4 ms·

It is really a difficult call. On one hand, “first they came after the Jews”. On another, by Chinese laws their citizens have obligations to cooperate with thei

It is really a difficult call. On one hand, “first they came after the Jews”. On another, by Chinese laws their citizens have obligations to cooperate with their intelligence agencies. China is a technologically advanced mass surveillance state, with dictatorship regime on the rise. This dictatorship regime and its intelligence services have no issues with controlling their citizens by any means possible (from requests to follow their laws to intimidation of family members, etc).

dragonsh 7y ago
> It is really a difficult call. In my view it isn't, USA has chosen common law jurisdiction which clearly states "Innocent until proven guilty". So it should not just put it on the books, but has to follow it in spirit. Don't create border buffer zones, guam to dilute it, this is taking USA to same level as other nations which it criticize for those violations. In Continental law in few jurisdiction like Japan (what happened with Carlos Ghosn) and China they follow "Guilty until proven innocent". In this jurisdiction the prosecutor exercise control on whom to prosecute, because onus is on plaintiff to prove innocence through evidence. Here the discussion is not about what is happening inside the country, but at the borders so surveillance state is not a question here. If you have discussion on surveillance, China is a transparent surveillance where citizens are aware of it, USA with NSA is an opaque surveillance state. I am sure I don't want either of them, but if forced prefer a transparent than an opaque system.
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty." this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. they do that thousands of times a day in the US without first determining innocence or guilt. it's just the first step. and US citizens are generally required to cooperate with law enforcement officer directives. the fact that police have certain, constitutionally limited powers doesn't mean the system has abandoned "innocent until proven guilty."
  - dragonsh 7y ago
    > they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty." Here student were already pronounced guilty and forcibly send back on return flight. > this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. Its not the same. When a police officer arrests a US citizen, they need to grant him rights and access to lawyer. If they want to take away that right, they need to have a strong reason and apply patriot act or some specific law. If there is a wrong application of law the police officer and department can be sued for wrongful arrest. Here the punishment has already been meted out by sending them back forcibly, without any due process, but based on border agents discretion.

dragonsh 7y ago

> It is really a difficult call. In my view it isn't, USA has chosen common law jurisdiction which clearly states "Innocent until proven guilty". So it should not just put it on the books, but has to follow it in spirit. Don't create border buffer zones, guam to dilute it, this is taking USA to same level as other nations which it criticize for those violations. In Continental law in few jurisdiction like Japan (what happened with Carlos Ghosn) and China they follow "Guilty until proven innocent". In this jurisdiction the prosecutor exercise control on whom to prosecute, because onus is on plaintiff to prove innocence through evidence. Here the discussion is not about what is happening inside the country, but at the borders so surveillance state is not a question here. If you have discussion on surveillance, China is a transparent surveillance where citizens are aware of it, USA with NSA is an opaque surveillance state. I am sure I don't want either of them, but if forced prefer a transparent than an opaque system.

HillaryBriss 7y ago
they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty." this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. they do that thousands of times a day in the US without first determining innocence or guilt. it's just the first step. and US citizens are generally required to cooperate with law enforcement officer directives. the fact that police have certain, constitutionally limited powers doesn't mean the system has abandoned "innocent until proven guilty."
- dragonsh 7y ago
  > they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty." Here student were already pronounced guilty and forcibly send back on return flight. > this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. Its not the same. When a police officer arrests a US citizen, they need to grant him rights and access to lawyer. If they want to take away that right, they need to have a strong reason and apply patriot act or some specific law. If there is a wrong application of law the police officer and department can be sued for wrongful arrest. Here the punishment has already been meted out by sending them back forcibly, without any due process, but based on border agents discretion.