8 ms·

Don't American federal police/law enforcement have rights to operate in Washington DC/NY city? Is not the MI5 allowed to operate in Glasgow/Belfast? Is it abnor

Don't American federal police/law enforcement have rights to operate in Washington DC/NY city? Is not the MI5 allowed to operate in Glasgow/Belfast? Is it abnormal for federal governments to have some powers in the provinces/states?

cmpb 6y ago
I think the normality of it isn’t the issue. The issue is that many residents of Hong Kong have been explicitly demonstrating that they are not comfortable with China having any control in Hong Kong
- dragonsh 6y ago
  Like California is a state in USA where FBI and national security agencies can operate, Hong Kong is a province of China with some exemptions, and one of the exemptions is changed, where Chinese security agencies can operate on Chinese cities and provinces. I believe this would not have happened if people did not start desecrating the Chinese flag, and on top carry colonial ruler and US flags to protest against China, in their own country. I have yet to see an example in a democratic nation where population can take a flag of another country or a colonial ruler in protest against their own country, and government will seat silently. If people or so much against China, I hope similar disdain should be there for India, which also falls under the same group. India unilaterally without the involvement of people of Kashmir changed the status quo and in the process suppressed them with military force and is ongoing, the suppression is much worse than the freedoms Hong Kong still enjoy compared to Kashmiris and Kashmir. The actions where unilateral decisions are taken should be criticised, but than should act with same fervour for anyone who does it, be it democracy or meritocracy (like China and Singapore system).
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Hong Kong is a province of China with some exemptions, and one of the exemptions is changed Which involves Xi’s government breaching an agreement, with the U.K. and Hong Kong people, from 1997. Countries are sovereign. But reputations matter. Any country dealing with Xi would be mad to take his word. The repercussions of these actions in neighbouring countries, such as Taiwan and the Philippines, will be interesting to see unfold.
    - dragonsh 6y ago
      > such as Taiwan... Taiwan is not yet a country based on wishes of its founding father, it’s still one part of China (Chiang Kai Shek‘a body is still waiting for going to China to have a proper burial one day when Taiwan and China is one). I doubt USA will ever help them to be an independent country because than they won’t play a part of being puppet in its bidding to control Asia Pacific, given Taiwan At present is playing a puppet in hands of USA, and with 40% economic downturn it’s just a matter of time they will fight US’s war and suffer the consequences. If you look at the language of the CPC meeting today you will know they have already removed the word peaceful reunification, which is an indication that they have accepted that if push comes to shove they need to fight USA through Taiwan (which will be very unfortunate in my view as they should determine their own course, independent of USA).
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    I've seen multiple American protests with the Russian flag. If we include flags of historic Nations I've also seen the swastika and Soviet Union flag. This along with desecration of the countries own flag at protests happens in most Western Nations. It's called freedom of expression.
    - dragonsh 6y ago
      Please try in the largest democracy India and many other commonwealth democracy with common law jurisdiction. It’s an offence and that too criminal and many of those nations will invoke British colonial era, sedition laws to punish, torture protestors. If USA or for that matter any country condemn China, they should do the same condemnation and restrictions on other country with same fervour, don’t have dual standards. What I see here is the same Cold War, not a reasonable or justifiable action. I do understand the definition of freedom of expression as defined in many constitutions and also in common law jurisdiction, which I understand better than continental law jurisdiction followed by Germany, Japan and China.
      - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
        You admit you were wrong when you said you couldn't do it in any of the democracies in your now flagged comment then? Because all I see is goalposts moving.
      - reissbaker 6y ago
        > I have yet to see an example in a democratic nation where population can take a flag of another country or a colonial ruler in protest against their own country This was your assertion, word for word. You were given an obvious counterexample, and now you're deflecting to claim you only meant India? Here's another example: in New Zealand, burning the flag was most recently punished by... An NZ$500 fine. Nothing like what you're claiming. How about the UK? In 2011, 20-30 students publicly burned a large British flag. They got a verbal warning. Waving American flags is legal. How about Northern Ireland? Burning the flag is literally legal. Waving American flags: also legal. How about Japan? Once again, burning the Japanese flag is legal. Waving American flags: also legal. And as you know, the USA legally allows flag-burning as well, and waving whatever flag you want. > torture protestors Do you have any links/data regarding modern events to back up your extraordinary claims? > If USA or for that matter any country condemn China, they should do the same condemnation and restrictions on other country with same fervour Classic whataboutism.
  - bluerobotcat 6y ago
    The actions of India in Kashmir have certainly been strongly condemned as well. What happens there is terrible. Perhaps the Kashmir situation got less media attention than Hong Kong, but I think that's more of a result of more developed regions getting more global news attention in general. It's the same reason that the Uyghur situation doesn't get as much media attention as Hong Kong either. Comparing HK to California seems intellectual dishonest. The history is not comparable at all. The very existence of the notion 'One Country Two Systems' should tell you that the Hong Kong situation is quite special. As for 'desecrating the Chinese flag'. You can also see that as a hint that people are really angry. I don't understand at all how oppression is a sensible answer to that.
  - jjkkk 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpSMtoBt3Qk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpSMtoBt3Qk
  - peisistratos 6y ago
    Hong Kong was broken off of China so that the British could push heroin opium on Chinamen. It's a laugh that westerners think they still have some colonial claim at what goes on in Hong Kong, based on their old drug pushing operation.
    - almost_usual 6y ago
      Well 156 years of ruling a place will change its culture. That is a long time, PRC won’t have ruled Hong Kong for that long until 2153 if you begin at 1997. Unless newborns start living into their 130s no one alive today will witness it. You can’t “fast-forward” and erase 156 years in a few decades.
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        Portugal ruled Macao for 400 years (interestingly Macao does not seem to face any unrest, btw). The British were in India for close to 400 years as well. This is not evidence of anything and I think this is quite irrelevant here. The main issue is not the length of the British "occupation", it is the Chinese political division that has existed since the Civil War. Many in HK (like in Taiwan) fled the communists and the others moved there during "old China" times. The issue is opposition to communist forces.
  - ailun 6y ago
    > I believe this would not have happened if people did not start desecrating the Chinese flag, and on top carry colonial ruler and US flags to protest against China, in their own country. I have yet to see an example in a democratic nation where population can take a flag of another country or a colonial ruler in protest against their own country, and government will seat silently. People burn American flags in US protests. It’s constitutionally protected speech. So are all those other things. If those things were illegal under Hong Kong law, the perpetrators can be prosecuted under their laws. China is once again going back on its promise to let Hong Kong have self-rule for 50 years. Your defense that other countries do it, or that the protesters did some bad things doesn’t mean much.
joemazerino 6y ago
Invalid comparison for two reasons. Hong Kong as per release in the 90s was to be given autonomy over it's own territory. Secondly, while the US certainly has it's share of skeletons they do not compare to modern day China. As I recall, the last time the US hired organized crime to beat protestors in the streets was in the early 20th century.
- billfruit 6y ago
  Anyways New Territories was to revert to China at the end of British Lease in 1997. Only Kowloon and HK island was British territory, but PRC views the treaties at the end of the Opium War that granted British the possession of these areas to be "unfair and unequal". So PRC will continue to argue and assert that none has locus standi on this matter except them, and that Hong Kong is Chinese territory.
  - smacktoward 6y ago
    They will argue that, sure. But if their position is that any agreement they have ever signed can retroactively be declared invalid whenever it suits them, that’s bad news not just for Hong Kong but for the entire world. Signing treaties and then tearing them up when they became inconvenient was the behavior by Hitler that dragged the world into World War II.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      HK has always been part of China. It was a Chinese territory under foreign colonial rule. What we're seeing now is a domestic Chinese political issue that has developed ultimately as a result of the Chinese Civil War. It's really a masterstroke to have convinced Western opinion that this was an international issue between HK and China.
    - mikem170 6y ago
      International agreements are routinely abrogated when they no longer suit one or both parties. Every country is guilty of this. Might makes right in geopolitics. There is no international court to take a broken treaty to. Nation states pretty much always act in their self interest when they can. China thinks that it is in their self interest to do this. Someone can try to change their mind, but it probably won't be easy.
pjc50 6y ago
"State security" in this regard means political policing and the arrest of dissidents. Up til now, HK policing has been under local control. This makes it abundantly clear that HK is going to be absorbed and lose its political freedoms.
- RegnisGnaw 6y ago
  They were always going to, regardless. The question is timing now vs 2047.
smacktoward 6y ago
The context in Hong Kong is completely different. Hong Kong is only part of China because the CCP agreed to the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration), which specified that its existing laws and institutions would be preserved as they were under British rule until the year 2047.
- jacobriis 6y ago
  "Hong Kong is only part of China because the CCP agreed to the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration" It isn't true the "only" reason Hong Kong is a part of the PRC is because they agreed to that declaration. This agreement was made because PRC could unilaterally annex Hong Kong at anytime.
  - billfruit 6y ago
    Also New Territories can have reverted back to China without need for any agreement with the British, since they were only on lease to British till 1997 and was not a British possession in the legal sense.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > New Territories can have reverted back to China without need for any agreement with the British But they didn’t. An agreement was reached. “I could have walked away, but didn’t” isn’t a valid reason for breaking a deal.
  - smacktoward 6y ago
    Sure, if they wanted to risk a war. That was the benefit of the agreement to the CCP: it gave them everything they wanted without having to risk war to get it. The only downside was that they just had to wait 50 years for the prize to fall into their lap. What we’re seeing now is even just that extremely minor inconvenience is too much for Xi. He could get China everything he wants just by waiting. But he would rather tear up a signed treaty than wait.
Johnjonjoan 6y ago
According to chapter 1 article 5 of Hong Kong basic law, yes: "The socialist system and policies shall not be practiced in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years." (50 years from 1997)
fennecfoxen 6y ago
It's not normal, on a global level, to have agents of a totalitarian dictatorship patrolling a city which is (ostensibly) a democracy, whose citizens were been promised political freedoms, further guaranteed by international treaty obligations. It is, however, normal in the sense that it is a clear part of the trend in the China / Hong Kong situation — a trend towards ever-increasing political oppression.
- anewdirection 6y ago
  If only they had oil, we could do something...
  - lowdose 6y ago
    We would already have done a lot of things, among plant a flag and declare "terra nillius".
  - steve76 6y ago
    Developing nations, richer than you think, no longer honor purchases of equipment and most importantly dangerous labor which includes onsite fatalities. The USA hands that over without a fight. People from the USA die from poverty and business failures, and still, the USA does nothing. The last little part the USA fights over is extremely critical. Not honoring it will kill a lot of people including the most vulnerable. The USA is forced into a grim calculation where we can either kill ten thousands of our own citizens in a war or watch tens of millions die a year. This speaks nothing to the morality of the issue which should be the only guiding factor. The USA developed a lot of this not because it's nice, but because we are continually attacked and invaded by the rest of the world. Marxists continually say they will fail if they don't take over the world. The USA just wants to be left alone, something if you take an unbiased look at history we've never had ever. Today the USA faces an amoral adversary, someone who scoffs at happiness as immaturity and knows no limits at debasing themselves just to win. Two problems there: - No one is better at amorality than the USA. - Why. Why do it? Why pump a barrel of oil to burn a tank of gas driving to a place where you only complain about pumping a barrel of oil?
gwd 6y ago
Well, actually not exactly: The Constitution limits what kinds of laws federal police can enforce in NYC. But probably more importantly, NYC gets a significant say in who runs federal law enforcement. Neither of those are true about CCP and Hong Kong.
- billfruit 6y ago
  What say does NYC gets in who runs Federal Law Enforcement?

cmpb 6y ago

I think the normality of it isn’t the issue. The issue is that many residents of Hong Kong have been explicitly demonstrating that they are not comfortable with China having any control in Hong Kong

dragonsh 6y ago
Like California is a state in USA where FBI and national security agencies can operate, Hong Kong is a province of China with some exemptions, and one of the exemptions is changed, where Chinese security agencies can operate on Chinese cities and provinces. I believe this would not have happened if people did not start desecrating the Chinese flag, and on top carry colonial ruler and US flags to protest against China, in their own country. I have yet to see an example in a democratic nation where population can take a flag of another country or a colonial ruler in protest against their own country, and government will seat silently. If people or so much against China, I hope similar disdain should be there for India, which also falls under the same group. India unilaterally without the involvement of people of Kashmir changed the status quo and in the process suppressed them with military force and is ongoing, the suppression is much worse than the freedoms Hong Kong still enjoy compared to Kashmiris and Kashmir. The actions where unilateral decisions are taken should be criticised, but than should act with same fervour for anyone who does it, be it democracy or meritocracy (like China and Singapore system).
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Hong Kong is a province of China with some exemptions, and one of the exemptions is changed Which involves Xi’s government breaching an agreement, with the U.K. and Hong Kong people, from 1997. Countries are sovereign. But reputations matter. Any country dealing with Xi would be mad to take his word. The repercussions of these actions in neighbouring countries, such as Taiwan and the Philippines, will be interesting to see unfold.
  - dragonsh 6y ago
    > such as Taiwan... Taiwan is not yet a country based on wishes of its founding father, it’s still one part of China (Chiang Kai Shek‘a body is still waiting for going to China to have a proper burial one day when Taiwan and China is one). I doubt USA will ever help them to be an independent country because than they won’t play a part of being puppet in its bidding to control Asia Pacific, given Taiwan At present is playing a puppet in hands of USA, and with 40% economic downturn it’s just a matter of time they will fight US’s war and suffer the consequences. If you look at the language of the CPC meeting today you will know they have already removed the word peaceful reunification, which is an indication that they have accepted that if push comes to shove they need to fight USA through Taiwan (which will be very unfortunate in my view as they should determine their own course, independent of USA).
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  I've seen multiple American protests with the Russian flag. If we include flags of historic Nations I've also seen the swastika and Soviet Union flag. This along with desecration of the countries own flag at protests happens in most Western Nations. It's called freedom of expression.
  - dragonsh 6y ago
    Please try in the largest democracy India and many other commonwealth democracy with common law jurisdiction. It’s an offence and that too criminal and many of those nations will invoke British colonial era, sedition laws to punish, torture protestors. If USA or for that matter any country condemn China, they should do the same condemnation and restrictions on other country with same fervour, don’t have dual standards. What I see here is the same Cold War, not a reasonable or justifiable action. I do understand the definition of freedom of expression as defined in many constitutions and also in common law jurisdiction, which I understand better than continental law jurisdiction followed by Germany, Japan and China.
    - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
      You admit you were wrong when you said you couldn't do it in any of the democracies in your now flagged comment then? Because all I see is goalposts moving.
    - reissbaker 6y ago
      > I have yet to see an example in a democratic nation where population can take a flag of another country or a colonial ruler in protest against their own country This was your assertion, word for word. You were given an obvious counterexample, and now you're deflecting to claim you only meant India? Here's another example: in New Zealand, burning the flag was most recently punished by... An NZ$500 fine. Nothing like what you're claiming. How about the UK? In 2011, 20-30 students publicly burned a large British flag. They got a verbal warning. Waving American flags is legal. How about Northern Ireland? Burning the flag is literally legal. Waving American flags: also legal. How about Japan? Once again, burning the Japanese flag is legal. Waving American flags: also legal. And as you know, the USA legally allows flag-burning as well, and waving whatever flag you want. > torture protestors Do you have any links/data regarding modern events to back up your extraordinary claims? > If USA or for that matter any country condemn China, they should do the same condemnation and restrictions on other country with same fervour Classic whataboutism.
- bluerobotcat 6y ago
  The actions of India in Kashmir have certainly been strongly condemned as well. What happens there is terrible. Perhaps the Kashmir situation got less media attention than Hong Kong, but I think that's more of a result of more developed regions getting more global news attention in general. It's the same reason that the Uyghur situation doesn't get as much media attention as Hong Kong either. Comparing HK to California seems intellectual dishonest. The history is not comparable at all. The very existence of the notion 'One Country Two Systems' should tell you that the Hong Kong situation is quite special. As for 'desecrating the Chinese flag'. You can also see that as a hint that people are really angry. I don't understand at all how oppression is a sensible answer to that.
- jjkkk 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpSMtoBt3Qk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpSMtoBt3Qk
- peisistratos 6y ago
  Hong Kong was broken off of China so that the British could push heroin opium on Chinamen. It's a laugh that westerners think they still have some colonial claim at what goes on in Hong Kong, based on their old drug pushing operation.
  - almost_usual 6y ago
    Well 156 years of ruling a place will change its culture. That is a long time, PRC won’t have ruled Hong Kong for that long until 2153 if you begin at 1997. Unless newborns start living into their 130s no one alive today will witness it. You can’t “fast-forward” and erase 156 years in a few decades.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      Portugal ruled Macao for 400 years (interestingly Macao does not seem to face any unrest, btw). The British were in India for close to 400 years as well. This is not evidence of anything and I think this is quite irrelevant here. The main issue is not the length of the British "occupation", it is the Chinese political division that has existed since the Civil War. Many in HK (like in Taiwan) fled the communists and the others moved there during "old China" times. The issue is opposition to communist forces.
- ailun 6y ago
  > I believe this would not have happened if people did not start desecrating the Chinese flag, and on top carry colonial ruler and US flags to protest against China, in their own country. I have yet to see an example in a democratic nation where population can take a flag of another country or a colonial ruler in protest against their own country, and government will seat silently. People burn American flags in US protests. It’s constitutionally protected speech. So are all those other things. If those things were illegal under Hong Kong law, the perpetrators can be prosecuted under their laws. China is once again going back on its promise to let Hong Kong have self-rule for 50 years. Your defense that other countries do it, or that the protesters did some bad things doesn’t mean much.

joemazerino 6y ago

Invalid comparison for two reasons. Hong Kong as per release in the 90s was to be given autonomy over it's own territory. Secondly, while the US certainly has it's share of skeletons they do not compare to modern day China. As I recall, the last time the US hired organized crime to beat protestors in the streets was in the early 20th century.

billfruit 6y ago
Anyways New Territories was to revert to China at the end of British Lease in 1997. Only Kowloon and HK island was British territory, but PRC views the treaties at the end of the Opium War that granted British the possession of these areas to be "unfair and unequal". So PRC will continue to argue and assert that none has locus standi on this matter except them, and that Hong Kong is Chinese territory.
- smacktoward 6y ago
  They will argue that, sure. But if their position is that any agreement they have ever signed can retroactively be declared invalid whenever it suits them, that’s bad news not just for Hong Kong but for the entire world. Signing treaties and then tearing them up when they became inconvenient was the behavior by Hitler that dragged the world into World War II.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    HK has always been part of China. It was a Chinese territory under foreign colonial rule. What we're seeing now is a domestic Chinese political issue that has developed ultimately as a result of the Chinese Civil War. It's really a masterstroke to have convinced Western opinion that this was an international issue between HK and China.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    International agreements are routinely abrogated when they no longer suit one or both parties. Every country is guilty of this. Might makes right in geopolitics. There is no international court to take a broken treaty to. Nation states pretty much always act in their self interest when they can. China thinks that it is in their self interest to do this. Someone can try to change their mind, but it probably won't be easy.

pjc50 6y ago

"State security" in this regard means political policing and the arrest of dissidents. Up til now, HK policing has been under local control. This makes it abundantly clear that HK is going to be absorbed and lose its political freedoms.

RegnisGnaw 6y ago
They were always going to, regardless. The question is timing now vs 2047.

smacktoward 6y ago

The context in Hong Kong is completely different. Hong Kong is only part of China because the CCP agreed to the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration), which specified that its existing laws and institutions would be preserved as they were under British rule until the year 2047.

jacobriis 6y ago
"Hong Kong is only part of China because the CCP agreed to the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration" It isn't true the "only" reason Hong Kong is a part of the PRC is because they agreed to that declaration. This agreement was made because PRC could unilaterally annex Hong Kong at anytime.
- billfruit 6y ago
  Also New Territories can have reverted back to China without need for any agreement with the British, since they were only on lease to British till 1997 and was not a British possession in the legal sense.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > New Territories can have reverted back to China without need for any agreement with the British But they didn’t. An agreement was reached. “I could have walked away, but didn’t” isn’t a valid reason for breaking a deal.
- smacktoward 6y ago
  Sure, if they wanted to risk a war. That was the benefit of the agreement to the CCP: it gave them everything they wanted without having to risk war to get it. The only downside was that they just had to wait 50 years for the prize to fall into their lap. What we’re seeing now is even just that extremely minor inconvenience is too much for Xi. He could get China everything he wants just by waiting. But he would rather tear up a signed treaty than wait.

Johnjonjoan 6y ago

According to chapter 1 article 5 of Hong Kong basic law, yes: "The socialist system and policies shall not be practiced in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years." (50 years from 1997)

fennecfoxen 6y ago

It's not normal, on a global level, to have agents of a totalitarian dictatorship patrolling a city which is (ostensibly) a democracy, whose citizens were been promised political freedoms, further guaranteed by international treaty obligations. It is, however, normal in the sense that it is a clear part of the trend in the China / Hong Kong situation — a trend towards ever-increasing political oppression.

anewdirection 6y ago
If only they had oil, we could do something...
- lowdose 6y ago
  We would already have done a lot of things, among plant a flag and declare "terra nillius".
- steve76 6y ago
  Developing nations, richer than you think, no longer honor purchases of equipment and most importantly dangerous labor which includes onsite fatalities. The USA hands that over without a fight. People from the USA die from poverty and business failures, and still, the USA does nothing. The last little part the USA fights over is extremely critical. Not honoring it will kill a lot of people including the most vulnerable. The USA is forced into a grim calculation where we can either kill ten thousands of our own citizens in a war or watch tens of millions die a year. This speaks nothing to the morality of the issue which should be the only guiding factor. The USA developed a lot of this not because it's nice, but because we are continually attacked and invaded by the rest of the world. Marxists continually say they will fail if they don't take over the world. The USA just wants to be left alone, something if you take an unbiased look at history we've never had ever. Today the USA faces an amoral adversary, someone who scoffs at happiness as immaturity and knows no limits at debasing themselves just to win. Two problems there: - No one is better at amorality than the USA. - Why. Why do it? Why pump a barrel of oil to burn a tank of gas driving to a place where you only complain about pumping a barrel of oil?

gwd 6y ago

Well, actually not exactly: The Constitution limits what kinds of laws federal police can enforce in NYC. But probably more importantly, NYC gets a significant say in who runs federal law enforcement. Neither of those are true about CCP and Hong Kong.

billfruit 6y ago
What say does NYC gets in who runs Federal Law Enforcement?