8 ms·

Chinese authorities detain Bloomberg News staff member

210 points by partingshots 6y ago

bassman9000 6y ago
Ms. Fan’s legitimate rights have been fully ensured Anyone knows what those are?
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  They're all enumerated in the Chinese constitution. Nothing more.
  - gjsman-1000 6y ago
    The Chinese, in practice, do not give the constitution almost any weight. For example: The constitution promises freedom of religion. It doesn't take much search to find out how patently false this is... Wikipedia: "Though technically the "supreme legal authority" and "fundamental law of the state", the ruling Communist Party of China has a documented history of violating many of the constitution's provisions and censoring calls for greater adherence to it. Furthermore, claims of violations of constitutional rights cannot be used in Chinese courts, and the National People's Congress Constitution and Law Committee, the legislative committee responsible for constitutional review, has never ruled a law or regulation unconstitutional."
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      It they don't like it, every party member has a right to stand in meetings and press for change.
      - gruez 6y ago
        nice job changing the goalposts from "[Mr Fan's rights are] all enumerated in the Chinese constitution" to "[Mr Fan doesn't have rights, but...] every party member has a right to stand in meetings and press for change."
  - outoftheabyss 6y ago
    As democracy is in N.Korea
  - Mindless2112 6y ago
    Without separation of powers, even the best constitution is worthless.
  - brobinson 6y ago
    The PRC constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, etc. (articles 35 and 36), so... uh...
  - Nginx487 6y ago
    Chinese (Russian, Venezuelan) constitution does not worth paper it has been printed on. Authoritarian regime has any tools to override any statement of constitution, and face no consequences. Rights are for party bosses, responsibilities for the people.
    - anubidiocane 6y ago
      To be fair there are examples of unconstitutional behaviour also in many democracies, that theoretically should follow higher standards than authoritarian governments. Take for example the Guantanamo bay detection camp In 2005 a judge ruled that A federal judge ruled Monday that some foreign terror suspects held in Cuba can challenge their confinement in U.S. courts and she criticized the Bush administration for holding hundreds of people indefinitely as “enemy combatants,” saying that doing so unconstitutionally violates their right to due process. But no one paid for it and Guantanamo bay is still open, bi-partisan executive orders have been issued over the years to keep the operations running. Obama promised to close it, but didn't (TBF he had the entire Congress against, but in the end he didn't keep on his promise) In January 2018 the Trump administration signed an executive order to keep Guantanamo open indefinitely. As of today there are still 40 people detained awaiting justice.
- cwwc 6y ago
  translation: none
- eloff 6y ago
  All the basic human rights and freedoms as defined in the constitution subject to the capricious whims and full discretion of the CCP. In other words: none.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Ms. Fan’s legitimate rights have been fully ensured If she was able to find a lawyer, and hire that lawyer, and it was not a CCP plant, and if the lawyer won the case, neither of them would be allowed to leave the courtroom. Then the CCP would go after the families of both her and her lawyer, and cancel any pensions and demolish their houses.
1cvmask 6y ago
National security “endangerment” is the bane of journalists/messengers all over the world ranging from Julian Assange to so many countless others. It seems they are not safe anywhere. From the article: “Chinese authorities have detained Haze Fan, a Chinese national and Bloomberg News staff member working for their Beijing bureau, on suspicion of national security endangerment, Bloomberg reported on Friday.” From Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/27/asio-act-review-told-journalists-face-jail-even-if-reporting-on-serious-wrongdoing https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/27/asio-... From the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-fi...
- umvi 6y ago
  Do you believe there is any value in a nation classifying information under different security clearances? If so, should there be any punishment for taking something classified and putting it into public domain?
  - monadic3 6y ago
    Surely this depends on the contents of the information. I refuse to carte blanche trust a government to decide secrecy when every indication is that this is used to mislead citizens. This emphatically is true for both governments in question.
  - nradov 6y ago
    In the US it is perfectly legal for journalists to distribute classified information, as long as they don't hold a security clearance themselves. I think this strikes the right balance. Note that a journalist can still be prosecuted for breaking other laws like theft, computer abuse, or conspiracy if they use illegal means to obtain the information. But that's separate from publishing the information once they have it.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      But your caveats mean that, in practice, they can come after anyone who actually came into contact with the material unless it was dead-dropped to them without their knowledge, and even then, maybe they were 'encouraging' it. See Julian Assange. What's his case hinge on again, "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion"? Any amount of working with a source would be such a conspiracy.
baybal2 6y ago
Question: Why? Answer: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-10/china-censors-viral-boast-of-influence-over-wall-street-biden https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-10/china-cen...
- AntiImperialist 6y ago
  The news story seemed to close with a counter to the argument that the Biden family are Chinese assets i.e. https://mobile.twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1336213541540384768 https://mobile.twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/133621354154038... So, her intentions were not to go against China. But then she should have been more thoughtful and opted for not reporting the story at all, like it's usually done. If only Fox news is reporting it, the news is easily ignored by liberals. If Bloomberg starts reporting it, even if ends up with a counter, it's still seen by a lot of liberals, some of whom may be able to spot what's going on. From a Chinese court point of view, her intentions were pro-China (she's working for Bloomberg afterall) but still she could be charged for negligence. Hope it's just some jail time and not a death sentence.

210 points by partingshots 6y ago

bassman9000 6y ago

Ms. Fan’s legitimate rights have been fully ensured Anyone knows what those are?

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
They're all enumerated in the Chinese constitution. Nothing more.
- gjsman-1000 6y ago
  The Chinese, in practice, do not give the constitution almost any weight. For example: The constitution promises freedom of religion. It doesn't take much search to find out how patently false this is... Wikipedia: "Though technically the "supreme legal authority" and "fundamental law of the state", the ruling Communist Party of China has a documented history of violating many of the constitution's provisions and censoring calls for greater adherence to it. Furthermore, claims of violations of constitutional rights cannot be used in Chinese courts, and the National People's Congress Constitution and Law Committee, the legislative committee responsible for constitutional review, has never ruled a law or regulation unconstitutional."
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    It they don't like it, every party member has a right to stand in meetings and press for change.
    - gruez 6y ago
      nice job changing the goalposts from "[Mr Fan's rights are] all enumerated in the Chinese constitution" to "[Mr Fan doesn't have rights, but...] every party member has a right to stand in meetings and press for change."
- outoftheabyss 6y ago
  As democracy is in N.Korea
- Mindless2112 6y ago
  Without separation of powers, even the best constitution is worthless.
- brobinson 6y ago
  The PRC constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, etc. (articles 35 and 36), so... uh...
- Nginx487 6y ago
  Chinese (Russian, Venezuelan) constitution does not worth paper it has been printed on. Authoritarian regime has any tools to override any statement of constitution, and face no consequences. Rights are for party bosses, responsibilities for the people.
  - anubidiocane 6y ago
    To be fair there are examples of unconstitutional behaviour also in many democracies, that theoretically should follow higher standards than authoritarian governments. Take for example the Guantanamo bay detection camp In 2005 a judge ruled that A federal judge ruled Monday that some foreign terror suspects held in Cuba can challenge their confinement in U.S. courts and she criticized the Bush administration for holding hundreds of people indefinitely as “enemy combatants,” saying that doing so unconstitutionally violates their right to due process. But no one paid for it and Guantanamo bay is still open, bi-partisan executive orders have been issued over the years to keep the operations running. Obama promised to close it, but didn't (TBF he had the entire Congress against, but in the end he didn't keep on his promise) In January 2018 the Trump administration signed an executive order to keep Guantanamo open indefinitely. As of today there are still 40 people detained awaiting justice.
cwwc 6y ago
translation: none
eloff 6y ago
All the basic human rights and freedoms as defined in the constitution subject to the capricious whims and full discretion of the CCP. In other words: none.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Ms. Fan’s legitimate rights have been fully ensured If she was able to find a lawyer, and hire that lawyer, and it was not a CCP plant, and if the lawyer won the case, neither of them would be allowed to leave the courtroom. Then the CCP would go after the families of both her and her lawyer, and cancel any pensions and demolish their houses.

1cvmask 6y ago

National security “endangerment” is the bane of journalists/messengers all over the world ranging from Julian Assange to so many countless others. It seems they are not safe anywhere. From the article: “Chinese authorities have detained Haze Fan, a Chinese national and Bloomberg News staff member working for their Beijing bureau, on suspicion of national security endangerment, Bloomberg reported on Friday.” From Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/27/asio-act-review-told-journalists-face-jail-even-if-reporting-on-serious-wrongdoing https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/27/asio-... From the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-fi...

umvi 6y ago
Do you believe there is any value in a nation classifying information under different security clearances? If so, should there be any punishment for taking something classified and putting it into public domain?
- monadic3 6y ago
  Surely this depends on the contents of the information. I refuse to carte blanche trust a government to decide secrecy when every indication is that this is used to mislead citizens. This emphatically is true for both governments in question.
- nradov 6y ago
  In the US it is perfectly legal for journalists to distribute classified information, as long as they don't hold a security clearance themselves. I think this strikes the right balance. Note that a journalist can still be prosecuted for breaking other laws like theft, computer abuse, or conspiracy if they use illegal means to obtain the information. But that's separate from publishing the information once they have it.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    But your caveats mean that, in practice, they can come after anyone who actually came into contact with the material unless it was dead-dropped to them without their knowledge, and even then, maybe they were 'encouraging' it. See Julian Assange. What's his case hinge on again, "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion"? Any amount of working with a source would be such a conspiracy.

baybal2 6y ago

Question: Why? Answer: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-10/china-censors-viral-boast-of-influence-over-wall-street-biden https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-10/china-cen...

AntiImperialist 6y ago
The news story seemed to close with a counter to the argument that the Biden family are Chinese assets i.e. https://mobile.twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1336213541540384768 https://mobile.twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/133621354154038... So, her intentions were not to go against China. But then she should have been more thoughtful and opted for not reporting the story at all, like it's usually done. If only Fox news is reporting it, the news is easily ignored by liberals. If Bloomberg starts reporting it, even if ends up with a counter, it's still seen by a lot of liberals, some of whom may be able to spot what's going on. From a Chinese court point of view, her intentions were pro-China (she's working for Bloomberg afterall) but still she could be charged for negligence. Hope it's just some jail time and not a death sentence.