US Lawmakers to Keep Google Out of China?

caese writes "USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that would keep Google and others out of China. From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights.'"

Anti free trade

[Anonymous Coward]

When have embargos worked? VEry rarely I presume. There's no point in this. Also why target high tech .. what about walmart?

No I am not in favor of cutting off trade in any case.. people should have the right to buy goods from wherever they like.

Are they stopping

[orrigami]

the export of cheap goods from China to the US. I know censorship is a bad thing, but it seems like finally some US companies selling stiff to china instead of the other way around. Which is good for the US, No?

Why just internet companies?

[jsnitsel]

Seems kind of discriminatory to only go after internet companies. Anyone who does business there is supporting the system as much as Google, etc. are. I really think it is just some politicians trying to score some cheap points.

Why Internet Companies?

[garoo1980]

I wonder why the US government doesn't ban all US based companies from dealing with China, if they want to be pro human rights for a change. Its so hypocritical for them to ensure that US information isn't housed in China and use human rights as a cover. IF human rights were a truly important issue companies like WALMART wouldn't be allowed to trade with them. That would make an actual difference

Re:Who's being repressive?

[Tackhead]

> > Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights.'"
>
>Seems almost ironic doesn't it?

See the earlier thread on politicians making themselves exempt from the CAN-SPAM law while they were drafting it. The logic boils down to "it's not spam when we do it!".

Likewise, it's not repression when we do it. The conjugation of the verb "repress" is as follows:

We protect.
Our allies monitor.
Our adversaries repress.

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[Daniel_Staal]

1) Good luck chums, worst case Google et al form shell companies to own the servers in china

No, worst case they move their corporate HQ out of the US, (and set up a shell company in the US, to handle that business) thereby not only no longer having to worry about the new laws, but also moving their taxable revenue outside the US. As well as a fair portion of their jobs.

Minimum standards

[Danathar]

Since I'm a Free market capitalist republican with Libertarian tendancies I would, most of the the time ask congress to keep their hands off of what a company does. But...after thinking about this I REALLY do think that if a company is based the U.S.A. it should have to abide by minimum standardars that represent what our country stands for (reguardless if you think the U.S. is hypacritical or not!). Some of the things they should have to abide by if they still want to be based out of the U.S.

1. Child Labour laws
2. Free Speech
3. Environmental regulations

I would'nt expect them to have to obey ALL of the laws of the U.S. and the localality where they are setting up shop, but going to another country does should not give a company a way around laws here (in the U.S.).

If they refuse then they can base their company in the Bahamas or some other country and take whatever fallout comes.

just an opinion

USA playing big daddy again

[ravee]

After the cold war and the break up of soviet union, it has increasingly become a habit with the USA governments to try and play big daddy to all the nations.

This trend is really disconcerting for people living outside the US. As far as china is concerned, it is entirely a different story. Communism and capitalism can be equated to the devil and the deep sea. Both are not good for the nations. If one ideology generates oppression, the other inculcates greed.

They help censorship

[everphilski]

Plain and simple. This is a censorship issue. It isn't a "we like china" or "we dislike china" issue. When Google or Microsoft or Yahoo sit down with the Chinese and decide to open up shop they have to censor, and part of that is having programmers who work on censoring software. Are you really comfortable with the fact that Google is using money they make off of you to write censorship software? They are only improving the state of censorship in China and who knows maybe someday that censorship software might just end up censoring you, or censoring something you want to access. Makes me sick.

Art. I, Sec. 8

[stinerman]

First, I'm opposed to anyone doing any business in China until they get their act cleaned up. In fact, I'd be for a such a law that bars American businesses from doing any business there.

Second, I don't see anywhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution [usconstitution.net] that allows for Congress to regulate the activities of private business in foreign countries. Therefore, I am opposed to the bill and for an amendment to the Constitution that will provide Congress with the proper authority to do so.

Is it a good idea? Of course. Is it constitutional? Not a chance.

Re:Who's being repressive?

[voice_of_all_reason]

9th and 10th amendment, my friend. Do you speak it?

9th - All powers not specifically granted to the federal government in this document are reserved for the states

10th - Any right not given to the government (see above) here, or prohibited by the states, is automatically given to the people

Re:Who's being repressive?

[bersl2]

I will say one thing: at least we still have enough rule of law to fight to preserve the rule of law. When was the last time you heard about the Chinese government not being legally able to implement a domestic policy?

Re: Minimum standards

[Black Parrot]

> I REALLY do think that if a company is based the U.S.A. it should have to abide by minimum standardars that represent what our country stands for (reguardless if you think the U.S. is hypacritical or not!).

I presume you mean our myths about what we stand for, instead of what we actually stand for.

How would this help the Chinese people?

[Infonaut]

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, the Chinese government is restricting free speech, and US companies are assisting in that effort. On the other hand, I believe that in general engagement is the best way to cajole repressive governments into better behavior. There are limits to this, of course. Discerning those limits is difficult. For example, why are we not similarly purturbed with American activities in Russia, even though everyone knows the last vestiges of Russian democracy are slipping away. How much of the current reaction to American tech companies' involvement with China is really a reaction to growing Chinese economic power?

Another question: Would pulling Google, Cisco, et. al. from China actually help the Chinese people at large, would it harm them, or would the end result be neutral? Would we be harming our own economic interests for some tangible end, or would it be a hollow gesture, akin to the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers that make us all feel good, but are essentially pointless?

It sounds like I'm begging the question, because right now I am leaning in favor of keeping the US government from interfering with tech companies that do business in China. But I am still profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that American technology is being used to smother dissent. So at the moment, all I have is questions.

Is it?

[C10H14N2]

It's called "sanction." What's ironic is how long China has been free from sanctions.

Would it seem "repressive" to say "State Department moves to block Google from installing servers at Natanz uranium enrichment site in Iran?"

Hiting Google unfairly?

[WindBourne]

What is amazing to me, is that so many seem to hit Google hard. They are being accused of being the worst amongst the main search engines. It has made major headlines that google allows the china gov. to decide what will be seen, but with the proviso that is shows that the entry was deleted. Well the other engines simply delete the entries, BUT do NOT show that it was censored. In addition, both Yahoo and Microsoft have helped the chinese gov. to catch those who write against the chinese gov. Google has not (and I hope will not) helped them in such a manner. In addition, MS has offered up all sorts of information to the chinese gov. on how to do various things (basically their "valuable" closed source code), IIRC Yahoo also has a branch in China, while Google has done none of the above.

Offhand, I would say that Google has a major hatchett job being done against them at all levels. I wonder where it originates at?

Re:Who's being repressive?

[Golias]

No... it's not a human right to have Yahoo and Google, that you are correct.

But is it right for the US govt to say who Yahoo and Google can do business with?

Yes. Yes it is.

Countries regulate commerce, sometimes for political reasons. They are called "trade sanctions" and are the reason, among other things, that black folks in South Africa are now able to participate in their own government.

Now, as to the question of whether this particular sanction is a good idea, I'm inclined to say "no."

We've been a political rival of China's ever since Chairman Mao took over, but we've also been a friendly trade partner going all the way back to Nixon's visit. Trade between the US and China seems to have been, for the most part, a Good Thing for both countries, and has resulted in a gradual shift in China of becoming slightly more capitalistic and slightly more democratic, all without a shot fired. (Okay, not counting Korea and Viet Nam, where we indirectly butted heads a bit... Oh, and that spy plane they nabbed right after Bush the Younger took office... but that hardly counts.)

I respectfully disagree with the Senator on this one. China is either a "Most Favored Nation" in our economic policy or it's not. If you want to push a policy of major trade sanctions against them, let's talk about it, but don't nickel-and-dime them by witholding Internet search engines. That's just petty and stupid.

But China does abide by those principles!

[Pac]

I REALLY do think that if a company is based the U.S.A. it should have to abide by minimum standardars that represent what our country stands for

Let us see:
a) Imperialism, including supporting client dictatorships (North Korea) and conducting colonial wars of conquest abroad (Tibet)
b) Repression of ideas and civil population survillance (China seems to have inspired the most recent US legislation on this area)
c) Political Repression, like keeping political enemies imprisioned without trial, access to legal advice or perspective of release

As for your list:
1. Child Labour laws: Western companies (including American ones like Nike) made child labour in the Third World possible and profitable by hiring it in the first place
2. Free Speech: Yes, here the Chinese are way ahed, but the American government is doing its best to close the gap.
3. Environmental regulations: Ah, yeah, Kettle refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty because it thought Pot was having too much fun.

All in all, I think China is doing quite well in its quest to abide by the American principles. They also have only one party like the US, favour profit above anything else and are willing to do whatever it takes in the name of its own interests.

Re:Who's being repressive?

[JavaLord]

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights.'"

Fine, but why do we continue to trade with them? We make up 30% of their GDP, while they wont let our goods into their country fairly (we export less than 1% to China). We allow them to make everything you can think of, yet we aren't going to let google go there? Seems like too little too late.

Seems almost ironic doesn't it?

No, google isn't a 'human right'. If we were really doing what was 'right' we would be denying China MFN status until they cleaned up their act.

Re:Who's being repressive?

[nomadic]

Article 2 specifically grants Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". Why does this conflict with the 9th or 10th amendments? This is not a rhetorical question, you must have some reason to believe that Congress isn't granted this power. So what is it?

Re:Anti free trade

[Mayhem178]

You know, I remember a time when an embargo imposed by the US almost resulted in a nuclear war...

That nuclear war would have been against a Communist nation (who was, consequently, protecting another Communist nation)...

Last time I checked, China claimed to have nuclear weapons...

Last time I checked, China had a Communist government...

Should I be scared now? History is repeating itself.....again.

Ranchers cooperate to keep livestock seperate

[Cryofan]

if you give livestock the power to roam freely, they might get free and run away. Good fences make good neighbors, etc. Adjoining ranches cooperate to keep their cattle under control.

The American elite and the Chinese elite are just putting up fences to keep their livestock safe.
Don't you feel safer now?

baaa baaa baaa

Re:Why Internet Companies?

[RealProgrammer]

>how do you avoid

I (independent of this) go to a lot of auctions and garage sales. In my area, a lot of what's there is tools and other things that were made Before.

Ask older salespeople. They generally know where something is made and how good it is. Sometimes a higher-quality item that lacks fancy features will be less expensive than a cheap one with lots of bells and whistles.

It's just a different mindset. The time I don't spend looking at price tags and trying to get a bargain, I look at labels and figure which one of the choices will last forever, versus needing to be replaced in a year.

Bullshit.

[autopr0n]

First of all, on a per-capita basis the U.S is more oppressive to its citizens then the Chinese government. An American is almost four times as likely to be imprisoned then a Chinese citizen. In fact, the US has more total people in jail then the Chinese, despite the fact that china has almost four times as many people as the US. Half the people in jail are there for non-violent drug offenses. Just because you can complain all you want to doesn't mean you're not oppressed. People confuse freedom of speech for actual liberty. The problems don't come from the top here (unless you're a suspicious A-rab) but from local incompetent governments jailing people without access to decent legal defense. Police abuse is rampant, etc.

Re:Bullshit.

[JordanL]

First of all, on a per-capita basis the U.S is more oppressive to its citizens then the Chinese government. An American is almost four times as likely to be imprisoned then a Chinese citizen. In fact, the US has more total people in jail then the Chinese, despite the fact that china has almost four times as many people as the US.

Nice try, but no. If you measure "repression on a per capita basis" as simply number of people per capita in jail, you are completely ignorring that this is mostly likely not "repression" as much as "enforcing the law". As well, it also ignors that the conviction in rate in China is over 95% and there is no such concept as Jurisprudence or Miranda Rights. Additionally, on a per capita basis, China has many times the number of people imprisoned which would possibly be classified as "political dissidents", even though many would classify our Gitmo detainees this way.

So in short, I call "bullshit" on your "bullshit". read up [amnesty.org] and comapre [amnesty.org].

Re:Who's being repressive?

[timeOday]

No, don't sanction China. There's no reason even to mention them in the legislation. Just say "America doesn't do business with companies who oppress people by doing XX and YY," then leave the ball in Google/China's court.

Let's agree on some basic principles. If you want access to our markets, then play by our rules. And don't be fooled into thinking that these companies are one of "us." By their own words, [bbc.co.uk] they are not American businesses, they are multi-national businesses. That's fine, but America sets the rules for America's market, and if we're to stand for anything, it has to be by using our economic influence.

And if google loses out on becoming #1 in China, no, I do not really care. If they're not furthering American values there anyways, then it might as well be a Chinese company.

Bullshit indeed.

[JavaLord]

First of all, on a per-capita basis the U.S is more oppressive to its citizens then the Chinese government.

Anything you compare to china on a "per-capita" basis is going to be skewed due to the sheer mass of their population.

An American is almost four times as likely to be imprisoned then a Chinese citizen.

Yet the chinese execute more Criminals than any other country.

In fact, the US has more total people in jail then the Chinese, despite the fact that china has almost four times as many people as the US.

But you don't go to jail in the US for being of a certain political view, or religion. Of course, the fact that they execute people much more liberally in China could be a reason that they have less people in jail. China executes more people than the rest of the world does...combined. China also has the second most executions per captia (since you like that stat) to singapore.

Of course, your point is only valid if you believe the numbers the Chinese government puts out. (they claim 1.4 million people in prison to the US prison population of 2 million).

Half the people in jail are there for non-violent drug offenses.

Just because you can complain all you want to doesn't mean you're not oppressed.

So why are you oppressed? Because the government tries to stop people from drugging themselves to death?

People confuse freedom of speech for actual liberty. The problems don't come from the top here (unless you're a suspicious A-rab) but from local incompetent governments jailing people without access to decent legal defense. Police abuse is rampant, etc.

Move to China and see how much better you do there.

Re:Minimum standards

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

All you've done then is to open the door for other companies with lower standards to move in. If you really want to change the way another company operates, the way to do is not by hampering your own companies.

So you think doing nothing will change the way other companies operate? Actually, I think I'm going to have to agree that requiring US companies to meet certain minimum requirements is a good idea. The reason for this is twofold. First, just because foreign companies behave unethically is not an excuse for US companies to do so any more than your neighbor stealing TVs is an excuse for you to do so. Second, consumers do care about these things, but are not given the opportunity to easily make informed choices since being a US based company right now has no bearing on that company's ethics.

Take a look at the organic food market, for example. Simply by defining a standard for what constitutes "organic" food a large market was created for food that was grown without pesticides and with humane treatment of animals. The standard had both an ethical and a quality standard and it worked very well.

If US companies were held to a higher standard then a "made in the USA" label would mean something, both in the US and in other parts of the world. People do not, believe it or not, buy solely on the basis of price. Quality and ethics do sell, if customers have a simple way to tell which products are made by ethical companies.

A compromise on this issue (and one that might avoid some nationalism) would be to simply start an international certification for companies that meet minimum ethical standards with regard to human rights and the environment. Further, provide some tax incentive to companies that meet that standard and use government funds to provide certification and marketing of the certification. I think you'd be very surprised by the number of people willing to pay $80 versus $20. People already pay that big of a difference for a name brand that is in no way indicative of better quality.

Re:Anti free trade

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking Cuba. That country has turned into shits because the US has forced every company it deals with to stop trading with Cuba in order to punish their Communist regime. It is really unfortunate as well, since the average Cuban is very nice and carry no ill will towards the US despite the embargo.

Are you on drugs? Fidel Castro has been in power for well over 40 years now and shows no signs of weakening (other than age). The embargo of Cuba has been the biggest failure of the US Government post WWII!

Castro is absolultely no threat the the US, despite Bush's attempts to paint the island as a home of biological weaponry.

You must be a south florida Cuban.

I applaud this

[RyoShin]

It's about time that companies are forced to abide by U.S. law while operating in other countries. After all, most U.S. laws are meant to enhance individual life.

While we're taking care of Google, they're throwing in stuff about manufacturing companies offering below-U.S. minimum wage, work hours, and child labor laws in other countries, right? ...No?

So you're telling me that companies like Nike, a highly profitable corporation which can charge $150 for a single shoe because of overhype, can continue to force children to work long hours for little pay, while a corporation like Google, which is providing a much more valuable service of information, and doesn't hinder its employees in foreign nations (to my knowledge), is forced to work by the U.S. laws?

How does that make sense?

Oh, right. Google probably hasn't been keeping up with their bribery stipents to members of congress.

Fucking politicians.

Re:Bullshit indeed.

[tgd]

Move to China and see how much better you do there.

If you have not done so yourself, you are not qualified to make that suggestion to him. In fact, if you have not taken the time to spend some real time there with local people, you are not qualified to talk on the subject at all.

I suspect, like most people who talk about China, you are talking based on reports you've seen in the media based on agendas pushed by people who have chosen to not live there. Go ask ex-pat Americans living in cities around the world about their opinion of life in the US. It will be equally biased.

The reality of the situation is somewhere in the middle, but based on your response its clear you have no first hand experience with life in China.

Re:Cool!

[jav1231]

I see no problem here. Our government has been replaced repeatedly since many of these incidents. I would hardly lump the Patriot Act in there, because I frankly stand behind it. If you can't see the difference between China and the U.S., then go live there. Please.

Re:Bullshit.

[mozumder]

If you measure "repression on a per capita basis" as simply number of people per capita in jail, you are completely ignorring that this is mostly likely not "repression" as much as "enforcing the law".

How is 'enforcing the law' any different from 'repression'?

Are you saying that because something is the law, then that means it is valid, even if it's decided democratically?

Meanwhile, why should a minority party be forced to agree to the majority's decisions? How does 'majority rules' help the progression of society? Doesn't that repress the minority party?

Democracy: 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

Re:Who's being repressive?

[kbielefe]

If money flows between google China and google US, then international commerce is occuring. Within only matches if google China was a completely separate company that just happened to have the same name and business plan, but no profits are sent to the US and the US doesn't invest anything in the Chinese business.

Re:Who's being repressive?

[JavaLord]

because if we trade with them then they will be more likely to embrace democracy.

You are kidding right? America wasn't into real 'free trade' until the 90's, but I'd say we were pretty much a democracy without it. The statement that free trade leads to democracy has to be one of the biggest lies that free traders use for propaganda. How does more money, and a better economy motivate the communist government in China to embrace democracy? Or the people? People don't revolt when they have steak on their plates.

Unless of course you are iraq, iran, syria, cuba or anyplace else that does not have lots of people or money. See how simple that is?

In your mind? Yes.

Re:Bullshit indeed.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That is a good point, but what about drugs that are so destructive that they can lead people to kill others?

To paraphrase the NRA: drugs don't kill people, people kill people. Basically, while drug addiction is a serious problem and can lead to accidental deaths, criminalization is just about the least effective way to deal with that issue that anyone has tried. Look at other countries, who deal with addiction as a medical problem and you'll note they do not suffer from the same levels of violence, associated crime, or massive imprisonment that the US does. If a heroin addict is in withdrawal and pain in the US they might rob someone, or resort to prostitution. In the UK, they go to a free clinic where they are given synthetics to mitigate the symptoms and enrolled in a program. Even if they never go to the program the cost to society of supplying them with the substitute is much less than that of their potential criminal acts. Desperation breeds crime and violence. Threats of jail time, anal rape, physical pain, withdrawal, etc. breed desperation.

It's fine that you picked LSD and marijuana, but how about cocaine and heroin?

I addressed the second half of this above, but I don't think you can just write off the first half. LSD and marijuana are illegal. That is a serious restriction on the freedom of US citizens, without any justification other than in the 50's someone needed a scapegoat and since then the status quo has been maintained.

How many people get locked away for years for smoking marijuana? For selling it, sure. I don't think I've ever heard of someone getting years for using it.

Quite a few. Possession of quantities small enough for one person's use (not to mention when multiple users live together) can result in 2 years minimum in prison in some states and as long as 20 years if the judge feels like it. Even a $25 fine like where I am now is too much. It is about freedom to not have anyone direct our actions for our own good as they see it.

You know, I used to think the same way. But I listen to all of the socialist wanna be hippies whine about how they want America to become this nanny state, where they are free to do drugs as they wish but must give up half their incomes to the government...why don't they just move?

Because they are Americans and this is their home as much as it is yours. Here's a hypothetical, analogous argument: "You know, I used to think the same way. But I listen to all of the nigger loving wanna be reformers whine about how they want America to become this religious state, where blacks are free to live among us but people aren't free to make them slaves ...why don't they just move?"

The answer is, they were Americans fighting for what they believed and to make this country a better place. If you disagree with legalizing drugs, increased socialism, or emancipation of the slaves, well feel free to vote against them. Just don't go telling others to immigrate because they want to change things.

I'm all for well thought out change in our criminal justice system but to try to prop up China as being 'more free' that the United States to prove a point is the type of illogical thinking that should be challenged.

I'm not going to try to defend China. What I am trying to point out is that some of your arguments were just plain wrong. I'll also go so far to say that China is more free in some ways than the US, while less free in other ways. The important point is not to get caught up in some sort of attitude that because we're "not as bad as china" that there should not be changes made to make things better yet. Nor does the argument of "love it or leave it" have any weight. It is the cry of those who fear change, change that is the whole basis of the American ideal.

Re:Who's being repressive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does running a company have anything to do with furthering American Values?

Since the term "banana republic" was coined.

Re:Who's being repressive?

[timeOday]

Since when does running a company have anything to do with furthering American Values?

Ideally furthering, but more likely just preserving (i.e. not violating). For instance, your business cannot be grossly hazardous to your employees, or damaging to the environment. There are also restrictions relating to civil liberties, such as anti-discrimination, and minimum wage.

And since when does the American government have the right to tell me what my values are?

It doesn't tell you what to value, but what laws you must follow. Democracy is a means of determining which values are of the highest value to the most people, and thus should be preserved when freedoms conflict. For instance, the existence of environmental law shows that most people value reasonably clear air and water over marginally more profitable industry and the freedom to pollute.

Furthermore, I don't believe that I have any right or reason to leverage my values onto the Chinese citizenry, let alone the absurdity of leveraging my values onto a 'market'.

Then you are in a very small interest group whose values will (fortunately) never become law. For instance, most of us think child labor should be illegal, and that the products of child labor should be illegal to import. Most of us also believe the national and international arms trade must be regulated, at least in extreme cases such as nuclear weapons.

Re:Bullshit.

[starwed]

Well, I'd certainly rather live in the US than China. But to say there's a necessary distinction between "repression" and "enforcing the law" is a bit silly.

Re:USA playing big daddy again

[That's Unpossible!]

If one ideology generates oppression, the other inculcates greed.

I'm sorry, Michael Douglas's character in Wall Street was right at a basic level: greed is good. By good, really, I mean "necessary." His character took it to the extreme, and ultimately paid the price. But the basic idea is correct: capitalism is efficient because of greed at all levels.

Greed is what drives the balance of supply and demand. If you are too greedy in your pricing, you will likely sell less product. Conversely, if you are too greedy on what you're willing to pay, you likely will not be able to buy enough of what you need. You meet in the middle at a reasonable price.

The bottom line drives efficiencies. Your company needs to be "greedy" to encourage streamlining and saving money so that it makes more money. It can then spend money on capital, labor, investments, which can help it earn more money.

Likewise, a person needs to be "greedy" to increase their efficiency and income, so that they can buy housing, clothing, food, and extra goods. A person needs to be "greedy" so that they can save and invest money. So that they have money to spend on charity.

Re:Bullshit indeed.

[surprise_audit]

But you don't go to jail in the US for being of a certain political view, or religion.

Perhaps not, but based on recent evidence I'd say you'd have a fair chance of having your country invaded... Anyway, aren't all those people in Gitmo there *exactly* because of their "political view or religion"??

Re:Is it?

[IsThisBl**dyNameUniq]

So,

One country has concentration camps in Cuda, Afganistan and some European countries (you know the same places the Nazis did) but its ok, they on our side. But the bad people lock people up without resorts to courts.

One country has nukes, a WMD program at White Sands (you know the oldest WMD program in the world) but its ok, they're on our side. But the bad people have WMD programs.

All I can say is Newspeak.