Slashdot Mirror
Beijing's New Enforcer - Microsoft
QuatermassX writes "The New York Times editorial page comments on the responsibilities of American technology companies doing business in China. From the article: 'Such obvious disregard for users' privacy and ethical standards may make it easier to do business in China, but it also aids a repressive regime. Some in the American Congress are talking about holding hearings. Microsoft has responded to criticism by saying, 'We think it's better to be there with our services than not be there.' This is a false choice. China needs Internet companies as much as they need China.'"
Nope, nothing here giving Congress any authority to regulate business in the U.S., let alone China.
Wrong on both counts. The Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress broad authority to regulate business within the borders of the US, and various trade treaties approved by the Senate give the government strong powers at regulating the activities of American companies in other countries. In addition, the Federal government explicitly has the authority to level taxes and tariffs on all commerce coming in, or going out, of its territories. So, yes, the federales can tell Microsoft where they can and can't sell their products.
Even leaving all that aside, it can be argued that the US has a strong strategic interest in seeing democracy flourish around the globe. Companies which empower countries to keep a chain around their citizens' necks shouldn't be able to plead "We have no choice, we have to do as they say!" Because they do have a choice, and that choice is not to do business in those countries. There's nothing immoral in, effectively, blockading China's ability to buy software from American companies. Whether it would be effective is a different argument which I am avoiding.
FWIW, China isn't the worst government. I know of one that warmongers in 100 countries as we speak, forcing oil-buying countries to use this Empire's currency, all the while stomping on its own citizens' rights and freedoms while pretending to defend liberty.
Oh, please, now you're just trolling. We're not actively at war with any other country currently, we don't force anyone to use our currency (in fact, the Congress was about to levy sanctions on China if they didn't stop pegging their currency to ours exclusively), and if our rights and liberties were as jeopardized as you seem to be claiming you'd be in jail right now, or worse.
I usually agree whole-heartedly with what you write, dada, but you seem to have some wild hair up your butt that's making you spout nonsense today. What gives?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Article II Section 8 grants the Legislative Branch (Congress) the power to " To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" This is what is known as the Commerce Clause
Also in that same section: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This allows them to actually do the above.
That would grant them say the ability to prohibit U.S. Businesses from engaging in commerce of proscribed types with select foriegn nations. This has been done with Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the USSR...
The clandestine Iranian nuclear program precedes the Bush administration.
For that matter, it's Iran that's talked about wiping other nations from the map -- rather explicitly, not the United States. It's the rest of the world that's moderate here.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
"EXACT SAME GARBAGE". :-) I'm glad to see there's at least some people who are awake.
When Craig Whitney on the Council on Foreign Relations admitted that the whole Weapons of Mass Destructions in Iraq deal was a scam and he, along with Charles Duelfer, announced that the USA would first attack Iran and then North Korea on May 24, 2005 in New York, he blurred out: "But we now know that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction to speak of in 2003, when we went to war. Does it matter to Americans that our country went to war on a false premise?"
Guess not, because in the very same briefing, minutes later, Charles Duelfer said:
"Secondly, and we describe this in some detail in the report, there was a greater concern than we could appreciate sitting here in Washington of the threat posed by Iran. And we just, you know, that our gut feeling for that was not the same as the gut feeling one would have sitting in Baghdad, where you had invaded and killed a lot of those people, and then every once in a while they were throwing rockets at you, so there was an ongoing conflict there. And Saddam was certainly aware of the WMD assessments of Iran and he created intentionally a certain ambiguity about what his capabilities were. So there were mixed motivations."
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8157
(for those of you who haven't realized it, the Council on Foreign Relations is the primary political institution of the power elite in the USA and behind the facade controls both political parties)
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation