble historic images that have special significance, etc. Much of this was produced by the "independent" media.
        What I found interesting was that it was produced by his supporters, but it bore an uncanny resemblance to official ima
    • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:30AM (#27208753)

      weird how things seem to stay the same

      I was actually willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt for a while there. I thought to myself that it must be difficult to negotiate a proposed treaty when the press can print every little revision that occurs during negotiations. So I could kind of see the benefit in keeping a treaty's details secret until it was ready to be proposed to Congress.

      But several things have eroded my trust: the apparent inclusion of a anti-rights industry people, the apparent omission of pro-rights people (EFF, etc.), and the "secrets" claim.

      This is like the crap Cheney pulled with energy policy and oil industry groups, but it's arguably much worse because it could become an actual treaty.

      I was hoping that the "Hope I Can Believe In" would make it to the two-month mark, but apparently not. This leaves me really despirited.

      • by oneirophrenos (1500619) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:33AM (#27208769)
        I began to doubt the whole "change" thing back when Obama started to stack his administration with people from Clinton's and even Bush's administration. I guess change is a relative thing.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by DoofusOfDeath (636671)

          I began to doubt the whole "change" thing back when Obama started to stack his administration with people from Clinton's and even Bush's administration. I guess change is a relative thing.

          I was hoping that he brought them in because they know how to get things done, but that he'd force them to get good things done.

          In the case of patents, copyrights, and other issues of freedom, it seems I was tragically mistaken.

        • by Nursie (632944) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:40AM (#27208797)

          As a jaded cynic I have just this to say -

          You voted for one of the Republicans or the Democrats and you expected a change?

          Ha!!! Best scam ever!!! You were duped my friend.

          • by Spacelem (189863) on Monday March 16, 2009 @09:04AM (#27208961)

            In Scotland we have proportional representation. This system gives us a government that better represents the views of the people, as the proportion of each party more closely reflects the number of people who voted for them. Even better, we actually have six parties with seats, and many more who stand a chance of gaining a seat.

            Proportional representation is not perfect, and it has been accused of resulting in weak governments as the main party is usually small compared to the opposition parties; however, I think it's considerably closer to democracy as the Ancient Greeks saw it, than the choice between two similar parties that tends to exist today. Most importantly, it allows me to vote where my conscience tells me, rather than for the lesser of two evils.

            • Weak government are often a good thing. Its strong governments that are the problem.

              However, given that the UK as a whole does not have proportional representation, and that the EU increasingly concentrates power in the centre (for example, look at who is negotiating ACTA on your behalf: its not the Scottish government!), Scotland having proportional representation does not matter.

              • by Spacelem (189863)

                The argument about weak governments is that no one can ever get any new laws passed. Sometimes this is good, sometimes bad, but it may lead to very little change happening. Look at how much the US has changed since the Democrats won. Now consider a party that really differs in policies from the main party, and imagine how much that could change the country.

                Yes, the UK does not have PR, but it still elects politicians based on individual constituencies, so overall the number of seats held by a party better r

            • by Ngwenya (147097)

              It's true that most internal decisions are derived and implemented via Holyrood now, rather than Westminster.

              Treaty negotiation, however, is not an internal matter, because Scotland is not (yet) a sovereign state. ACTA is being negotiated by the UK government, and will apply to Scotland as well, if the UK Parliament approves.

              You can always vote SNP if you want this changed. Pity that the clown contingent is so strong in the SNP though - the basic independence policy suits me fine.

              --Ng

            • by Chyeld (713439)

              Scotland has around 5 million people living in it. New York City has about 8 million. The city, not the state. The US in total has around 300 million people living in it. That's almost a hundred times more.

              As the size of the governed increases, proportional representation breaks down horribly. The number of minority groups increases and the chances of any one group ever taking effective leadership of the whole, without having a whole web of political infighting and side deals for special interests, are exac

        • by Shivetya (243324)

          I am still waiting to see what Bill Clinton's official position will be.

          If anything it has already been proven his vetting service needs a lot of help. I really don't understand why people expected it to really change. He has no real experience so he is going to have to heavily rely on the advice of others who probably already know what they want.

          I am giving him one more chance that is on reforming our education system. Considering he signed the bill which essentially ends the district's voucher program

      • by mysticgoat (582871) on Monday March 16, 2009 @11:13AM (#27210559) Homepage Journal

        You might want to hold on to your doubt for a bit longer.

        Carmen Suro-Bredie, who signed the letter rejecting the FOIA request, is a hold-over from the Bush Administration. Could be she never got the memo that things have changed. She actually predates Bush: she was chairing hearings about trade agreements in 1992, and apparently has at least 30 years of Federal Civil Service behind her. She has always kept a very low profile: the only biography of her on the web is remarkable for saying very little and providing no dates at all. These are the hallmarks of a career bureaucrat; the kind of person who works hard, not out of any sense of ideals, or for the good of the team, but to assure that their personal situation will be more comfortable next year than it was last year (no matter who is in charge or what the new goals of the organization are).

        Now that she has stumbled into the Internet's spotlight, it will be interesting to see if there is any change in her career. Her style doesn't seem to fit well with Obama's approach. OTOH, she has been working the same small patch of ground for more than 16 years, so she might know too much to be easily shown to the door.

        The treaty in question has a long way to go before it is ratified. There will be opportunities for Obama to open up the process; let's see if he takes them.

        • She actually predates Bush: she was chairing hearings about trade agreements in 1992, and apparently has at least 30 years of Federal Civil Service behind her. She has always kept a very low profile: the only biography of her on the web is remarkable for saying very little and providing no dates at all. These are the hallmarks of a career bureaucrat; the kind of person who works hard, not out of any sense of ideals, or for the good of the team, but to assure that their personal situation will be more comfor

        • by Atario (673917)

          Quiet, you. The anti-Obama crowd has designated this the "Obama is a shadowy overlord" thread of the day. They don't want you shining actual facts in here and ruining it.

    • Can we look back in four years time and think of George Bush as a benevolent caretaker in light of the atrocities commited by the new administration? YES WE CAN! -- It's more and more obvious with each news week that all the glitzy promises and election rhetoric that came Barack Obama was a load of meaningless drivel to deceive people - please don't expect things to be better, lest you sink into complacency and don't notice the BS until it's up to your armpits.

      Things are changing for sure, but NOT for th
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by digitig (1056110)

        Can we look back in four years time and think of George Bush as a benevolent caretaker in light of the atrocities commited by the new administration? YES WE CAN! -- It's more and more obvious with each news week that all the glitzy promises and election rhetoric that came Barack Obama was a load of meaningless drivel to deceive people - please don't expect things to be better, lest you sink into complacency and don't notice the BS until it's up to your armpits.

        For anyone who wants some objectivity (unlikely to include the parent poster) there's always the Obameter [politifact.com], which tracks election promises kept and broken. So far it's showing that it's early days but the USA is getting pretty much what it voted for.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Seriousity (1441391)

          For anyone who wants some objectivity (unlikely to include the parent poster) there's always the Obameter

          Lets see how the Obameter [politifact.com] holds up... heres what it says about Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq [politifact.com]

          On Jan. 21, 2009 â" his first full day in office â" President Obama met privately with the military commanders in charge of Iraq.
          ...
          After the meeting, Obama issued a statement, included below in its entirety:

          "This afternoon, I met with our ambassador to Iraq, the commander in Iraq, and the overall theater commander in the region in order to get a full update on the situation in Iraq. Key members of my Cabinet and senior national security officials also participated in this meeting.

          "The meeting was productive and I very much appreciated receiving assessments from these experienced and dedicated individuals. During the discussion, I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq.

          "In the coming days and weeks, I will also visit the Department of Defense to consult with the Joint Chiefs on these issues, and we will undertake a full review of the situation in Afghanistan in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region."

          Promise kept.

          Well that's all fine and dandy right? And after he gets the boys out of Iraq he's going to get the boys out of Afghanistan, right?

          A recent article from the LA Times [latimes.com] proves enlightening:

          Reporting from Baghdad and Washington -- The U.S. will reduce its military presence in Iraq by 12,000 troops over the next six months as part of the first major drawdown since President Obama announced his plan to end combat operations in the country next year, U.S. military officials in Baghdad said Sunday.
          [...]
          The plan would reduce U.S. troop strength by nearly 10% just as Iraq is preparing for nationwide elections in the fall -- a step that would have been unthinkable at the height of the insurgency but was endorsed in this case by top U.S. military officials.
          [...]
          The plan calls for the number of U.S. brigade combat teams to drop from 14 to 12. Two brigade teams that had been scheduled to redeploy in the next six months will not be replaced.
          [...]
          When the American move is completed, it would reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq to about 128,000 troops, dipping for the first time below the number of troops in the country before then-President Bush ordered the buildup he referred to as the "surge" in 2007.
          The schedule for the withdrawal represents a compromise between the 16-month timetable President Obama had advocated during his election campaign and a 23-month plan that had been pushed by the military.
          Under the compromise, all combat forces would be pulled out of Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, but a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops would remain for training and support missions.
          The Iraq withdrawals are crucial to the administration's plans to devote more military resources to Afghanistan, as well as to limit spending at a time when the government is facing record deficits.
          Senior U.S. national security officials are nearing completion of a strategic review of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, a step that Obama has described as an effort "to stabilize a deteriorating situation," one he has implied was neglected by Bush.
          [...]
          Last month, Obama announced plans to send 17,000 additional U.S. soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan -- deployments that would more than offset the troop reductions in Iraq.

          Yep. Some troops stay in Iraq for training and support and others to Afghanistan, for a [sic] peacekeeping mission no doubt. Well, I'm sure the cannon fodder in Iraq need someone

          • I agree with you about the politifact site. I made a post last week about the 'No Earmarks' promise where they gave him a 'Compromise' rating. Um, Obama has signed 2 major spending bills full of earmarks. How is that a compromise? It's a fail to keep.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Nursie (632944)

        "Can we look back in four years time and think of George Bush as a benevolent caretaker in light of the atrocities commited by the new administration?"

        So far, no.

        There have been no new wars, no warrantless wiretapping scandals, very little outright idiocy. It's going to take eight years of consistent underhandedness, deviousness and violence before anyone else can get close to the bush administration.

        • Well it took over 8 months into the Bush administration before a war took place, and I think most Americans were behind him in it. So give the big Hussein some more time there buddy.
        • by dheltzel (558802)
          Give it time!

          Two months into the Bush Administration none of that was true yet either. We've seen that it takes several months for a new administration to be completely corrupted, though it does seem like they keep hoping to do it faster than the previous bunch, and so far Obama's right on track. In a few months, Microsoft will convince them to outlaw the GPL as a "matter of national security".

      • by KillerBob (217953)

        You do realize that treaties usually take longer than a month to get written, negotiated, re-written, agreed-upon, written up, vetted, voted on, and passed, right?

        This treaty isn't Obama's baby. It's part of Bush's legacy. And as others have said, it still has to be approved by congress, and the executive still has the right to veto it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:26AM (#27208721)
    Some scary shit from the link: [eff.org]

    ACTA raises serious concerns about citizens' civil liberties and privacy rights. The contents and text of ACTA remain secret, but a document leaked to the public last year shows that ACTA could include stronger criminal measures, increased customs border search powers, and requirements for Internet service providers to cooperate with copyright holders. Some public suggestions from content companies have included requiring ISPs to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adoption of "Three Strikes" policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement.

  • National security? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mishehu (712452) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:31AM (#27208757)

    This is the part that confuses me. How on earth can something that deals with copyright be considered a matter of national security? How can anybody in the gov't say that with a straight face even? It's appalling, and it should be challenged in court NOW.

    • by Timothy Brownawell (627747) <tbrownaw@prjek.net> on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:41AM (#27208801) Homepage Journal

      How on earth can something that deals with copyright be considered a matter of national security?

      Have you ever seen movies with scary monsters in them? Those monsters are actually real, and the MPAA has threatened to release them near D.C. if the treaty doesn't turn out to their liking.

    • by langelgjm (860756) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:45AM (#27208831) Journal

      As I pointed out the other day, [slashdot.org] ACTA is about so much more than copyright. This "counterfeiting" treaty will almost certainly include provisions for stricter controls on generic pharmaceuticals, amongst other things.

      Just take a look at some of the companies that are represented on that list: Eli Lilly, Merck, Monsanto, Schering-Plough... I guarantee they're not there because of pirated CDs.

      Just to clarify, I don't think that changes the fact that the "national security" claim is bogus. It's just further proof of the enormous democratic deficit that exists at the international level.

      • The national security claim is on par for the tone of the feds since Bush Sr. The theory is that our financial security is coupled to our physical security, thus everything the feds choose is within their scope of authority based on the commerce clause of the constitution.

        It has been shown repeatedly the commerce clause is the most often abused facet of our constitution and the courts have been more than happy to let it be.

      • Anyone who still doubts we are ruled by a corpocratic oligarchy just needs to look at that list to understand they are the people calling the shots.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:35AM (#27208779) Homepage Journal

    all that transparency, all that pro internet attitude, and even declarations of support for net neutrality to the extent of making full definitions of it on his website, getting support and donations through the net and actually succeeding to amass the budget needed to beat mccain through those donations and all that, and ...

    so he fails us in the most important thing, at the most important moment, in almost half of those he promised us then ?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by a09bdb811a (1453409)

      False hope in a president is your failure, not his.

    • by houghi (78078)

      so he fails us [...] in almost half of those he promised us

      That implies that he succeeds in more then half. For a politician I would call that a great success. Also politics is a slow moving game. It takes a few months to years to get change done. So give it at least one year and then see what has happened.

  • by DrugCheese (266151) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:38AM (#27208787)

    It's pronounced Corporate Oligarchy

  • From people that deem themselves much smarter than me:
    "Piss off with your stupid conspiracy theories, you hippie asshole, there is no such thing as a secret society."

    Thanks a lot unknown genius.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rogerborg (306625)
      To be fair, it's hardly a "secret" society. We know exactly who the Barons are, and which fraternities they were in.
  • The more of this type of news I read... the more I feel like the time has come for the wooden ships sung about by CSN and Jefferson Airplane. A slight change in the lyrics might be in place as it was not nuclear destruction but corporate crookery which brought society to its knees so the 'silver people on the shoreline' get to wear pin-striped suits instead.

    Go, take your sister then, by the hand,
    lead her away from this foreign land,
    Far away, where we might laugh again,
    We are leaving - you don't need us.

    And

  • by putaro (235078) on Monday March 16, 2009 @09:04AM (#27208963) Journal

    The FOIA denial letter is signed by Camen Suro-Bredie. From what I can find, she has been in the USTR office since at least 2004. While President Obama has sent down an executive order that FOIA requests should be responded to in preference to withholding information, that is a new policy and it is going to take some time to get everyone in line with it.

    It will be instructive to see how this is handled now that it has been brought out into the daylight. If the Obama Administration overrides Ms Suro-Bredie and releases the treaty that would be a very positive step.

    • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Monday March 16, 2009 @09:10AM (#27209009) Journal

      Every single thing we read, no matter how small and inconsequential, must be read as IRREFUTABLE PROOF!!!1! that Obama is a liar! He said he was for change, and that change didn't happen everwhere, all at once, and in every single nook and cranny of the government! Sure there's the changes at Justice and the release of various memos a docs there. And, ok, fine, the Gitmo thing and probably some other stuff.

      But this one thing didn't change, and that means it's all 100% bullshit! Fascism and censorship!

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by CmdrGravy (645153)

        Well you really can't expect him to instantly change everything in one big bang you know ! It's just a totally unrealistic hope and what with Obama currently spending most of his time on his number one priority commissioning the building of new Mosques and in durbar with his chief theological adviser Abdul Mohammed Mohammed Akbar Mohammed crafting their new equal opportunties and racial equality bills he's going to be a bit busy for a while yet.

    • by Quila (201335)

      This is the same president who hired two **AA attack lawyers to top Department of Justice positions. That wasn't old, entrenched bureaucracy. That was new Obama-picked bureaucracy and we saw what way he swings.

    • Do you seriously think this was done without any White House knowledge?

      And no, that policy shouldn't take ANY TIME to get everyone in line with it. If its a policy directive from the WH then it takes effect IMMEDIATELY.

      So we had Bush Apologists and now we have Obama apologists.. conveniently trunctated to Obamapologists.

      Stop listening to what he says and look at what he does (or does not).

      • So he (Obama) was focusing on immediate pressing issues (Stimulus, unemployment, taxes, education, health care) while delegating responsibility to the appropriate departments...

        As part of that delegation he explicitly states that FOIA requests should be honored when ever possible and should be erred on the side of transparency.

        OK, not seeing anything too scary yet.

        A Bush appointee working in one of those appropriate department refuses a FOIA request on the grounds of National Security.

        Again, nothing surpris

  • I suspect that at least one of the listed corporate overlords sometimes forgets to lock their filing cabinet at night. It's probably the only way we'll ever have a look at the text.
  • by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Monday March 16, 2009 @09:11AM (#27209021) Journal
    Government exists for the protection and projection of the ruling class. 300 years ago, the ruling class were post feudalist monarchies. Now it's industrial oligarchies.

    Democracy provides the illusion of control, permitting people to act in ways that seem to benefit themselves as political actors, and thus permitting the hegemony of capitalist industrialist relations to continue as the modus operandi of civilisation, unabated.

    Thankfully geology and nature get to play last, and will make harsh hash of this ponzi scheme called capitalist industrialism.

    Obama is no different than Roosevelt. Contrary to right wing bullshit, Roosevelt SAVED the ruling class from self destruction. Obama is attempting the same.

    RS

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16, 2009 @09:24AM (#27209129)

    Instead of screaming fury from your computer chair, you should be organizing from your computer chair and screaming in the streets. Things will never change so long as people sit back and take it. You don't have to get violent but you need to be persistent. Protests are held against copyright abuse, but they bring in a few hundred people out of millions.

    And don't bother giving examples of why people don't care, start giving solutions to make them care. We need to increase the visibility of the problems this poses. Plaster signs on walls, try to take out ads in news papers / websites, door to door campaigning, conduct nationwide surveys with the right questions, so on and so forth. The public can't form an opinion if they don't know what they are talking about and they certainly can't form an opinion over a situation they may not even know exists.

    It's time for society to start standing up for itself again.

    • by russotto (537200)

      Instead of screaming fury from your computer chair, you should be organizing from your computer chair and screaming in the streets.

      About as effective, but could be more fun if you like the taste of pepper spray.

      Protesting in the streets was '60s. The system has adapted to that tactic; it no longer works.

  • Does writing a letter (a real physical letter) to your congressman/senator/MP/representitive/elected politician still work?

    Or do they destroy all letters sent to the government now in case they contain Anthrax, Model Rocket Fuel or other material that is illegal to mail as a result of the "war on terror"?

  • Deja Vu (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Legion303 (97901) on Monday March 16, 2009 @09:43AM (#27209317) Homepage

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  • Copyright has nothing whatsoever to do with national security.

    A copyright treaty has nothing whatsoever to do with national security.

    What's in the treaty is all sorts of extradition clauses. So USDOJ can prosecute people from other countries, and they can do the same with our citizens.

    They're planting all sorts of nasty clauses related to downloading of copyrighted materials. They're planning on implementing jail time for torrent users.

    Using an unlicensed copy of windows will turn you in to the DOJ and ad

    • by moxley (895517)

      If you are correct about this, then it's just another thing that illustrates why it absolutely needs to see the light of day.

      Do you have a source or something other than assumptions and intuition for your information on this? I do think you're probably right, but the way you're stating it as fact makes me wonder whether you have a source for this or are just extraordinarily confident in your assumptions.

      By claiming "national security" with this (and some of the other things he has done) Obama shows he is w

  • You don't have permission to access /blogs/2009/03/13/who-are-cleared-advisors/ [keionline.org] on this server.
  • Forbidden
    You don't have permission to access /blogs/2009/03/13/who-are-cleared-advisors/ on this server.

    Apache/1.3.41 Server at www.keionline.org Port 80

    Actually that's not irony, it's disturbingly what I would expect.

  • I can't even access the blog, I get "403 Forbidden"!

  • I am not fond of the word 'fascism' because it's become a catch-all word for describing any policy or action a govt makes that is not to our liking. But in this case, we have a secret govt action in open collusion with big business at the expense of the general public which I think could accurately described as being fascist, or at least not far from it.

    I have to say, I'm seriously disappointed and surprised by BO's decision to continue with a pandering Bushco policy decision.

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Working...