Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Wednesday June 03 2015, @11:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the leak-hunter dept.

Australian Financial Review reports:

Whistleblower website WikiLeaks offered a [US$100,000] bounty for copies of a Pacific trade pact that is a central plank of President Barack Obama's diplomatic pivot to Asia on Tuesday.

WikiLeaks, which has published leaked chapters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiating text before, started a drive to crowdsource money for the reward, just as U.S. unions launched a new push to make the text public.

"The transparency clock has run out on the TPP. No more secrecy. No more excuses. Let's open the TPP once and for all," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a statement.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Thursday June 04 2015, @12:34AM

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday June 04 2015, @12:34AM (#191837) Journal

    You have to wonder why some senator doesn't just release it.

    What could they possibly do to him? The backlash would be so severe the administration would be running for cover.
    What possible law could be broken, when no law specifically states that there is a right to keep such a thing a secret.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:19AM

    by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:19AM (#191858)

    I think the same thing also. What makes it so that the executive could have this kind of power over a Senator? I say Warren does it and dares the Prez to destroy the leader of the Democratic party to protect secrets of the 1% and slave owners

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:20AM

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:20AM (#191859) Homepage Journal

    I seem to remember reading that the US senators were allowed to inspect the document under supervision, but that they weren't even allowed to take notes.
    Difficult to leak the whole thing under those circumstances. I suspect the guards would notice something as straightforward as recording it all with Google Glass.

    -- hendrik

    • (Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:25AM

      by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:25AM (#191861)

      But what gives those guards authority over a Senator?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:59AM (#191869)

        Brute force.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Thursday June 04 2015, @04:25AM

          by CirclesInSand (2899) on Thursday June 04 2015, @04:25AM (#191913)

          That's power, not authority.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @11:39AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @11:39AM (#192006)

            Any 'authority' ultimately devolves to who can bring the most brute force to bear. Whether it's the Police, one's private army, or your nuclear arsenal down the back by the cow shed, brute force is the basis for any claim to authority, political clout or even religious morality du jour.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:03AM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:03AM (#191870) Journal

      I would like to know how the executive branch thinks it can neuter a co-equal branch of government like this and get away with it. Why isn't Congress voting to impeach this jackass this moment? They certainly don't like him, he's not from their party, so why on God's green Earth aren't they using this to get rid of him? I don't like them, either, but this kind of imperiousness crosses the line.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @04:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @04:02AM (#191905)

        > I would like to know how the executive branch thinks it can neuter a co-equal branch of government like this and get away with it.

        Such neutering is the entire point of the party system. It puts the parties above the branches of government.

        > Why isn't Congress voting to impeach this jackass this moment?

        Because the GOP loves the TPP 100x more than the democratic party does [vox.com] and his own party wouldn't even consider impeaching him for this (see previous sentence).

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday June 04 2015, @05:20PM

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday June 04 2015, @05:20PM (#192175)

      I seem to remember reading that the US senators were allowed to inspect the document under supervision, but that they weren't even allowed to take notes.
      Difficult to leak the whole thing under those circumstances. I suspect the guards would notice something as straightforward as recording it all with Google Glass.

      Senator Barbara Boxer complained about this. She was told to turn over all her electronics before she could enter the room with the document and while she was told she could take notes, she could not take them with her, she had to turn them over to the guard to be kept in a "file". She also questioned why it was secret, there being nothing she saw affecting national security in it.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:19AM (#191872)

    What could they possibly do to him?

    They *could* charge them with espionage and terrorism (look up the definition of terrorism, it is very loosely defined as trying to change the policy of the government - which an action like this would be - and there is no need for any direct violence to be committed, really, look it up, it's a riveting read)

    But that's nothing. If they *REALLY* want to hurt the senator, they could do much, much worse: they can make sure the senator does not get re-elected! That is at least 10x as bad.

    • (Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:37AM

      by arslan (3462) on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:37AM (#191877)

      and pedophilia.. more powerful than espionage and terrorism charges.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday June 04 2015, @04:31AM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday June 04 2015, @04:31AM (#191916) Journal

      change the policy of the government

      Sounds like the job description of a Senator. Good luck trying to get a conviction for that.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @03:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @03:58AM (#191902)

    > What could they possibly do to him?

    Donate to the campaign of the guy running against him in the next election.

  • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:59PM

    by Sulla (5173) on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:59PM (#192063) Journal

    I recently heard Dan Carlin talk about this on his podcast "common sense", he made some interesting points and I think says it the best that I have found.

    http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-290-the-illusion-of-control/ [dancarlin.com]

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam