3 ms·

What is a specific example of such a process, check, and/or balance that the united states has that china does not?

CyberDildonics 6y ago
To start, the chinese government has none at all.
t-writescode 6y ago
Theoretically, the 4th Amendment, but there's so many exceptions to it lately that it only theoretically counts, with a good lawyer.
chrisco255 6y ago
The right to bear arms. The right to free speech. States rights. Hundreds of years of common law precedence. The 4th amendment. The fact that if a piece of evidence is acquired against you in an unlawful way it cannot be used against you in court as a US citizen. The right to a jury trial, etc etc.
- l332mn 6y ago
  Individual rights are not processes of checks and balances. Those rights can be withdrawn in a jiffy, whenever required or convenient. What good does the right to bear arms do you as an individual when you're deemed a dangerous criminal, or as a group when you're deemed a terrorist organization? What good does the right to free speech do you if your speech is inconsequential? > The fact that if a piece of evidence is acquired against you in an unlawful way it cannot be used against you in court as a US citizen The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    No they can't. It's incredibly hard to amend the Constitution of the United States. That's by design. You need 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate and 3/4 of all states to ratify an amendment in order to change it. You can't be deemed "a dangerous criminal" without having actually been convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers. And even then, there's appeals, pardons, etc. > What good does the right to free speech do you if your speech is inconsequential? Speech is never inconsequential. Even a one on one conversation can have a profound impact on another person. It's up to you to get your ideas out there and to compete in a diverse marketplace of ideas. That's the way it works. > The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them. Not generally, no. But sure, there are corrupt people in Government, no doubt. And that corruption has even been levied against a duly elected president of the United States (Trump vs the Obama FBI/CIA spygate). The existence of imperfection in the system is not proof of the system's uselessness.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >You can't be deemed "a dangerous criminal" without having actually been convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers. And even then, there's appeals, pardons, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        "On August 31, 2006, al-Awlaki was arrested with four others on charges of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom, and participating in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a U.S. military attaché.[50][80] He was imprisoned in 2006 and 2007.[56] He was interviewed around September 2007 by two FBI agents with regard to the 9/11 attacks and other subjects. John Negroponte, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, told Yemeni officials he did not object to al-Awlaki's detention." "n December 2008, al-Awlaki sent a communique to the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab, congratulating them." "In March 2010, a tape featuring al-Awlaki was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the United States to attack their country of residence." Look I'm no fan of drone strikes in general, but if you leave the United States to go join a terrorist organization and incite violence against the U.S. and other innocent people in other countries like Somalia..you clearly have lost Constitutional protection. We don't give trials for foreign terrorists or armies, that's a given.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >Look I'm no fan of drone strikes in general, but if you leave the United States to go join a terrorist organization and incite violence against the U.S. and other innocent people in other countries like Somalia..you clearly have lost Constitutional protection. We don't give trials for foreign terrorists or armies, that's a given. So if I accuse you of a bad enough crime due process doesn't matter? Seems like a pretty easy loophole to exploit. And even if you can justify stripping al-Awlaki of his rights, it's pretty hard to justify killing his US citizen 16 year old son.
        chrisco255 6y ago

To start, the chinese government has none at all.

Theoretically, the 4th Amendment, but there's so many exceptions to it lately that it only theoretically counts, with a good lawyer.

chrisco255 6y ago

The right to bear arms. The right to free speech. States rights. Hundreds of years of common law precedence. The 4th amendment. The fact that if a piece of evidence is acquired against you in an unlawful way it cannot be used against you in court as a US citizen. The right to a jury trial, etc etc.

l332mn 6y ago
Individual rights are not processes of checks and balances. Those rights can be withdrawn in a jiffy, whenever required or convenient. What good does the right to bear arms do you as an individual when you're deemed a dangerous criminal, or as a group when you're deemed a terrorist organization? What good does the right to free speech do you if your speech is inconsequential? > The fact that if a piece of evidence is acquired against you in an unlawful way it cannot be used against you in court as a US citizen The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  No they can't. It's incredibly hard to amend the Constitution of the United States. That's by design. You need 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate and 3/4 of all states to ratify an amendment in order to change it. You can't be deemed "a dangerous criminal" without having actually been convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers. And even then, there's appeals, pardons, etc. > What good does the right to free speech do you if your speech is inconsequential? Speech is never inconsequential. Even a one on one conversation can have a profound impact on another person. It's up to you to get your ideas out there and to compete in a diverse marketplace of ideas. That's the way it works. > The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them. Not generally, no. But sure, there are corrupt people in Government, no doubt. And that corruption has even been levied against a duly elected president of the United States (Trump vs the Obama FBI/CIA spygate). The existence of imperfection in the system is not proof of the system's uselessness.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >You can't be deemed "a dangerous criminal" without having actually been convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers. And even then, there's appeals, pardons, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      "On August 31, 2006, al-Awlaki was arrested with four others on charges of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom, and participating in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a U.S. military attaché.[50][80] He was imprisoned in 2006 and 2007.[56] He was interviewed around September 2007 by two FBI agents with regard to the 9/11 attacks and other subjects. John Negroponte, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, told Yemeni officials he did not object to al-Awlaki's detention." "n December 2008, al-Awlaki sent a communique to the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab, congratulating them." "In March 2010, a tape featuring al-Awlaki was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the United States to attack their country of residence." Look I'm no fan of drone strikes in general, but if you leave the United States to go join a terrorist organization and incite violence against the U.S. and other innocent people in other countries like Somalia..you clearly have lost Constitutional protection. We don't give trials for foreign terrorists or armies, that's a given.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >Look I'm no fan of drone strikes in general, but if you leave the United States to go join a terrorist organization and incite violence against the U.S. and other innocent people in other countries like Somalia..you clearly have lost Constitutional protection. We don't give trials for foreign terrorists or armies, that's a given. So if I accuse you of a bad enough crime due process doesn't matter? Seems like a pretty easy loophole to exploit. And even if you can justify stripping al-Awlaki of his rights, it's pretty hard to justify killing his US citizen 16 year old son.
        chrisco255 6y ago