You seem to be putting words in warfangle's mouth, then criticizing those words. Nowhere does warfangle even remotely propose the logic you are describing. It is clear that warfangle is in fact getting the information about the treaty from what has leaked about it.<p>Assuming the leaks are true, we do not need to speculate that it may be underhanded because it is being negotiated in secret. We can be as confident as we are in the veracity of the leaks that they are being underhanded because of the <i>content of the treaty</i>.<p>Secrecy is an irrelevant point. If this treaty was produced in an open and transparent manner I would still agree with warfangle that the treaty is unjust and in the US, unconstitutional.<p>Are you aware that details have been leaked? It sort of sounds like you may not be aware that while to some extent we are still speculating on the contents, it is well-founded speculation, not wild speculation.