×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slovenian Ambassador Regrets Signing ACTA Agreement

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time dept.

Piracy 149

metacell writes "Slovenia's ambassador to Japan, Helena Drnovek Zorko, writes: 'I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

149 comments

We need an amendment.... (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903863)

Can't get SOPA/PIPA passed? Just get a diplomat from the USA to sign ACTA and all you need is a 2/3 majority in the Senate with no need for the House or President to sign off. Still a tall burden but there's much fewer Senators you need to purchase versus half the House.

Re:We need an amendment.... (4, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903887)

The President has already signed it and is claiming the Senate doesn't need to ratify it because "executive agreement" is all you need.

Handy theory because you only have to influence one person.

This is why we need this to come before the Senate so it can be voted down.

Re:We need an amendment.... (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904013)

The President has already signed it and is claiming the Senate doesn't need to ratify it because "executive agreement" is all you need.

So, when do we impeach Obama for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution?

Re:We need an amendment.... (3, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904221)

About the same time the last 6 presidents were impeached for similar behavior...

Re:We need an amendment.... (2, Insightful)

orgelspieler (865795) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904617)

Nah. We only impeach presidents for canoodling the secretary.

Re:We need an amendment.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38906127)

WRONG.

That particular President was impeached for lying under oath, an offense that would land the rest of us in jail. Period.

Don't be such a lazy thinker and assume that just because a) among the President's critics are some modern-day Puritans and b) the President's fans focused on the sexual elements of the case that this was about Monica's actions.

Re:We need an amendment.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904803)

Do you have citations for this? I mean specific instances of a president signing a treaty and acting on it without it being ratified by the senate.

Re:We need an amendment.... (3, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38906135)

It's trivial to find. In fact there is a whole section about it on www.senate.gov:

Executive Agreements
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
The challenge of obtaining two-thirds vote on treaties was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate.

Re:We need an amendment.... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38906477)

Way to miss the point. Not some dumb treaty. Violating the oath to uphold the Constitution.

Re:We need an amendment.... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904225)

So, when do we impeach Obama for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution?

Constitution? Bleh... He'll be impeached just as soon as he hooks up with an intern.

Re:We need an amendment.... (1, Insightful)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904575)

Except Clinton wasn't impeached for hooking up with an intern. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury about it.

Re:We need an amendment.... (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905263)

About hooking up with an intern.

Re:We need an amendment.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38905981)

Wiki [wikipedia.org]

He should have said, "I sure did... it was great!" then perhaps nothing would have become of it. Heavily politically motivated... if he hadn't lied, he would would have won. Instead, he pushed it and lost the trust of quite a few folks. If Hillary wasn't eying a political career, you can bet she would have walked. :)

Re:We need an amendment.... (4, Funny)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#38906357)

Except Clinton wasn't impeached for hooking up with an intern. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury about it.

We all lie about doing the fat chicks.

Re:We need an amendment.... (3, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904371)

The precedent for agreeing to treaties this way goes back to George Washington's neutrality proclamation in 1793. You would have to retroactively impeach EVERY US President first to have a case against Mr. Obama.

In actual practice due to the way the Constitution is written the only thing the Senate has is a veto power over treaties.

http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf [umich.edu]

Re:We need an amendment.... (3, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904447)

Hell, Obama already signed into law the ability for the gov to take you away without a fair trial or even informing anyone of your disappearance.

Obama signed it saying he would never use it and disagrees with it...

So why did the dumb fuck sign it?

This country is corrupt as shit. Fuck America in its mouth. The constitution is worthless.

Btw a reporter was arrested in congress yesterday.

Re:We need an amendment.... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905319)

He needs that power "just in case".

Because terrorists keep coming up ways to do terrorist acts that aren't illegal or just result in 1 or 2 years in prison.

Re:We need an amendment.... (4, Informative)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904503)

Because you would be considered an idiot for claiming this was unconstitutional. The executive branch can, and does sign international treaties. It is well within their authority to do so. There are three types of treaties in the U.S.

Congressional-Executive Agreements
Solo Executive Agreements
Treaties

If the president has signed one without the direct consent of congress, it is considered either a Solo Executive Agreement, or a Congressional Executive agreement. The U.S. also differs from most other nations in that they treat each of the above types of treaties as distinct classes and the treaty is incorporated into federal law, and as such, congress can go in and modify them after the fact, even though other signing nations would consider this a violation of the treaty in question. The Supreme Court can also hold a treaty as unconstitutional and null and void.

The authority of the president to do this is well known. Congress has attempted over the years to limit this authority with various versions of the Bicker Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment#Legal_background) but it has never been ratified by enough states.

Re:We need an amendment.... (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38906409)

So we may find out that this whole thing wasn't really the U.S. telling everyone else how to act. It was just a few isolated morons within the administration... "don't tase me for destroying your freedoms yo."

Re:We need an amendment.... (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904543)

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html [archives.gov]

Now, I think they might be able to get him on bribery. But "they" could be got for bribery as well, so that's unlikely. Seems like failing to uphold the constitution should be an impeachable offence, but I guess when it was written they didn't think that the president was likely to fail in that duty.

Re:We need an amendment.... (2)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904795)

I'm not sure that's necessary in this case. If it's just an executive agreement and doesn't need to be ratified, then it's just an executive agreement and doesn't need to be ratified. It's not binding, has no legal power, and thus isn't threatening to constitutional limits.

All we have to do is keep reminding the executive that it really is merely his handshake deal, and legislated policy need not change to comply with it. If he goes to Congress and says he needs some crazy new laws to comply with the 'treaty', the response is "What treaty?"

Re:We need an amendment.... (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905191)

If Congress doesn't like it, they are most certainly free to create a bill that strips the government of any capacity to enact any policy based on ACTA. No need to impeach. Of course, since a goodly number of member of Congress are probably in full accord, it's little wonder they're not upset at being deprived of the right to rubberstamp this agreement.

Re:We need an amendment.... (0)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905221)

Right after all the other presidents that did the same in the past.

Re:We need an amendment.... (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904581)

This is why we need this to come before the Senate so it can be voted down.

The Senate will probably acceed to it if it comes up to a vote. What we need is for the executive to try to use it in court without Senate approval and get smacked down.

Re:We need an amendment.... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38906189)

It won't get smacked down in court because of prior precedence for these 'executive agreements'.

The only way to put an end to it is by a failed Senate ratification vote.

Re:We need an amendment.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903905)

I thought trade agreements were subject to a degree of scrutiny beyond the mere wave of a diplomats hand? For example NAFTA and FTAA...

Re:We need an amendment.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38905035)

Hey, in Canada it only takes 39% of the popular vote and a Prime Minister who regards himself as a leader, rather than a representative.

Apologies accepted... (-1, Flamebait)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903871)

... Now commit suicide by slow immolation and we're almost even, you cocksucking bitch.

Hanlon was right (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903879)

Don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity

Re:Hanlon was right (5, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904001)

In this particular case, this ambassador may not have acted out of malice (she's just one little cog in a giant machine and couldn't have prevented it anyway), but the government that ordered her to sign it certainly intended to harm Internet. There's no doubt about this. After all, ACTA has been negotiated for a long time, and those responsible in the governments knew full well all the objections that have been brought against it. So Hanlon wasn't right here: ACTA was born out of malice, not out of stupidity.

Re:Hanlon was right (3, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904093)

Yeah, that went over really well at Nuremburg, too, ya know.

Re:Hanlon was right (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38905349)

Nuremburg is a standard that losers of wars are held up to but nobody else in history has.

Re:Hanlon was right (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38906129)

I was gonna say, what about My Lai, but the US lost that war, too.

An Army captain named Medina got orders from MACV in Saigon to have the village of My Lai destroyed and everybody there killed. He passed that order to Lt Calley, who followed it. Calley got prison. Medina & his superiors got off. The court martial's explaination was of course, 'Following orders is no excuse!'. However, at the time, there was no such thing as an illegal order, so Calley could have been cort martialed for refusing a direct order and gotten shot. Calley knew this, and it came out at the trial.

Later, the UCMJ was annoted to allow refusal to follow illegal orders as a defense at a court martial.

Re:Hanlon was right (2)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38906415)

It is a fallacy that the US lost in Vietnam, although they did later "lose" Vietnam itself (there is a difference). If you read the history you'll see that the US destroyed the Viet Cong in South Vietnam and then pursued a policy of "Vietnamization" where the South Vietnamese became responsible for their own defense. Several years later the North Vietnamese Army invaded and conquered South Vietnam - a straight out civil war where the south (backed by the US) lost to the north (backed by China and the Soviet Union). So, South Vietnam was lost to US interests but the US forces were actually unbeaten in the field when they left, and had destroyed the Viet Cong (but were not permitted to destroy the North Vietnamese Army for political reasons, although it was well within US capabilities). It is good you know about My Lai. Time to read more on the bigger picture methinks.

Re:Hanlon was right (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904045)

Sometimes stupidity is malice. Like when you're too uniformed, untrained, and unmotivated to do your very important job properly. Not admitting that and stepping down is malice.

Re:Hanlon was right (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38905599)

Like when you're too uniformed [..] to do your very important job properly

Congratulations, sir. You just won the highly coveted award for Freudian Slip of the Century(tm)!

Re:Hanlon was right a long time ago (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904489)

Sorry, no.

Always assume malice. Then when you rule out malice, assume corruption. Then when you rule out corruption, assume greed. Then when you rule out greed, you've spent enough time that by now the malice actually showed up after all.

Then if you rule all that out twice, you get to consider someone stupid, at which point you get sued for slander/libel.

If it was only so... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 2 years ago | (#38906549)

First off, greed and corruption are the same thing - one is the motive for the other.
Now, if it was all corruption it would be a very simply problem - simply pay more to have it your way.
After all, the subject is motivated only by greed and self interest, right?

Malice is fine but.. you can't rally people around malice. Note the lack of "hate clubs" in any society - as opposed to fan clubs.
Humans are social animals. We like to be the part of the herd we like for what we like to like. And be liked because of it.
No herd will take you in simply because you hate the same thing as everyone else. Because they don't all hate the same things.
A herd may LIKE the same things, but they don't all love or hate the same things - cause hate and love are individual preferences.

And in politics - you need your herds.
So, while a single individual may have his/her own personal reason for malice they can't teach others their hate.
He/she must give them a reason and logic on which they will build their own hate - i.e. indoctrinate them with false logic and ideology.
Delude them.

They don't even have to hate - they simply have to believe that the other side hates them or the things that they care about.
You know... like morals, god, puppies... America. Whatever.
And the less they know - the more they will believe.

The best part is, once they got the ball rolling, they don't even have to validate their position to anyone.
The other side is BOUND to do (or not do) something that will be construed as "evil" by their righteous followers.
After that, they have it made. Kids will be running away from home for a chance to die fighting those puppy hating bastards.

And all that time, they won't actually hate the other side - they will simply be "doing the right thing", backed by their own ignorance and lack of wisdom.
Or "ideals", as some people like to call that.

Even Nazis were dead certain that they were doing the right thing.
Exterminating the "lower races", avenging their betrayed ancestors, liberating the world from communism, conquering the world so it would be run properly by those with superior genes and culture...
They had both science AND magic backing their cause - how could they've been wrong?

Read before you sign (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903899)

Applies even more to politicians than it does to the average joe.

Re:Read before you sign (5, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904029)

But it was SO LOOOOOONG! I'll just click "accept," what's the worst that could happen?

Re:Read before you sign (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904145)

And of course, now the Slovenian ambassador will become part of the first Human Cent-iPad.

Re:Read before you sign (4, Informative)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904167)

But it was SO LOOOOOONG! I'll just click "accept," what's the worst that could happen?

Seems our politicians are too lazy to read anything these days.

Wasn't it Pelosi, who said something to the effect with regards to Obamacare..."Let's pass it so we can see what it says..."?

Re:Read before you sign (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904711)

You just gave me an idea for the perfect Malware installer. Don't prompt the user for a Yes/No option. Make it into a giant long EULA with an OK button at the bottom. Because after all, only legitimate software will uses such agreements.

Suckers.

Yea dipshit (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903919)

Actions have consequences, maybe if you were qualified to be an adult, let alone someone with government powers, you would know that

Re:Yea dipshit (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904079)

Wow. There's some bitter people on Slashdot. I guess I should have known that someone admitting to a mistake would get excoriated even more so than someone who just keeps arguing that they were right all along. I guess that explains why people like Newt are actually being voted for - there are more people out there who will swallow someone's story about how they were right all along than who will forgive someone who admits to a mistake.

Re:bitter (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904607)

We're bitter because "not all mistakes are created equal". We're bitter because 40-60% of the Slashdot Nerd News site knows more of the content of one of the nastiest treaties ever, than ... wait for it ... an Ambassador.

Sorry, that's just terr... er ... scary.

Crocodile tears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903933)

n/t

In other news.... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903945)

It's easier to ask for forgiveness then permission.

I will not forgive (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904651)

I don't care how badly a governing official feels after doing something oppressive. They should know better, and failing to know better puts them on par with those who deliberately oppress.

I will not allow a completely commitment-and-action-free apology influence my opinion of an oppressor.

Re:In other news.... (3, Informative)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905489)

but she had permission. Actually, she had 'instructions' from her government to sign it. And, it's disingenuous that now she's being the one taken to task for putting her name on the paper, when clearly others were responsible for the decision. Yes, she could have stepped down, someone else would have signed it after given other instructions, and we'd be right where we are, lambasting whichever other official put his signature on it. This avoids the source of the problem, and Slashdot is contributing to the confusion, by focusing on the Ambassador.

FTFA:

I signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on behalf of the Republic of Slovenia, following the directive and authorisation of the Slovenian government. ... There has been a demonization of “some sneak”, that is me, who in far-off Tokyo secretly signed something on her own initiative...it is dangerous particularly because it conceals the responsibility of those who had the power to decide, and did in fact decide, that Slovenia would be a signatory of ACTA. This was decided by the Slovenian government and by the parliamentary committee for EU matters, and before that, Slovenia was for quite some time involved in coordinating the agreement. All this was done with too little transparency, judging by the outraged responses that have appeared following the signing. Back then, the Slovenian media did not demonise this decision to the same extent as they now demonise my signature. This I consider very dangerous for the continuous (non-)development of democracy in Slovenia.

It was peer pressure (4, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903993)

Dudes, like... you know... all the cool countries were signing it, and they were like, you know... "Sign it, man! Go ahead! It'll be fun!"

So, like, I signed it but now I'm like, really sorry and everything, you know? So we're cool, right?

Re:It was peer pressure (2)

ddtmm (549094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905409)

Sad to see how they all do what the other ones are doing, but in a way I admire her courage to stand up and admit her mistake. Sucks to be her but maybe it'll make a few others wake up too. Does this still have to get passed by the EU parliament too?

"I was asleep at the wheel" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903997)

As a diplomat, she only gets to do what she's instructed to do. Fine, I'll buy that.

As a citizen, though, one in the thick of international dealing to boot, it's not nearly good enough. Not being aware of the pernicious nature of the treaty, of its undemocratic, non-transparent, in fact deliberately obscured dealings and meaning, is quite inexcusable for someone in that position. Or any politician active at a national level, for that matter.

She's got remorse now, and admitting that in public should at least get our support. But far too many still push ahead.

How is it that so many who should know better still haven't caught on the scam on citizens' rights and democracy that's being pulled here?

Well, it's kinda late now, now isn't it? (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904019)

Maybe you should have thought about that first BEFORE signing?

It's so reassuring to know that these thoughtless people rule our world.

Read Before You Sign (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904071)

I thought the problem of politicians signing stuff before they read it was limited to the US Congress. Looks like it's a global phenomenon. Could you imagine if other people did that?

Pharmacist: "Yes, those drugs I dispensed killed people. I probably should have read the labels so I didn't give people the wrong dose or pills." (Said while handing a customer Viagra instead of antibiotics.)

Surgeon: "How was I to know that the patient didn't need a quadruple amputation? I didn't get a chance to read his chart before starting the surgery. Next patient! Pass the hacksaw!"

Air Traffic Controller: "Sure, a few planes collided in my airspace. It's not like it's my fault. I had no way of knowing that was going to happen when I instructed them to land without reading what was on the tracking computer. Ok, flights 54321, 31415, and 424242. You're all clear to land on runway (rolls dice) 5."

Re:Read Before You Sign (4, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904149)

I think all legislation should be read aloud by the leading party member of whoever introduced it, and all legislators must be present the entire time before voting on it.

Re:Read Before You Sign (3, Funny)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904297)

...and all legislators must be present the entire time...

And awake.

Re:Read Before You Sign (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904707)

No way, they'd all die of caffeine overdose before one bill was done reading.

Wait.

On second thought, I like this plan.

Re:Read Before You Sign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38905695)

Make it so all such readings are recorded (with all seats visible on at least one of the recording channels) and the multiple video streams available online within an hour. Anyone who naps or is otherwise blatantly unattentive has to justify that in their next re-election.

I'd also prefer it be coupled with requiring each law to state which article or amendment of the Constitution grants the authority to pass such a bill. Toss in a tolerance for laws that are deemed as unexpected by the Constitution but justifiable under the Declaration of Independence (such as this law restraining Congress).

Re:Read Before You Sign (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905379)

Personally i think they should only be allowed to sign off one a personal hand written copy of it.

they would have zero excuse for not knowing the content as they would have had to read it to copy it.

they would be a lot shorter and easier to understand as they would have to copy it them selves..

pork would start to disappear because people don't want to have to sit down and copy that too..

Re:Read Before You Sign (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904179)

I thought the problem of politicians signing stuff before they read it was limited to the US Congress.

Why in the world would you think that?

Re:Read Before You Sign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38906801)

... the problem of politicians signing stuff before they read it

I'm not sure reversing that order would lead to better decisions on what to sign

Just an ambassador (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904147)

instructed to sign it. If this person had chosen not to do so, then the government would have sent another person to do it.

Re:Just an ambassador (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904481)

Yeah, and? Doesn't matter how many other people might have signed it, this is the person who did sign it.

If they'd said no and then resigned on principle, they might have created enough media buzz to stop it. Now they realise it's unpopular they're saying 'hey, don't blame me'.

Re:Just an ambassador (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905369)

Problem there: an ambassador cannot 'step down', he or she can only be recalled by the sending state. Additionally, ambassadors are, you could say, the personification of the sending state in the receiving state. If she was instructed to sign the treaty, that's what she has to do, carry out the will of her country. She may protest through her official channels, say that it's a bad idea, and ACTA is evil, but in the end, if Slovenia doesn't change its mind, she is practically obligated to sign it due to her position.

Diplomacy is one of those areas where you don't really have the opportunity to exercise free will, if not having a say in how things get done. But what gets done is not, and usually never was, up to you.

Re:Just an ambassador (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38905771)

Diplomacy is one of those areas where you don't really have the opportunity to exercise free will, if not having a say in how things get done. But what gets done is not, and usually never was, up to you.

The Nuremberg defense was ruled invalid almost 70 years ago.

Maybe not so bad (2)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904183)

This may actually turn out to be a good thing. If the politicians who are about to sign ACTA in june read it, maybe, just maybe, her letter will make them think twice and at least TRY to understand what the heck it's all about instead of just voting yes out of ignorance.

Bet of Both Worlds (2)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904199)

This sort of approach really does get you the best of both worlds: you get to sign the agreement so you get all the backscratching that entails, and you get to publicly decry it, so you get the support of your constituents!

Politicking 101

At least (1)

arnodf (1310501) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904207)

Well, at least she admits she's wrong. I wonder how the rest would react; they'll probably just say they support it, still without understanding a bit of it.

Is this his "anti-lynching" apology? (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904257)

I think we are going to see a LOT more of this. "Oh, I signed it but I didn't know what I was signing... and I wasn't paying any attention to the protests going on outside of my windows either..."

I'm sorry, but no. I don't buy it. And if it were true, that it was some kind of "honest mistake" then they need to resign from office and forever from public service because they just admitted to not doing their job.

Bull! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904283)

He has no excuses. it was his responsibility to read and understand it first.

Re:Bull! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38906001)

Nope, it was her responsibility to sign it. An ambassador does not decide, an ambassador represents.

I think we're going about this all wrong... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904385)

We need to download all content and never EVER buy a single copy of entertainment material ever again. This won't end until we are all criminals and stripped of our right to vote or to protest. Meanwhile, we keep buying what they are selling, fueling their politician-buying budgets to buy new laws which are then used against us.

Of course, stopping now will not do any good... the words "critical mass" come to mind. They are already out of control. Their high profitability doesn't prove their arguments are false. But people refusing to buy from these criminals serves to prove their arguments are true. There is no "winning" in this any longer.

The children (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904563)

I love it! Now we just need to communicate his message. "ACTA hurts the children. Won't someone please think of the children!"

Re:The children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38906747)

They will probably twist that and use it to create a D.A.R.E. like program for children to rat out their parents.

RTFA anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904749)

If any of you read the link with the embassador's actual words, it will be clear that she HAD TO sign it. Her explanation is a roundabout way of saying she had no choice. I doubt that many of you know the Slovenian laws (I don't), and what sort of responsibilities an embassador has.

nice words (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904767)

Sure he's sorry about signing it, but he can't un-sign it now that he's been given his pay cheque

Re:nice words (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38906313)

You been at sea for so long you've lost the ability to differentiate men from women? Better spend some time down at the docks, reacquainting yourself with the ladies.

this is what they call (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904957)

having your cake and eating it too

huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38905705)

"Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign"

who instructed you to sign it? were they wearing an american flag pin? was their hometown in hollywood california?

this isn't legislation, this is corruption on a global scale and americans are at the heart of it.

Asleep at the wheel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38906391)

So, yeah, it's not her wrongdoing because she had a lot of work to do (RTFA) and even now she is "recovering". So basically, she is unable to cope with work and instead of resigning and letting somebody competent do it, she argues it's not her fault for spending too much time wasting other people's money. Lovely. If she fucked up so badly on this law, how many other has she badly fucked up?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...