5 ms·

Not to hijack the better points of the article, because it's a good one, but this line is telling: "The White House’s efforts to portray the treaty as critical

Not to hijack the better points of the article, because it's a good one, but this line is telling: "The White House’s efforts to portray the treaty as critical to national security simply underscores its inability to make a case for the agreement on the basis of economic benefits." If you can't make a cogent argument, just flail your hands about and yell "National Security!" You wouldn't dare try to impede national security! Those two words are what remain of Bush's "you're either with us, or against us" brand of patriotism, but it has a choke hold on the U.S. I cannot understand why otherwise smart people continue to let "national security" dissuade all common sense in everything. Edit: "Investor-State Dispute Settlements" make me want to throw up my hands and move to Mars. I can't fathom how anyone can accept calling ISDS "national security" as anything but pure, black-tar hogwash.

pdkl95 11y ago
> I cannot understand why otherwise smart people continue to let "national security" dissuade all common sense in everything. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" It is important to remember an unfortunately large subset of the people making those arguments - including far too many people here at HN - are profiting from the status quo. I am less worried about the people making the stupid "with us or against us" ultimatum (at least those people are predictable). The problem is the far larger group that still refuses to believe that surveillance as a business model even exists, or that the "public-private-partnerships"[1] are anything other than regulatory capture. Once you realize who the "nationals" are that need to be secured, the TPP/TTIP - and all the other efforts to undermine democracy and replace it with corporate sovereignty - make sense. It is the same thing we saw in Jewel v. NSA, when the government's legal council gave the Freudian slip of the century, claiming that it was important to keep the use of section 215 secrete, because of the need to protect "THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS COMPANY"[2]. As for the ISDS, everybody in the negotiation room needs to remember the advice of Londo and G'kar to their junior assistants as they leave them to handle important negotiations on their own: "Just don't give away the homeworld!"[3] [1] or whatever the latest buzzword-compliant rebranding of fascism is called [2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsealed-jewel-v-nsa-transcript-doj-has-nothing-contempt-american-citizens.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsea... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EaD85zX7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EaD85zX7o
lectrick 11y ago
"National Security" to me screams "control". Control = security. And I'm sorry, but total control is (and should be) out of the question. If you don't control, then you'll be forced to gasp negotiate! There will be gasp unexpected risks (and possibly unexpected gains)!
snowwrestler 11y ago
All trade deals are about national security. That is why they are negotiated by governments. Rich trading nations are secure. They can afford a great military, and nations that trade heavily with each other are less likely to attack one another. Trade relationships are major components of spheres of influence. Look at what's happening in Ukraine--that whole thing started with a disagreement over trade relationships. Will the Ukraine's economy grow closer with western Europe, or with Russia? That question fractured that nation. This illustrates the strategic importance of trade deals.
Terr_ 11y ago
Reminds me of this editorial-cartoon: http://imgur.com/BpOtRCf http://imgur.com/BpOtRCf

pdkl95 11y ago

> I cannot understand why otherwise smart people continue to let "national security" dissuade all common sense in everything. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" It is important to remember an unfortunately large subset of the people making those arguments - including far too many people here at HN - are profiting from the status quo. I am less worried about the people making the stupid "with us or against us" ultimatum (at least those people are predictable). The problem is the far larger group that still refuses to believe that surveillance as a business model even exists, or that the "public-private-partnerships"[1] are anything other than regulatory capture. Once you realize who the "nationals" are that need to be secured, the TPP/TTIP - and all the other efforts to undermine democracy and replace it with corporate sovereignty - make sense. It is the same thing we saw in Jewel v. NSA, when the government's legal council gave the Freudian slip of the century, claiming that it was important to keep the use of section 215 secrete, because of the need to protect "THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS COMPANY"[2]. As for the ISDS, everybody in the negotiation room needs to remember the advice of Londo and G'kar to their junior assistants as they leave them to handle important negotiations on their own: "Just don't give away the homeworld!"[3] [1] or whatever the latest buzzword-compliant rebranding of fascism is called [2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsealed-jewel-v-nsa-transcript-doj-has-nothing-contempt-american-citizens.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsea... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EaD85zX7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EaD85zX7o

lectrick 11y ago

"National Security" to me screams "control". Control = security. And I'm sorry, but total control is (and should be) out of the question. If you don't control, then you'll be forced to gasp negotiate! There will be gasp unexpected risks (and possibly unexpected gains)!

snowwrestler 11y ago

All trade deals are about national security. That is why they are negotiated by governments. Rich trading nations are secure. They can afford a great military, and nations that trade heavily with each other are less likely to attack one another. Trade relationships are major components of spheres of influence. Look at what's happening in Ukraine--that whole thing started with a disagreement over trade relationships. Will the Ukraine's economy grow closer with western Europe, or with Russia? That question fractured that nation. This illustrates the strategic importance of trade deals.

Terr_ 11y ago

Reminds me of this editorial-cartoon: http://imgur.com/BpOtRCf http://imgur.com/BpOtRCf