Why Did China’s Biggest Movie Star, and the Interpol Chief, Vanish?(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Why Did China’s Biggest Movie Star, and the Interpol Chief, Vanish?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-did-chinas-biggest-movie-star-and-the-interpol-chief-vanish
117 comments
Do you believe that friends of the Chinese government in power are all being property held accountable for taxes? Chinese government inner party has over 100 billionaires, by some coincidence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/china-parliament...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/china-parliament...
> the outcome here seems actually seems reasonable
But wait, wasn't disappearance the outcome?
But wait, wasn't disappearance the outcome?
No, as far as I can tell the outcome is that she is back in public and will continue making many millions of dollars a year as an actress. But I'd guess that she (and all other high flying Chinese actors/actresses) are going to be particularly scrupulous about their upcoming tax returns, and are much less likely to flagrantly misreport their earnings than they did in the past. I realize that it's close to praising the fascists for making the trains run on time, but I do find this to be a good outcome, even if the process is scary and subject to future misuse. It's hard for me to read the linked article about American tax evasion/avoidance and feel that our system is truly better. But perhaps there's somewhere else that does it even better than both?
No but she still got snatched by the Chinese government. You don't see a problem with that?
Was Wesley Snipes "snatched" by the US government?
OP said that he doesn't like things about their justice process. Did you just skim over that part of the comment? You want them to come back and say it again for you?
Due process, if actually executed faithfully (cough), is a method for trying to ensure justice is reached most of the time. In this case, OP is arguing that it looks like they got to justice.
OP said that he doesn't like things about their justice process. Did you just skim over that part of the comment? You want them to come back and say it again for you?
Due process, if actually executed faithfully (cough), is a method for trying to ensure justice is reached most of the time. In this case, OP is arguing that it looks like they got to justice.
No Wesley snipes was arrested. She was not arrested. There was no trial or due process. Did you skip over that part.
I read this yesterday and I read this today and I honestly don't understand how you could get that from my comment. Or the grandparent comment. I spent like 80% of my words talking about due process, and you say I was unaware of the facts in this case?
I'll give you one more try, please put your open-minded hat on:
You're aware how the "due process" justice system works in the US in many cases, right? Plea bargain for 1 year or they'll throw the book at you for 10. You've got 15 minutes with an obviously overworked public defender to think about it. Easy call, you take the year. No trial, no jury, no judge involved.
There's more to justice than a binary "due process or not". It's a big wide world out there. Injustice can happen with due process, and justice can happen with no process.
I'll give you one more try, please put your open-minded hat on:
You're aware how the "due process" justice system works in the US in many cases, right? Plea bargain for 1 year or they'll throw the book at you for 10. You've got 15 minutes with an obviously overworked public defender to think about it. Easy call, you take the year. No trial, no jury, no judge involved.
There's more to justice than a binary "due process or not". It's a big wide world out there. Injustice can happen with due process, and justice can happen with no process.
Ok well the problem from your statement above is clear. There no better way of telling you this, but
You don't have any idea what the statement "due process" means or it's purpose.
It's purposed is to protect your rights as a citizen against a tyrannical government. It has nothing to do with plea bargains or ultimatums. It's about always having a choice of a fair and public trial. If you punishment is 10 year thats what you fairly deserve for the crime the plea bargain is supposed to present a more than fair deal.
The problem here is that that choice as it looks as not given to this actress. Therefore justice was not served. She was victimized by her country. Justice is binary these is none with due process. This was not justice.
You don't have any idea what the statement "due process" means or it's purpose.
It's purposed is to protect your rights as a citizen against a tyrannical government. It has nothing to do with plea bargains or ultimatums. It's about always having a choice of a fair and public trial. If you punishment is 10 year thats what you fairly deserve for the crime the plea bargain is supposed to present a more than fair deal.
The problem here is that that choice as it looks as not given to this actress. Therefore justice was not served. She was victimized by her country. Justice is binary these is none with due process. This was not justice.
He doesn't care. In his words she "betrayed" China although he is only using a coerced statement as proof. Basically, he's a fucking moron.
There is a crucial "if" that you ignored. If you cheat on your taxes to avoid paying millions of dollars of taxes that are you required to pay, I think it's fair to say that you are betraying your country. I don't know enough about this particular case to say that applies to her, but the major publications covering this appear to take the tax evasion for granted. If she didn't evade her taxes, then this is travesty of justice. Are you saying that you don't think her actions are relevant? Or do you have outside knowledge that the charges are false?
Custody is normal in most legal systems. She disappeared from public view, but do we know whether the state denied her external contact or whether it was her choice? It would be also interessting to know whether she had contact to a lawer.
The issue behind this event is not tax evasion, which would not make headlines or HN, and we have no way of knowing if she indeed evaded taxes. All we know is that the Chinese government has the power to kidnap people and coerce them into saying whatever the government wants.
we have no way of knowing if she indeed evaded taxes
Are there sources claiming that this was a false confession, and that she did not actually falsify her tax returns? I agree that in principle this is a possibility, but I haven't seen such claims. The New Yorker article seems typical in assuming her guilt: "In a nation of runaway economic growth, where tax evasion is rampant among the wealthy, what struck many people was not Fan’s alleged misdeed—that was predictable enough to be banal—but the startling way in which her case was handled."
Similarly, for discussion of the NYT article, I think it's generally assumed that the blatant manipulations of the appraised values happened, the only question is whether it was illegal, and if so, whether it's prosecutable. While you are right that the headlines are primarily because of the "disappearance" of a celebrity, some people (like me) are equally interested in the larger question of whether tax laws can be reasonably enforced without resorting to such measures.
Are there sources claiming that this was a false confession, and that she did not actually falsify her tax returns? I agree that in principle this is a possibility, but I haven't seen such claims. The New Yorker article seems typical in assuming her guilt: "In a nation of runaway economic growth, where tax evasion is rampant among the wealthy, what struck many people was not Fan’s alleged misdeed—that was predictable enough to be banal—but the startling way in which her case was handled."
Similarly, for discussion of the NYT article, I think it's generally assumed that the blatant manipulations of the appraised values happened, the only question is whether it was illegal, and if so, whether it's prosecutable. While you are right that the headlines are primarily because of the "disappearance" of a celebrity, some people (like me) are equally interested in the larger question of whether tax laws can be reasonably enforced without resorting to such measures.
There is no evidence that she evaded taxes presented by the state, and she has not been given the opportunity to challenge the evidence or present any defense. A confession coerced by an oppressive state is not evidence; it would not be accepted by evidence by any legitimate court. That's why legitimate governments have rule of law, courts, trials, juries, and due process.
Furthermore, persecution for alleged financial corruption is a standard modus operendi for oppressive states. As examples, Xi has been doing it to his political opposition, Putin does it, and the current Saudi Arabian dictator is another example.
Furthermore, persecution for alleged financial corruption is a standard modus operendi for oppressive states. As examples, Xi has been doing it to his political opposition, Putin does it, and the current Saudi Arabian dictator is another example.
There is no evidence that she evaded taxes presented by the state, and she has not been given the opportunity to challenge the evidence or present any defense.
As I said, this is theoretically possible, but I haven't seen sources claiming that the charges are a complete sham. Can you find some?
That's why legitimate governments have rule of law, courts, trials, juries, and due process.
It's interesting that you emphasize "juries" as the key element of a legitimate government. Did you know that Germany doesn't use them? https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/legal.html
Some even argue that using a panel of trained judges provides better justice than using a group of untrained citizens: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/what-am...
Is it a better approach? I don't know, but I don't think trial by jury should be considered a required characteristic for a legitimate government.
As I said, this is theoretically possible, but I haven't seen sources claiming that the charges are a complete sham. Can you find some?
That's why legitimate governments have rule of law, courts, trials, juries, and due process.
It's interesting that you emphasize "juries" as the key element of a legitimate government. Did you know that Germany doesn't use them? https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/legal.html
Some even argue that using a panel of trained judges provides better justice than using a group of untrained citizens: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/what-am...
Is it a better approach? I don't know, but I don't think trial by jury should be considered a required characteristic for a legitimate government.
The burden of proof is on the accuser, and in legitimate government, on the state. I could say you are a thief or an axe murderer - are you required to disprove it if I don't back up my claim? In fact, it would be slander on my part. See my GP comment regarding other elements due process. Until they prove otherwise, she is innocent.
Yeah honestly I wish there were any working mechanisms to hold people like this accountable for non-participation in society (or doing things that are outright deleterious, like hiding money when you’re absurdly rich) in the west.
There are working mechanisms: The rule of law, tax agencies, and courts. Plenty of people in Western countries go to jail or suffer significant financial penalties for tax evasion. In the U.S., I've even seen ads: 'In trouble with the IRS?'. You can find plenty of stories of famous people with tax problems. I would guess that compliance with tax law is higher in advanced, free societies than anywhere else.
Yes but with few exceptions the severity of the repercussions is inversely proportional to how much private capital you have. My previous comment was a bit ranty but this mostly what I'm lamenting.
> with few exceptions the severity of the repercussions is inversely proportional to how much private capital you have
Is that true? People with more money have much more to lose, are more likely to be audited, and the audits and lawsuits are far more time-consuming and expensive. Also, I expect that the legal penalties are proportional to the amount of taxes illegally withheld.
Is that true? People with more money have much more to lose, are more likely to be audited, and the audits and lawsuits are far more time-consuming and expensive. Also, I expect that the legal penalties are proportional to the amount of taxes illegally withheld.
[deleted]
The "Eastern" (and often "Western") method of summarily imprisoning and often executing millions of people for "non participation" is not an ideal to strive for.
We’re literally talking about one country here. Why are you generalizing it to be the entire East? In addition to that we’re only talking about a small ruling elite in this one country. Highly offensive.
> seems to have used similar illegal
If it really was illegal, the IRS would prosecute him, but they didn't. Why not?
And if loopholes are so bad, why were they not closed and persisted through both GOP and Democrat leadership? It is the system that made tax evasion possible that's at fault, not the people that are able to and do take advantage of loopholes.
If it really was illegal, the IRS would prosecute him, but they didn't. Why not?
And if loopholes are so bad, why were they not closed and persisted through both GOP and Democrat leadership? It is the system that made tax evasion possible that's at fault, not the people that are able to and do take advantage of loopholes.
Are you saying that everything illegal is immediately prosecuted upon discovery? That's a little unrealistic, don't you think?
No. The alleged tax fraud occurred in 1990s and to quote the article, "these maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service."
So they didn't find anything illegal neither at the time, nor at any time since then. I highly doubt this investigation will change anything.
So they didn't find anything illegal neither at the time, nor at any time since then. I highly doubt this investigation will change anything.
This is a horrible outlook to have. Dont blame the criminal blame the cops for not catching them. Sheesh.
America is a country founded by tax evaders, smugglers, and traffickers, so it's practically one's patriotic duty to avoid paying a penny more in taxes than you can get away with. Particularly when those tax dollars are wasted so egregiously.
I once read a story in the Art of War, but also maybe had some words by his grandson not just Sun Tzu, I was maybe 12 so it is foggy, but the story was discussing different kingdoms, one had a wealthy government with small fields and government soldiers on all the corners, the other country had a poorer government with large fields and few soldiers, the question was which country will last the longest. Anyway the story said the second country because the farmers would be willing to fight to defend it, where in the first country there would be less motivation.
In reality, the soldiers would win because not only would they be well equipped, they would also be better at fighting.
I guess that's why the US has found it so easy in places like Iraq or Vietnam.
I think Paul Kennedy would disagree with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great...
Remember that the capability ratio between soldiers and civilians was much less before the rise of modern nation-states and technology. (The following is generalizing a very wide swath of places and times, and based on some things I've read; perhaps others know more:)
Before modern nation-states, there weren't national armies so much as forces 'raised' by the aristocracy of civilians pressed into service, barely equipped or trained or even fed, and led by aristocrats who often had similar training (but better equipment). IIRC, Napoleon was the innovator of the modern nation-state military that you would recognize, in the late 18th century.
In technology, the difference was civilians with heavy or sharp pointy things (maybe knives, maybe pitchforks or homemade spears) and poorly trained soldiers with spears; a mass of civilians had a chance. Today the difference is between civilians with handheld firearms and trained soldiers with tanks, missiles, artillery, attack helicopters and jet fighters. Even for the heavily armed civilian population of the U.S., your fate relies on whether the soldiers are willing to massacre you.
Before modern nation-states, there weren't national armies so much as forces 'raised' by the aristocracy of civilians pressed into service, barely equipped or trained or even fed, and led by aristocrats who often had similar training (but better equipment). IIRC, Napoleon was the innovator of the modern nation-state military that you would recognize, in the late 18th century.
In technology, the difference was civilians with heavy or sharp pointy things (maybe knives, maybe pitchforks or homemade spears) and poorly trained soldiers with spears; a mass of civilians had a chance. Today the difference is between civilians with handheld firearms and trained soldiers with tanks, missiles, artillery, attack helicopters and jet fighters. Even for the heavily armed civilian population of the U.S., your fate relies on whether the soldiers are willing to massacre you.
>IIRC, Napoleon was the innovator of the modern nation-state military that you would recognize, in the late 18th century.
Side note: The ottomans had standing, professional soldiers before that. The janissaries also served as police or firemen on occasion, but they lived in barracks.
Side note: The ottomans had standing, professional soldiers before that. The janissaries also served as police or firemen on occasion, but they lived in barracks.
It is a question of also being overrun by other kingdoms
That's a great quote, but I think people there are pretty happy with things. Something like 400M people have gone from subsistence farming to the information economy in a single generation. Their government builds infrastructure instead of letting it crumble while overspending on military and foreign wars. And they don't have a hot drug war imprisoning tons of people.
They see the due process problems as unlikely to affect them personally as long as they don't go looking for trouble, while many other things have been great for them and their families.
The big question is whether Xi keeps getting more aggressive or if he's replaced in 5 years with someone more moderate.
They see the due process problems as unlikely to affect them personally as long as they don't go looking for trouble, while many other things have been great for them and their families.
The big question is whether Xi keeps getting more aggressive or if he's replaced in 5 years with someone more moderate.
Interesting story. What would motivate farmers to support one ruler over another? Why would they care about being conquered at all?
They would have more to lose, less tax burden more autonomy.
It is okay for you to disagree with it, that was the story.
It is okay for you to disagree with it, that was the story.
Others are attributing it to taxes, applying modern libertarian ideals to people who had nothing to do with them. My impression is that their main concern was survival. Can this ruler protect me from armies and criminals? Will the ruler kill me and my family?
There were agrarian rebellions in ancient China, such as the Red Eyebrow Rebellion. If the burden on farmers was too great, these things could happen.
Also ancient Chinese had lots of philosophies and schools of thought.
Also ancient Chinese had lots of philosophies and schools of thought.
Yp, meet the new boss. Now I guess there's patriotism but back then no one cared, no newspapers and no Facebook. If basic rule was maintained and taxes stayed the same why would they care? Other than maybe "god given" rights to rule. This King is the rightful heir so I'll support him...
Whatever kind of "patriotism" was there was nothing like the one of today, but not because Facebook - simply because nation states are a modern invention.
I said that there was no patriotism back then.
There was patriotism even back then. There is a famous story about a merchant, after meeting the enemy army when traveling to another country to sell his cattle, gave all the cattle to the general claiming it was sent by the lord of the state. The general decided to retreat because he thought the intelligence about the invasion was leaked.
This event was recorded in Chinese history, and is still used to teach the kids.
This event was recorded in Chinese history, and is still used to teach the kids.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Option 3 created the Hoplites and the Demos. Farmers can forge their own path of mutual interest sans kings.
and the vaunted Roman legionaries of Middle Republic to Early Empire were also Italian farmers...
in the Old World, for thousands of years, farmers and nomads fight each other. Sometimes the former won, sometimes the latter won - don't forget, the Indo-Europeans were steppe nomads who were the first to tame cavalry and make chariots!
in the Old World, for thousands of years, farmers and nomads fight each other. Sometimes the former won, sometimes the latter won - don't forget, the Indo-Europeans were steppe nomads who were the first to tame cavalry and make chariots!
Until the development of modern firearms, the nomads won pretty consistently any time they could get their ducks in line and stop infighting. Mobility and being able to almost totally mobilize the fighting age population let them punch well above their weight.
Fundamentally for the same reasons why journalists, Saudis and Röhm[0] vanished?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
But Goering and Himmler are dead.
That was a well written article which accurately covered what's going on. But after reading it, I felt admiration for the bravery of the journalist and immediate concern for her safety. She is of Chinese ethnicity and will be deemed to be a traitor to China as far as the Party is concerned - a very serious offence. There is absolutely no doubt she will be targeted in one way or another, and if she has family in China the Party will use them to get to her. This is not an exaggeration, and shows how bad the situation really is.
It isn't improbable that the author and her immediate family is in the US, and that the Party will have limited reach on the author.
According to her online bio, she moved to the US when she was 8. That means her immediate family are probably in the US, but she'd have extended family in China.
Extended family does not seem to matter. The brother of one of the top leaders of the party (Yu Zhengsheng) has defected to the US long before Yu being elected into PBSC (Politburo Standing Committee), the board of directors for China inc.
Indeed. For all of modern Communist China's problems, taking revenge on family members isn't known to be one of them. They focus on a individual's own loyalty to the state and whoever holds power. As is to be expected, as part of the point of Communism is to destroy the family unit and replace it with the state. This is different from, for example, Japan, where their are explicit laws mandating familial responsibility for (adult, not only juvenile) relatives.
I don't think the "extended family " will be a problem if both families haven been in touch for well over two decades.
friedcat is another interesting Chinese disappearance. He was the first person who brought bitcoin (sha256) mining ASICs to the world and did a huge amount of clever optimization [0]. There is a lot more to the story, just google for him, it is an interesting read.
[0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3030169.0
[0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3030169.0
I want a news site which would put news in short and non-story manner. Like seriously, all substance of this article can be fit in one paragraph. That's it. So much water to dilute the contents :(
I agree, I think a "data" only news source would be highly useful. Especially one that ties pieces of data together so that it's possible to view timelines and development along different vectors.
This is the stereotypical story of someone who makes it in an Asian country. When their power and influence are about to wield them more influence than the existing power, the powers that be step in, do all kinds of blackmailing, to coerce them into submission. Nothing new here if you are familiar with Asian culture. “Respect your elders” we’re constantly taught.
If she did indeed evade tax why was there no trial? Why did she have to ‘vanish’? I smell blackmail from a mile away.
If she did indeed evade tax why was there no trial? Why did she have to ‘vanish’? I smell blackmail from a mile away.
Sounds like she needs to use some of that left over money to get the fuck out of China with everyone she loves and is able to. I'm sure she can find work elsewhere but I'm also aware picking up everyone you know and love is not that simple.
China doesn't seem like the type of country that would just allow you to skate off like that without punishing whoever they can who remains in China. I mean, if they are willing to go this far why wouldn't they? Fucking crazy.
China doesn't seem like the type of country that would just allow you to skate off like that without punishing whoever they can who remains in China. I mean, if they are willing to go this far why wouldn't they? Fucking crazy.
She also won't be able to take any money with her, if her assets haven't already been completely siezed. Capital outflow is strongly controlled in China.
There's no point. China is known to openly carry out extrarendition operations, in broad daylight, even on citizens of other countries as long as they are ethnic Chinese.
I believe you, but haven't read anything about this. Any cases you'd suggest?
I have a problem with your comment attempting to use a stereotype of a communist country to "Asian". First, what part of Asia, its literally 60% of the earth, its fucking huge. I mean, are you talking about Bangladesh or Indonesia? In the UK, Asians are dark-skinned folks, not the East/South Asian that American/Canadians are referring to.
The other issue here is misusing a neo-confucian value as a basis of China's corrupt system.
Again, attempting to conflate a single country's generalizations to a an erroneous and inappropriate label accepted by North American society.
You should've just used Oriental country.
The other issue here is misusing a neo-confucian value as a basis of China's corrupt system.
Again, attempting to conflate a single country's generalizations to a an erroneous and inappropriate label accepted by North American society.
You should've just used Oriental country.
In India it’s the same so it’s not just oriental countries. This is an asian thing and by asian I mean asian in the most Asian sense.
I have the pleasure of being and indian being taught Indian values and then growing up to learn that the Chinese / Thai / Other Asians were pretty much taught the same bull crap about respecting elders, and asking questions as to why will get you into a lot of trouble. Just my personal experience.
I have the pleasure of being and indian being taught Indian values and then growing up to learn that the Chinese / Thai / Other Asians were pretty much taught the same bull crap about respecting elders, and asking questions as to why will get you into a lot of trouble. Just my personal experience.
They should've just said "China" and left it at that.
I live in "Asia" and that kind of usage annoys me, too.
I live in "Asia" and that kind of usage annoys me, too.
[deleted]
"You should've just used Oriental country."
Among North Americans and perhaps native English speakers elsewhere, the term "Oriental" has been increasingly taboo and claimed to be offensive for decades now. I am not sure whether this is entirely down to Said’s Orientalism, or if opponents of the term have other grounds, but often saying “oriental” gets you a scolding these days and an encouragement to say “Asian” instead.
Among North Americans and perhaps native English speakers elsewhere, the term "Oriental" has been increasingly taboo and claimed to be offensive for decades now. I am not sure whether this is entirely down to Said’s Orientalism, or if opponents of the term have other grounds, but often saying “oriental” gets you a scolding these days and an encouragement to say “Asian” instead.
In the UK, "Asian" means people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.
In the US it seems to mean Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and a few others.
As for "Oriental" it's not universal that it's offensive. It's not used much in Britain, due to there not being a lot fewer Far Eastern people than Indians.
In the US it seems to mean Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and a few others.
As for "Oriental" it's not universal that it's offensive. It's not used much in Britain, due to there not being a lot fewer Far Eastern people than Indians.
I don't know there will be a trial for evading tax. Basically tax office will send you a notice and if you disagree, you pay and then go to court to sue the tax office.
^This.
Similar example with wealth accumulation. If someone accumulates wealth without clear coordination and loyalty to the party, they'll be viewed as a potential or overt threat. Then they will either be charged/convicted of a crime that besmirches their character (which conveniently creates problems for their family), executed or increasingly just disappear.
Similar example with wealth accumulation. If someone accumulates wealth without clear coordination and loyalty to the party, they'll be viewed as a potential or overt threat. Then they will either be charged/convicted of a crime that besmirches their character (which conveniently creates problems for their family), executed or increasingly just disappear.
[deleted]
Where are Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker when they're actually needed...
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
Jackie Chan has been a CCP sockpuppet for a long time now. Then again his alternative might have been "vanishing for tax evasion".
ilovefreedom(2)
They went for a short visit to Room 101, Ministry of love
This is a very important part to understanding how the People's Republic of China is indeed as communist as ever. Many look at all the rich people and "private" companies making billions and quickly assume it's a communist country in name only.
But "your" money, "your" property is only as good as your allegiance to the party. The state is letting you "have" it, but ultimately it's theirs. It's only yours if you manage to smuggle it out to the US.
But "your" money, "your" property is only as good as your allegiance to the party. The state is letting you "have" it, but ultimately it's theirs. It's only yours if you manage to smuggle it out to the US.
It’s definitely not communist but the Gongsun Wei Yang’s legalism. Each and every great empire in the history of China took his way of ruling.
It's how power consolidation worked, always. Autocracy, totalitarianism, fascism and communism are all just fancy labels for that very same principle, that there is a power that can and will do whatever it takes to be that power. That's why above a critical mass it's very hard to do anything about these regimes, and it's seems like the best thing is to try to isolate them (North Korea). China is of course different, because global trade. This is - again, of course - a two-sided blade, they are just as dependent on it as the rest of the world, but it likely serves as a very powerful restraint on certain types of escalation.
I have been following this along with a couple of related stories. I am trying not to go into rant mode, but there is a disturbing trend of late that folks should note.
States have always hidden, tortured, and killed their citizens. Good states do it very, very rarely, in secret, and as an extraordinary exception to normal rule. Bad states do it whenever they like and in response to any discomfort at all. I think it was Saddam (or Stalin?) that said something like "You have a man. You have a problem. No more man. No more problem."
When the U.S. started droning its own citizens a decade ago, we libertarians said that this was a very bad, no good, horrible idea. You can't treat your own citizens this way.
Looking back, that statement was too idealistic. What happened next was a discussion about ticking bombs, people planning to use WMD, and so on. Nothing much happened. The droning continued.
Next the Russians decided to use nerve gas in London (!) to kill somebody they didn't like. This past week, the Saudis decided to lure somebody into their Turkish embassy where it looks like he was tortured, killed, and chopped up into little pieces. Now we have the president of Interpol vanishing. One hopes the Chinese are at least polite enough about it not to be so braggadocious.
What we're learning from this sorry series of events is that if a leading nation does it systematically and publicly, the rest will too. There are no special "The U.S. gets to do it but nobody else can" cards to hand out.
It is quite disturbing. I expect the trend to continue.
States have always hidden, tortured, and killed their citizens. Good states do it very, very rarely, in secret, and as an extraordinary exception to normal rule. Bad states do it whenever they like and in response to any discomfort at all. I think it was Saddam (or Stalin?) that said something like "You have a man. You have a problem. No more man. No more problem."
When the U.S. started droning its own citizens a decade ago, we libertarians said that this was a very bad, no good, horrible idea. You can't treat your own citizens this way.
Looking back, that statement was too idealistic. What happened next was a discussion about ticking bombs, people planning to use WMD, and so on. Nothing much happened. The droning continued.
Next the Russians decided to use nerve gas in London (!) to kill somebody they didn't like. This past week, the Saudis decided to lure somebody into their Turkish embassy where it looks like he was tortured, killed, and chopped up into little pieces. Now we have the president of Interpol vanishing. One hopes the Chinese are at least polite enough about it not to be so braggadocious.
What we're learning from this sorry series of events is that if a leading nation does it systematically and publicly, the rest will too. There are no special "The U.S. gets to do it but nobody else can" cards to hand out.
It is quite disturbing. I expect the trend to continue.
It's scary as shit. It seems to be sending a message of, "Your government not only can't protect you, they won't.", when journalists, politicians, key figures in ongoing trials, and famous people are being rounded up and/or offed. Lots of respect for anyone still willing to speak out but I fear for them and wish them all the best and hope they are able to get their truths out.
Yeah. It's like we've lost our grip on common sense.
When the U.S. courts decided, back in the Bush days, that the U.S. Constitution applied not just to its own citizens, but to everybody we interacted with? Nobody thought through the consequences. If it applies to everybody, it applies to nobody. That is, whatever rules you can make about killing non-combatants in a foreign land, you can make about your own folks right here at home.
And that is where we're headed.
It's like we're having to re-learn the rules of nation-states again: why they exist, why they have embassies, why they're polite to one another even when they do bad things, why they keep certain things secret, and so on. In the constitution issue, it's the rules of the way the country operates, as understood by its citizens, that make them give a crap about it. (Not the rules as applied. The rules as understood by the common person.) You start publicly saying that it's a sucky deal? Soon enough people will believe you. In the U.S. domestic arena, if you treat all of your citizens as if they all might be violent at any time and deserve close watching? They'll live up to that expectation.
I don't like any of it, any violence at all. I understand it exists whether I like it or not, and I understand that international politics is a messy affair. But there are supposed to be some grown-ups involved that keep it all heading in a good direction. Those people have left the room. Decades ago. (Note: my comment was about trends, not current politicians. I don't argue about current politicians and try not to mention any of them if I can. Trends are much more important.)
When the U.S. courts decided, back in the Bush days, that the U.S. Constitution applied not just to its own citizens, but to everybody we interacted with? Nobody thought through the consequences. If it applies to everybody, it applies to nobody. That is, whatever rules you can make about killing non-combatants in a foreign land, you can make about your own folks right here at home.
And that is where we're headed.
It's like we're having to re-learn the rules of nation-states again: why they exist, why they have embassies, why they're polite to one another even when they do bad things, why they keep certain things secret, and so on. In the constitution issue, it's the rules of the way the country operates, as understood by its citizens, that make them give a crap about it. (Not the rules as applied. The rules as understood by the common person.) You start publicly saying that it's a sucky deal? Soon enough people will believe you. In the U.S. domestic arena, if you treat all of your citizens as if they all might be violent at any time and deserve close watching? They'll live up to that expectation.
I don't like any of it, any violence at all. I understand it exists whether I like it or not, and I understand that international politics is a messy affair. But there are supposed to be some grown-ups involved that keep it all heading in a good direction. Those people have left the room. Decades ago. (Note: my comment was about trends, not current politicians. I don't argue about current politicians and try not to mention any of them if I can. Trends are much more important.)
That is, whatever rules you can make about killing non-combatants in a foreign land, you can make about your own folks right here at home. And that is where we're headed.
So the thought that the USA may soon treat its own citizens the way it's treated the citizens of the world in the last 130 years whenever it's wanted to - e.g. invasion, mass slaughter, carpet bombing, coups etc (assassination hardly rates a place in that list) - is terrifying to you. Fair enough, I guess. But why (I get the feeling from your tone) has it been perfectly OK that the US treat the rest of the world like that?
So the thought that the USA may soon treat its own citizens the way it's treated the citizens of the world in the last 130 years whenever it's wanted to - e.g. invasion, mass slaughter, carpet bombing, coups etc (assassination hardly rates a place in that list) - is terrifying to you. Fair enough, I guess. But why (I get the feeling from your tone) has it been perfectly OK that the US treat the rest of the world like that?
Apologies. I should have been more clear.
I don't like any of it. But the interplay back and forth of nations doing horrible things like this to the other citizens is what has created all of these international norms in the first place. We don't want the Iranians grabbing people off the streets of DC and killing them in their embassy. We shouldn't do it to other countries.
I agree with you. Once we started doing it, then it's okay for everybody and there's no clear delimiter of what's okay and what's not.
It's not okay. This is the reason we're supposed to declare war before we use force overseas. You can't continue to do this semi-war thing for very long.
My only point was that in reality things aren't perfect. That's fine. If the Soviets kidnapped some person from Nevada and tortured and killed them in 1960 it was a horrible thing. But the international order continued. It continued because we had established norms. Countries knew that if they had to do things like this, it should be hidden.
What happened after 9-11 is that we've systematize a lot of things that should be done by exception-only. And now we gotta go back and re-learn why all of those norms were there in the first place.
I don't like any of it. But the interplay back and forth of nations doing horrible things like this to the other citizens is what has created all of these international norms in the first place. We don't want the Iranians grabbing people off the streets of DC and killing them in their embassy. We shouldn't do it to other countries.
I agree with you. Once we started doing it, then it's okay for everybody and there's no clear delimiter of what's okay and what's not.
It's not okay. This is the reason we're supposed to declare war before we use force overseas. You can't continue to do this semi-war thing for very long.
My only point was that in reality things aren't perfect. That's fine. If the Soviets kidnapped some person from Nevada and tortured and killed them in 1960 it was a horrible thing. But the international order continued. It continued because we had established norms. Countries knew that if they had to do things like this, it should be hidden.
What happened after 9-11 is that we've systematize a lot of things that should be done by exception-only. And now we gotta go back and re-learn why all of those norms were there in the first place.
I think, without saying that things were "fine" or "tolerable" prior to this, that the feeling is akin to "I can't believe things have become so blatant, obvious, and delivered / met with this total lack of caring."
It's astonishing that things don't even seem to be thought out. It's almost like "We need to get rid of X person and we'll worry about the fallout / cover up after the fact. First we need to find out how much evidence we left behind, how guilty we look, and what our options are before we admit to anything and start playing defense."
Something along those lines, at least.
It's astonishing that things don't even seem to be thought out. It's almost like "We need to get rid of X person and we'll worry about the fallout / cover up after the fact. First we need to find out how much evidence we left behind, how guilty we look, and what our options are before we admit to anything and start playing defense."
Something along those lines, at least.
The grown-ups are the voters where they could vote, and the angry mobs where they could not. It seems increasingly evident that the Nash equilibrium of that game might not be a place comfortable to philosophers.
In the west the common way to suppress dissidents is more civil like legal extortion ) Aaron Schwartz in US). Rarely there's murder except few cases like Germany's removal of Mölleman in 2000s. Developing world is still learning at their own pace like Saudi's butchering of WP journalist during consular services or China's..
Yeah, it's usually more civil. Make a few phone calls, put legal pressure on them, discredit them, etc. Unless of course the target is in the third world, then an unmanned plane attack will do, at worse it might also get 20-50 others unrelated to them, but third world lives are cheap.
Though it also depends on the part of the west and the time. The 50s to 80s was a good time for muddy state work in the west too.
In the 60s and 70s the Italians had certain pesky activists commit "suicide" by jumping off of police building and similar methods [1].
Delegating a murder or disappearance to the mafia (which in 80s trials was found complicit with the government) was also an option, as was using the far right organizations [2].
The Belgians had someone like Lumumba executed and dissolved in acid, something the French agencies were also known to be fond of and also had common criminals working for them when they wanted to git rid of a "state enemy" [3].
The Greek deep state of the 60s and 70s just used hired thugs, who acted "independently", like those that murdered peace activist Lambrakis in 1963 [4] (that was still under democracy, the Junta just continued the tradition).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Pinelli [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing#State_s... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Mesrine [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoris_Lambrakis
Though it also depends on the part of the west and the time. The 50s to 80s was a good time for muddy state work in the west too.
In the 60s and 70s the Italians had certain pesky activists commit "suicide" by jumping off of police building and similar methods [1].
Delegating a murder or disappearance to the mafia (which in 80s trials was found complicit with the government) was also an option, as was using the far right organizations [2].
The Belgians had someone like Lumumba executed and dissolved in acid, something the French agencies were also known to be fond of and also had common criminals working for them when they wanted to git rid of a "state enemy" [3].
The Greek deep state of the 60s and 70s just used hired thugs, who acted "independently", like those that murdered peace activist Lambrakis in 1963 [4] (that was still under democracy, the Junta just continued the tradition).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Pinelli [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing#State_s... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Mesrine [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoris_Lambrakis
Möllemann seems like a clear cut suicide to me. He was finished anyway, why kill him? why do you believe he was murdered?
[deleted]
Name is "Aaron Swartz", by the by.
The US also tends to elect it's dissidents from time to time..
In the eyes of many Trump is probably a dissident, haha :) (Obviously, Trump never opposed real oppression, and is not a dissident)
I'm sure one could also call Bernie Sanders a dissident, as he opposed real oppression. And he was elected to the senate many times.
In the eyes of many Trump is probably a dissident, haha :) (Obviously, Trump never opposed real oppression, and is not a dissident)
I'm sure one could also call Bernie Sanders a dissident, as he opposed real oppression. And he was elected to the senate many times.
>Obviously, Trump never opposed real oppression, and is not a dissident
Well, depends on how you see it. Hillary was the typical hawk ready to continue the war business as usual like Obama. Trump pushed for a more isolationist policy, which after Bush and Obama continuous war making is a breath of fresh air (and made some progress with SK instead of mere aggressions).
And for many people (not the 10% that benefits for such things and which most on HN would belong to) globalization itself causes a race to the bottom and oppression. In fact before the "left" (term used loosely) went full-on Democrat-lite, it used to protest globalization (remember Seattle, Genova, etc).
Well, depends on how you see it. Hillary was the typical hawk ready to continue the war business as usual like Obama. Trump pushed for a more isolationist policy, which after Bush and Obama continuous war making is a breath of fresh air (and made some progress with SK instead of mere aggressions).
And for many people (not the 10% that benefits for such things and which most on HN would belong to) globalization itself causes a race to the bottom and oppression. In fact before the "left" (term used loosely) went full-on Democrat-lite, it used to protest globalization (remember Seattle, Genova, etc).
No it doesn't depend on how you see things.
You can disagree with Obama, even about facts, but you were not oppressed. Trump claimed Obama was a terrorist. Yet, he was not oppressed.
For crying out loud Trump was invited the correspondence dinner when Obama was in office. He was rightly mocked, but he was not disappeared :)
But let's get real there were people in America who faced real oppression in the 60'ties civil rights movements. Bernie was one of those, and many of them served as elected politicians later.
You can disagree with Obama, even about facts, but you were not oppressed. Trump claimed Obama was a terrorist. Yet, he was not oppressed.
For crying out loud Trump was invited the correspondence dinner when Obama was in office. He was rightly mocked, but he was not disappeared :)
But let's get real there were people in America who faced real oppression in the 60'ties civil rights movements. Bernie was one of those, and many of them served as elected politicians later.
John Lewis.
>No it doesn't depend on how you see things.
True, my interpretation is objectively right, but I wanted to put it more mildly :-)
Though, if you don't believe on God-given rights and wrongs, it still falls on "how you see things" (and your interests), which is the whole point of politics.
>You can disagree with Obama, even about facts, but you were not oppressed. Trump claimed Obama was a terrorist. Yet, he was not oppressed. For crying out loud Trump was invited the correspondence dinner when Obama was in office. He was rightly mocked, but he was not disappeared :)
Well, people don't disappear under Trump either, so there's that. I made some specific points under which Trumps politics could be seen as better (being against the constant after 9-11 wars and interventionism and the pro-corporate globalization).
In any case, as a non-American, I mostly care about the foreign policy: stopping the hawkish attitude, and making a stand against "race to the bottom" globalization. I remember a time when the "left" were for those things too, instead of against them because Trump peddles them.
True, my interpretation is objectively right, but I wanted to put it more mildly :-)
Though, if you don't believe on God-given rights and wrongs, it still falls on "how you see things" (and your interests), which is the whole point of politics.
>You can disagree with Obama, even about facts, but you were not oppressed. Trump claimed Obama was a terrorist. Yet, he was not oppressed. For crying out loud Trump was invited the correspondence dinner when Obama was in office. He was rightly mocked, but he was not disappeared :)
Well, people don't disappear under Trump either, so there's that. I made some specific points under which Trumps politics could be seen as better (being against the constant after 9-11 wars and interventionism and the pro-corporate globalization).
In any case, as a non-American, I mostly care about the foreign policy: stopping the hawkish attitude, and making a stand against "race to the bottom" globalization. I remember a time when the "left" were for those things too, instead of against them because Trump peddles them.
> Well, people don't disappear under Trump either,
About that: there's a lot of parents looking for their children at this very moment.
About that: there's a lot of parents looking for their children at this very moment.
I find myself agreeing with the confession: if you illegally evade $100 million of taxes by lying about the amount you are paid, you are betraying your country. While the Chinese approach to prosecution seems open to abuse, the outcome here seems actually seems reasonable: the actress pays substantial penalties but goes on being an actress, tax evasion is not condoned, and rule of law is upheld.
By contrast, the outcomes of the US system often seem perverse: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/d.... This is an in-depth NYT article showing how the current president seems to have used similar illegal maneuvers to avoid paying many millions of inheritance taxes. The outcome seems to be that if you have enough money, you win, and the ordinary taxpayer loses.