11 ms·
Why Did China’s Biggest Movie Star, and the Interpol Chief, Vanish?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- latchkey 8y agofriedcat 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 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3030169.0
- aerodog 8y agoWhere are Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker when they're actually needed...
- atticmanatee 8y agoAbout that: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5182114/Jackie-Chan-says-Chinese-people-need-to-be-controlled.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/518211...
- ilovefreedom 8y agoWhy is government control such a bad thing? On the opposite end, too much freedom is also bad. It's more about balance of control and freedom.
- specializeded 8y agoWhat a great UX decision green usernames are
- raverbashing 8y agoEven better when "a new" green username joins the conversation answering for the "old" username (not the case here, but happened at other times) I hope the admins are looking into the issue
- tshanmu 8y agoWhat with the green user names?
- danso 8y agoGreen denotes a recently created user account
- fermienrico 8y agoI really love, absolutely love, HN's design. Does anyone know the people behind HN's web design?
- d2j 8y agoDismissing an argument because it was made by a fresh account is the ultimate test of your intelligence.
- danso 8y agoNo argument of substance was made.
- Kaveren 8y agoAuthoritarianism leads to violation of human rights. Besides that, the onus of justification should be on the side in favor of government control. You should need a good reason to restrict someone from performing an action they desire to. Not to mention that when the people have no power and are not free to criticize their government, you can easily get some dystopia full of rampant government corruption and nepotism. Governments should not be "disappearing" their own citizens. There should be a transparent, fair, evenly-applied process. Hard to hold governments accountable when they exert too much control. At this point I feel like I'm about to be reprimanded for using HN as an "ideological battleground" or something.
- ilovefreedom 8y agoNot sure about authoritarianism leading to violation of human rights. I'll give you an example, I was raised with what I might say a pretty authoritarian family. Without it, I could've been lost doing drugs or similar because of my "freedom". Not that they took it all away, I can still go out doing things, but when I do something bad or is deemed to be, I get scolded.
- hnzix 8y agoJackie Chan has been a CCP sockpuppet for a long time now. Then again his alternative might have been "vanishing for tax evasion".
- dang 8y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments here.
- singularity2001 8y agoFundamentally for the same reasons why journalists, Saudis and Röhm[0] vanished? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
- qbaqbaqba 8y agoBut Goering and Himmler are dead.
- artellectual 8y agoThis 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.
- scoggs 8y agoSounds 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.
- robjan 8y agoShe 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.
- spacehunt 8y agoThere'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.
- jblazevic 8y agoThey went for a short visit to Room 101, Ministry of love
- iliketosleep 8y agoThat 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.
- jhanschoo 8y agoIt 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.
- iliketosleep 8y agoAccording 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.
- ksec 8y agoI don't think the "extended family " will be a problem if both families haven been in touch for well over two decades.
- ttflee 8y agoExtended 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.
- fjsolwmv 8y agoIndeed. 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.
- diminish 8y agoIn 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..
- acct1771 8y agoName is "Aaron Swartz", by the by.
- coldtea 8y agoYeah, 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Pinelli [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing#State_security_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing#State_s... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Mesrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Mesrine [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoris_Lambrakis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoris_Lambrakis
- Zeratoss 8y agoMöllemann seems like a clear cut suicide to me. He was finished anyway, why kill him? why do you believe he was murdered?
- DanielBMarkham 8y agoI 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.
- scoggs 8y agoIt'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.
- DanielBMarkham 8y agoYeah. 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.)
- vertline3 8y agoI 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.
- tEMporality7 8y agoIn reality, the soldiers would win because not only would they be well equipped, they would also be better at fighting.
- vertline3 8y agoIt is a question of also being overrun by other kingdoms
- jayalpha 8y agoI think Paul Kennedy would disagree with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great...
- asveikau 8y agoI guess that's why the US has found it so easy in places like Iraq or Vietnam.
- forapurpose 8y agoRemember 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.
- _cs2017_ 8y agoI'm puzzled by comments that describe this as a well written article. There are no new facts here; nor are there even any guesses as to what actually caused these detentions. There is no amazing investigative work, no deep unexpected insights. What exactly does this article say to stand above the news media noise? I guess it does provide some simple analysis of the general situation in China, but even here it doesn't deviate from the well known story about how Xi Jinping is moving China back towards heavy handed government control.
- frontfor 8y agoOr maybe it's just that: it's a well written article and the subject matter is interesting. An article doesn't need to have "new facts" to "stand above the news media noise". Plenty of submissions on HN doesn't contain "new facts". You may find "there are no new facts" but not everyone does.
- yesenadam 8y agoIf you can do better, please do. Or teach us something instead of just complaining that other people liked it. Comments like this add absolutely nothing to HN; it was a total waste of time reading it.
- mayankkaizen 8y agoSo basically I shouldn't judge or comment on something because I can't do that thing? I mean I can't appreciate/criticize art/poetry because I can't paint or write poetry?
- fjsolwmv 8y agoYou can do whatever you want. But it's not interesting. People aren't coming here for hot take tips on how journalism is bad.
- coldtea 8y agoThe whole purpose of a HN thread is to share your opinion on linked articles first, and follow the paths that discussions goes, second. It's meta-comments like yours (and now mine) that are a total waste of time.
- auganov 8y agoThis 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.
- pas 8y agoIt'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.
- ttflee 8y agoIt’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.
- Svoka 8y agoI 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 :(
- fouc 8y agoI 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.
- nkurz 8y agoAfter expressing “deep shame and sorrow,” she admitted to years of underreporting her earnings, through the practice of “yin and yang” contracts, in which a smaller contract is disclosed but a larger one is paid to the star. She was ordered to pay a hundred and thirty million dollars in back taxes and penalties. Her actions amounted not only to a personal misstep, she wrote, but to a betrayal of China. 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/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html 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.
- chmln 8y ago> 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.
- danharaj 8y agoAre you saying that everything illegal is immediately prosecuted upon discovery? That's a little unrealistic, don't you think?
- chmln 8y agoNo. 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.
- qbaqbaqba 8y agoWow, some comments seem to be made by Chinese bots.