Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's Spreading Secrecy Net (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Eventually (44+ / 0-)

    but there is no precedent for secret negotiations. The public has a right to know about government policy and activities in such matters. It has nothing to do with protecting public safety. It's about protecting the interest of Wall St.

    •  So are you saying that the President should put (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wolf10, FiredUpInCA

      every single policy decision before Congress and the Public, for days or weeks to allow everyone to weigh in on those decisions before deciding on a course of action?

      And why would he ask the public to view every policy decision with the intention of its weighing in on such decisions and then go against what is permissible by the public?

      •  I am not saying that he has to stop to get (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, Joieau, greenbell, allenjo, George3

        approval other than in those areas where he is specifically required to do so by law. I am saying that information about the operations should be available to the media and to the public.  Claims to protect them because of national security interest should be subject to judicial and congressional oversight.

      •  Are you saying that American citizens (8+ / 0-)

        should not be allowed to know what U.S. trade policies are being planned out and even implemented until AFTER the fact?  Trade policies have clear and direct implications for business owners, for people seeking employment, for trade unions, for consumers to name just a few groups.  No one is saying that the public should be involved IN the negotiations----but those affected by these policies certainly have the right to know what is being discussed.  Why would you want to block such interests from even knowing about what is planned until it's all done and wrapped up?  

        "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

        by 3goldens on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:13:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you can show me where I spoke about hiding (0+ / 0-)

          anything, I would love to see it.

          I asked a question. If the diary is about "Transparency" and the discussion is about the President placing policy decisions or negotiations before the public for them to see before he makes decisions, my question again, would this President or most presidents go against what is the popular sentiment of the public?

          Here is an Elizabeth Warren quote:

          President Barack Obama’s administration should release documents the U.S. and 10 other Pacific-region nations are using as they negotiate a new trade agreement, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren said.

          In a letter to Michael Froman, Obama’s nominee to lead the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, the Massachusetts lawmaker said releasing details of what is being considered by the parties would give citizens a chance to evaluate the deal before negotiations are completed

          She seem to be agreeing with your position. My question is, again, if this is how a President should conduct business, why would he go against popular consensus? According to Warren, put it out there for the public to evaluate it.....  

          And if this is about "TRANSPARENCY"..... Why not have the President conduct every business in this way? Why just be "TRANSPARENT" on one or two issues? That is my question. And it's a valid one.

      •  Brilliant irrelevance here, dude. (5+ / 0-)

        Open negotiations are not the same as "put[ing] every single policy decision before Congress and the Public..."

        Don't you think the public should have some warning in advance before the President sells the rest of our economy down the river?

        Hmmm?

        "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

        by Superskepticalman on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:55:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not what Elizabeth Warren says.... Did you (0+ / 0-)

          read the Elizabeth warren quote? Here is the link:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          In a letter to Michael Froman, Obama’s nominee to lead the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, the Massachusetts lawmaker said releasing details of what is being considered by the parties would give citizens a chance to evaluate the deal before negotiations are completed.
          Did she mention anything here about open negotiations? Did the diarist mention about just open negotiations?

          I'm not against transparency, I feel it is necessary, but I've long understood that when it comes to issues surrounding this President, he is always judged on standards far beyond anyone else, certainly far beyond any other President...and I'm just trying to figure out what that is.

          •  No, the claim that a commercial treaty is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            George3

            classified information is a novel concept.

            To the extent that State Department people are involved, Hillary bought off on the concept of a secret trade agreement too.

            Intellectual property is an area where the big players can spend a lot of money on lawyers and on renting votes when the time comes. If it isn't open, then it's impossible to have an honest policy discussion.

            Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

            by dadadata on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 03:48:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  No precedent? (0+ / 0-)

      You mean except for every other negotiation we pursue?  When was the last time you got to sit at the table during government-to-government negotiations?  This is standard procedure for this and every other government, not to mention outside government.  

    •  "Hope and change" I can certainly get on board (0+ / 0-)

      with.

      Hope you caught that, NSA.

      "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

      by Superskepticalman on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:53:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, don't let facts spoil your argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidkarlsson

      The fact says do not support the notion that a discussion on a trade deal is a stealth attack on our liberties. No evidence of that is presented. Sure, the trade deal will come with many problems--if it ever happens. OTOH, the problems could be mitigated in negotiations. A trade deal is not an automatic evil, anymore than the government is automatically evil.  And yet, your post takes it as an incontrovertible truth that all trade deals and our government are always evil--especially because of THE SECRECY. And this is supported by your belief that this is true.

      Maybe, but maybe not.

      I'm not certain that "Chariots of the Gods" logic and cherry picking data points helps, but I'm sure that I will be told that I'm mistaken and that I should just get with the program.

      I laugh at the wingnuts when they devolve to black helicopter conspiracy theories. When so-called progressives buy into the core conservative mythology that government IS the problem, I just shake my head.

      The post and the title do not support each other. There are important issues to discuss here, but you bury them in shoddy logic, flights of fancy, scare mongering and hype.

      Context, facts, history and perspective are completely missing from your case.

      Is the argument that you're making that the government should never have any secrets--about anything? Really? If that is your belief, you will always be disappointed. Read your world history. There has never been a secret-free government, institution or even an individual. The government we have now IS the most transparent in American history (I challenge you to name a time in the past that was more transparent--and to prove it with facts).

      Could it be better? YES! Does it need to improve? YES, in a thousand ways. And yet, I don't think pretending that things are worse now--under Obama--than they've ever been is a credible starting point. It just isn't.

      You could make your case without the wingnut fantasies of the always evil STATE. You really could and then it might actually make a difference instead of preaching to the choir of your choice.

      Not to pick on your post, as it is hardly the most extreme example of this trend. It is just the one I read today as I dropped by.

       

      Time to clean up DeLay's petri dish! Help CNMI guest workers find justice! Learn more at Unheard No More.

      by dengre on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:39:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site