Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Accused of Lying to Congress about Chinese Journalist
verybadradio writes "The House Committee on Foreign Affairs is calling Yahoo! chief executive Jerry Yang to a hearing on 6 November to explain why the company lied to Congress in early 2006 about its knowledge of the investigation into Chinese journalist Shi Tao."
Yahoo was doing what was required to do business in China & considering how the US Gov't has bent over to facilitate China, they have no room to talk.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
The US government has a very selective view of when human rights become something important. I hope they'll soon hand out some kind of guideline when it's ok to ignore them and when not, so far it's kinda confusing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's certain to result in a strongly worded letter with ABSOLUTELY NO consequences at all.
At least, if one is to gauge by Congress' reaction to the widespread stonewalling by every part of the Bush administration and it's corporate political allies.
It's not confusing at all. When you violate human rights and have oil we want we will eventually use that as the excuse when we invade your country. If you violate human rights and have no oil you are fine. However if you violate human rights and it gets too public and someone important complains AND it might cost money/re-election well then we have to do something.
Simple!
I'm sorry, but lying under oath isn't exactly a legal requirement.
You'll notice that they're not accusing him of human rights violations, they're accusing him of lying to congress. If I read it right, in a sworn testimony too.
So let's put _that_ defense away already. They're not condemning Yahoo for doing business with China. Period.
Plus,
1. it cuts both ways. If he's supposed to comply with Chinese laws and regulations to do business in China, then by the same logic he's supposed to comply with US rules and regulations to do business in the US. That includes such concepts as, basically, that you're not supposed to lie in a sworn testimony.
2. "But <insert other arsehole> is doing it too!" is a defense that was considered laughable even in kindergarten. If Johnny was hitting other kids, it wasn't considered an invitation to do the same even in kindergarten. So it's equally laughable to see it used to defend all around immoral business practices.
3. Especially when it's based on a very warped notion of what it means "doing it too." I don't think the US government officially aided China in hunting down its disidents. There's a big difference between (A) turning a blind eye to someone else doing something wrong, when you can't prevent it anyway, and (B) actively aiding them in doing it. To give an example, it's the difference between, (A) ignoring a bank robbery in progress, since I can't dodge bullets anyway, (B) actually driving the escape car for the robbers. Neither is "knight in shiny armour", but it takes a very disfunctional view of the world to put an equals sign between the two. Neither is white, but they're very different shades of grey.
So to cut it even shorter: just because someone else isn't 100% pure paladin-in-shiny-armour defender-of-all-oppressed, it's not a blank-cheque excuse to be an outright arsehole.
4. I'm sorry, but "cost of doing business" isn't a moral wildcard excuse. You don't have a sacred human right to make a profit at all cost, and it doesn't supersede all other moral and legal expectations.
Sure, we're glad for you if you do manage to make a profit. Kudos and more power to you, and we might even admire you for it.
But if you're an arsehole in the name of doing business and making a profit... well, you're still an arsehole.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"I do not recall" will suffice, with a "I cannot recollect" thrown in once in a while for good measure.
Fixed that for you. Getting screwed by the government still counts.
Yahoo's answer will be "because lying to Congress only got me this annoying reinvitation to your toothless American committee, but telling the truth would have cost us $millions in business with the deadly serious Chinese mafia government".
Which their toothless committee already knows.
--
make install -not war
I wish there was a "+1 sad but true" ...
"This is a non-story."
You must be kidding! Lying to Congress under oath. You are just suggesting that a different lie would have gotten Yang off the hook. You are suggesting a safer lie for him. But that core issue here is what does it mean to "be under oath" esp to Congress who is trying to get at the "Truth". That is what you swear and oath to, to tell the "Truth". If we have no way to get at the truth, or have a way to compel a person to tell the truth, then we in deep trouble. Right now it is fines and jail time that is the penalty if you lie under oath.
If as you suggest that lying under oath is OK and desirable then as a liar you would need to come up with a way to, at some point, when you needed to actually get the truth, (because you were in some position of authority, say Congress, the courts, the police, the army, the IRS) you would have to fall back on some other form of getting at the truth that did not rely on the persons morality or ethics or consent. Especially if you were a liar yourself you would assume the worst in a person and that they would not willingly tell the truth unless it benefitted them. Well that would leave only torture and other forms of coersion, such as "rendition" and detention without Habius Corpus. Now where have we seen that sort of behaviour pop up. Maybe that is because the people doing it would not tell the truth themselves unless it benefitted them.
As this being a non-story. I think not. I think it is a central story about where the business community and our leadership has gotten to, and we need to keep the heat on to try and turn this Titanic around before those lies sink this constitutional ship.
If a cell sits in a forest but no one is locked in it, is it really "punishment"?
As you pointed out with that sparse history, punishable is not punished. The rate of punishment for such lying is probably under a thousandth of a percent of the rate of the lying.
Hell, Congress didn't even file contempt charges, inherent or otherwise, against AG Gonzales, while he spent months, years, lying to Congress about matters of the utmost Constitutional (criminal) importance.
Maybe "toothless" isn't quite the word. Maybe "gummy" is more accurate.
--
make install -not war