4 ms·

Holding the negotiations in secret does not prove that they’re acting one way or another. All secret negotiations have underhanded motives; these negotiations a

Holding the negotiations in secret does not prove that they’re acting one way or another. All secret negotiations have underhanded motives; these negotiations are secret; therefore, these negotiations have underhanded motives? The first proposition is quite an assumption. I can see why they wouldn’t want to include you in the negotiations. The representatives of the people in this process are the democratically elected Senators who must ratify the non-secret finished treaty.

jerf 17y ago
You seem to be putting words in warfangle's mouth, then criticizing those words. Nowhere does warfangle even remotely propose the logic you are describing. It is clear that warfangle is in fact getting the information about the treaty from what has leaked about it. Assuming the leaks are true, we do not need to speculate that it may be underhanded because it is being negotiated in secret. We can be as confident as we are in the veracity of the leaks that they are being underhanded because of the content of the treaty. Secrecy is an irrelevant point. If this treaty was produced in an open and transparent manner I would still agree with warfangle that the treaty is unjust and in the US, unconstitutional. Are you aware that details have been leaked? It sort of sounds like you may not be aware that while to some extent we are still speculating on the contents, it is well-founded speculation, not wild speculation.
- codyrobbins 17y ago
  I disagree that I’m putting words in warfangle’s mouth. He said, ‘The fact that they are so secretive about the negotiations as to eject and ridicule third-party observes proves that they are not acting in the best interest of said third party observers.’ I don’t think that it in any possible way proves such a thing at all, and I was making a guess as to the premise warfangle was assuming to arrive at such a statement. You’ll note that I haven’t made any statement one way or the other regarding the treaty itself. You shouldn’t infer that I am for or against it based on what I’ve said. Yes, I do know the details have been leaked. You’re missing my point entirely, because the content of the treaty is completely irrelevant to what I’ve said. My point is simply that the fact that the treaty is being negotiated in secret has no bearing on the relative merits of the treaty itself. The secrecy is just an irrelevant procedural technicality of the negotiation process that’s being framed as some nefarious underhanded move that should invalidate the treaty. It’s being used as a scare tactic in place of debating the treaty itself. Argue for or against the treaty on its content, not how it was arrived at. I’m perplexed at how it isn’t clear to people that the treaty is being negotiated in secret precisely to prevent just such a mob backlash as is occurring. And it’s not to prevent a backlash because there is some corporate/government conspiracy to control the masses at work. It’s because there are concrete procedural difficulties in negotiating something like this when the parties involved aren’t able to speak freely without having 6 billion rabid critics jump down their throats at every proposal.
  - jerf 17y ago
    X (m/b)illion rabid critics is one of the prices of democracy. Throwing away democracy because it is inconvenient is a great way to ensure you won't be living in democracy much longer.
    - codyrobbins 17y ago
      That’s just a red herring. Democracy isn’t being thrown away because the treaty negotiations are closed. A democracy does not imply absolute and unmitigated transparency in all steps along the way. As I already said, democratically elected representatives will have final say on the finished non-secret treaty.

jerf 17y ago

You seem to be putting words in warfangle's mouth, then criticizing those words. Nowhere does warfangle even remotely propose the logic you are describing. It is clear that warfangle is in fact getting the information about the treaty from what has leaked about it. Assuming the leaks are true, we do not need to speculate that it may be underhanded because it is being negotiated in secret. We can be as confident as we are in the veracity of the leaks that they are being underhanded because of the content of the treaty. Secrecy is an irrelevant point. If this treaty was produced in an open and transparent manner I would still agree with warfangle that the treaty is unjust and in the US, unconstitutional. Are you aware that details have been leaked? It sort of sounds like you may not be aware that while to some extent we are still speculating on the contents, it is well-founded speculation, not wild speculation.

codyrobbins 17y ago
I disagree that I’m putting words in warfangle’s mouth. He said, ‘The fact that they are so secretive about the negotiations as to eject and ridicule third-party observes proves that they are not acting in the best interest of said third party observers.’ I don’t think that it in any possible way proves such a thing at all, and I was making a guess as to the premise warfangle was assuming to arrive at such a statement. You’ll note that I haven’t made any statement one way or the other regarding the treaty itself. You shouldn’t infer that I am for or against it based on what I’ve said. Yes, I do know the details have been leaked. You’re missing my point entirely, because the content of the treaty is completely irrelevant to what I’ve said. My point is simply that the fact that the treaty is being negotiated in secret has no bearing on the relative merits of the treaty itself. The secrecy is just an irrelevant procedural technicality of the negotiation process that’s being framed as some nefarious underhanded move that should invalidate the treaty. It’s being used as a scare tactic in place of debating the treaty itself. Argue for or against the treaty on its content, not how it was arrived at. I’m perplexed at how it isn’t clear to people that the treaty is being negotiated in secret precisely to prevent just such a mob backlash as is occurring. And it’s not to prevent a backlash because there is some corporate/government conspiracy to control the masses at work. It’s because there are concrete procedural difficulties in negotiating something like this when the parties involved aren’t able to speak freely without having 6 billion rabid critics jump down their throats at every proposal.
- jerf 17y ago
  X (m/b)illion rabid critics is one of the prices of democracy. Throwing away democracy because it is inconvenient is a great way to ensure you won't be living in democracy much longer.
  - codyrobbins 17y ago
    That’s just a red herring. Democracy isn’t being thrown away because the treaty negotiations are closed. A democracy does not imply absolute and unmitigated transparency in all steps along the way. As I already said, democratically elected representatives will have final say on the finished non-secret treaty.