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."

Comments

pot.kettle.black

[night_flyer]

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.

Re:pot.kettle.black

[MightyMartian]

Just remember. Humans are expendable. The only thing that counts in America is profits. People, particularly in other parts of the world, exist solely so that American shareholders can get big bucks. Corporations are the only things that should ever be considered, and if they sell out people abroad, or hell, release phone records without warrant to agents of the US government, well, they should be allowed to. It's what Jesus wants. Jesus loves profits, hates anyone who thinks profits should take a distant second place to human rights. Jesus is all about the money, and America is all about Jesus. Only atheists and baby-eating secularists give a shit about Chinese dissidents. Jesus hates the Chinese, except when they bring lots of money to Jesus's favorite entities in the entire Universe; corporations.

God Bless Corporate America, And Fuck Everything Else.

Re:pot.kettle.black

[Xonstantine]

So if the US is not quite as evil as China, that's okay? Pretty much. Governments, countries, states, bureaucracies, people are not perfect nor are they perfectable. All states, even little old Andorra, do evil things from time to time. Very few institutionalize evil on the scale of depravity similar to Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia. Communist China is one of those states that has done so, and continues to do so.

People don't like that 200 or so Jihadis are being held in Gitmo without a trial. Yeah, I get it. It still pales in significant to the prison factory archipelago that is being run in China. And while libs like to pat themselves on the back every time they call Bush a fascist, China really is an emerging fascist state. The idea that we can't criticize China because we aren't perfect ourselves is stupid. Really, really stupid.

Ingrates!!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I mean, don't these congressmen know which side their bread is buttered and honeyed on?

First Brazilians arrest CEOs, and now American congressmen no less are getting indignant over a few harmless omissions. Governments are getting too big for their boots I say. No respect for their capitalist masters. Time for a good old fashioned recession. That'll put the fear of God into 'em and get 'em back into line quick-sharp!

Failing that, a fascist coup is always an option. We can pull it off during the American Idol finale. I doubt the plebs will even notice! Then we'll be in a better position to match the Chinese economy GDP and journalist lynching growth rates!

Lying under oath isn't required

[Moraelin]

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.

Re:have we learned nothing from our leaders?

[Critical Facilities]

"I did not have consensual sexual relations with that government!"
Fixed that for you. Getting screwed by the government still counts.