Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012

    Obama admin negotiating secret treaty that “could restrict the availability of generi

    I wonder how much Big Pharma pays him.. This is the administration of the 1% that passes secret deals to insure that the rich get richer and then supports the Occupy movement useful idiots that can't see that Socialists talk about wealth redistribution to get what they want and line the pockets of those that line theirs.


    Obama admin negotiating secret treaty that “could restrict the availability of generic medicines”


    The Obama administration is negotiating a “free trade” treaty with countries in the Pacific rim. “Free trade” is a nice sounding concept, but the devil is in the details. In this particular case, the details are all secret; and secrecy in government is rarely an encouraging sign.

    from WaPo:

    The Obama administration is secretly negotiating a treaty that could have significant effects on domestic law. Officially, it’s a “free trade” treaty among Pacific rim countries, but a section of the draft agreement leaked in 2011 suggested that it will require signers, including the United States, to make significant changes to copyright law and enforcement measures.

    Strangely, the administration seems to be encouraging the public to have a debate on the treaty before they know what’s in it. The Office of the United States Trade Representative has solicited comments about the treaty on its Web site, but there is no particularly detailed information about the content of the agreement, or a draft of the current version of the proposal.

    Now, as Maira Sutton at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) notes, the New York Times editorial board has endorsed the TPP. While the editorial acknowledges that some are "worried about provisions on intellectual property that could restrict the availability of generic medicines and grant longer copyright protections to big media companies,” it nevertheless argues that a “good deal” would “not only help individual countries but set an example for global trade talks.”
    read the rest
    I smell a rat. We got burned on “you have to pass it to find out what’s in it” once before. We’re not going to fall for that same garbage again.


    http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/665...aty-that-could

    WAPO article below.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    The New York Times endorsed a secretive trade agreement that the public can’t read




    (Brendan McDermid/Reuters)

    The Obama administration is secretly negotiating a treaty that could have significant effects on domestic law. Officially, it's a "free trade" treaty among Pacific rim countries, but a section of the draft agreement leaked in 2011 suggested that it will require signers, including the United States, to make significant changes to copyright law and enforcement measures.

    Strangely, the administration seems to be encouraging the public to have a debate on the treaty before they know what's in it. The Office of the United States Trade Representative has solicited comments about the treaty on its Web site, but there is no particularly detailed information about the content of the agreement, or a draft of the current version of the proposal.

    Now, as Maira Sutton at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) notes, the New York Times editorial board has endorsed the TPP. While the editorial acknowledges that some are "worried about provisions on intellectual property that could restrict the availability of generic medicines and grant longer copyright protections to big media companies," it nevertheless argues that a "good deal" would "not only help individual countries but set an example for global trade talks."

    But as Sutton points out, it seems strange for the Times to be opining on a treaty the public hasn't gotten to see yet. If the Times has gotten a leaked copy of the report, it should publish it so the public can make up its own mind. If it hasn't seen the treaty, perhaps it should reserve judgment until it's learned what's actually in it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...lic-cant-read/


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •