Lisa Kachold wrote:
>
> ....but it is a matter of layers of required security.  Since you can't
> understand it, (just like with technical troubleshooting) obviously you
> either have an incorrect premise, or less than sufficient information about
> the threats.
>   
"layers required for security"? on a treaty that is supposed to be made 
available to the public BEFORE
it gets ratified  (so that it may be properly discussed, disseminated 
and understood)? Any law that is made in
secrecy and not revealed until after its passage has nothing but dire 
results. This also goes true of treaties.
If the information in the treaties (or the negotiations) were made 
public, then public discourse would follow
along with increased understanding (which we lack because no one is 
talking). On what premise are we
supposed to base an informed opinion when the powers that be won't even 
tell us whats in there?


> In psychology, black and white (good bad) and ideological defenses (putting
> things not understood into political categories), are things people do when
> they are being defensive or failing to understand all the issues.
>
>   
ok? granted there are a lot of people (like me) who do not have 
sufficient information
to make an informed opinion. You do have to ask why that is though. The 
answer is this:
those in power are not answering the question we are putting to them. 
The more insistent
we are about having those answers, the more likely we are to be branded 
as "troublemakers"
(see the recent stories regarding fox news and the obama administration).

> Do you seriously think that so many people, including Obama, Clinton, all
> the presidents since Roosevelt, who, once briefed on current information,
> would so radically change their stance, if it was not completely necessary?
>   
In some issues, I can see where this would be necessary (such as the 
nuclear bomb development program,
and other similarly classed subjects). However, that is not the case 
with the ACTA. People are being deliberately
vague about it, hiding it behind a veil of "national security", etc. The 
ACTA is a matter for public discussion and
debate, not just here but also in other countries. It is interesting to 
note that the general public in those places
is also clamoring for answers (and not getting any).

> I advocate regulation of information use, not "freedom" because, just like
> anarchy, it does not work as either an economic system or a political one.
>   

"regulation" is all fine and good, when properly implemented. However, 
the manner in which our government
(and others) are going about this will lead to excessive abuse of said 
regulation such that even our constitutional
rights will be infringed upon. We simply request that the government at 
least inform us as to this specific matter.

Using the "matter of nation security" card on what should be nothing 
more than an international treaty does nothing
but raise suspicion and garner distrust of our public officials. For all 
we know, they could be passing provisions
that would effectively nullify the basis for our laws: the US Consititution.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience 
to remain silent." -- Thomas Jefferson

Those words right true most of all now. too many good people are 
reamining silent and as a result, we are
losing what we once had.
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss