5 ms·

>conspiracy to commit interstate harassment and unlawful conspiracy to transfer a means of identification >The meetings were conducted using a videoconferencin

by 99_00 6y ago

>conspiracy to commit interstate harassment and unlawful conspiracy to transfer a means of identification >The meetings were conducted using a videoconferencing program provided by Company-1, and were organized and hosted by U.S-based individuals, including individuals residing in the Eastern District of New York. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/china-based-executive-us-telecommunications-company-charged-disrupting-video-meetings https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/china-based-executive-us-tele...

LatteLazy 6y ago
Thanks. If the victims were in the US, that makes more sense. Though it still leaves a question mark over what happens when other countries do the same thing...
- felipelemos 6y ago
  > Though it still leaves a question mark over what happens when other countries do the same thing... This is whataboutism.
  - didntkillself 6y ago
    The version of the question I heard OP ask is: "Is this might makes right, or is there an international legal standard and international judicial body to resolve this on a consistent basis?" The way the OP asked it suggests OP thinks this may be "might makes right". But the question about international legal basis is a good one.
    - willis936 6y ago
      If this is being asked: “Do other countries have jurisdiction in China?” the answer is a flat no. You could go ahead and try. Nothing will happen.
      - didntkillself 6y ago
        The question "Do other countries have jurisdiction in X?" is "no" for all countries X. I presume you meant that as an informal straw man to represent the question as less pertinent than it is?
        willis936 6y ago
        Is it? That is not a very generous interpretation. I am restating how I see the topic. If you think I have misinterpreted it then feel free to correct.
        didntkillself 6y ago
        My opinion is that you've misinterpreted and misstated. The way you've framed it, the question does not use the word "jurisdiction" in a consistent manner with its definition or practice and does not address operative elements of the international legal system. The framing of the question also is also not on topic: the question about the legal basis of the challenge (all the way at the top of the thread) is a general one, and your framing here hyperfocuses on non-operative concepts ("juristiction") and a single country ("China"). Not only have you framed the wrong question in my opinion, but the question is rhetorical, and then you also bother to provide an answer. In summary I'd say your comment is not relevant to discussion about legal basis of the challenge. It contributes to a different topic not being discussed: "What is your personal feeling about China?" to which you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China."
        willis936 6y ago
        >you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China” How can what I said be interpreted as a “Boo China”? You could try to apply local laws in any superpower and be ignored. Just because I didn’t needlessly maximize generalization at the cost of context doesn’t mean I’m singling out countries.
        didntkillself 6y ago
- cpncrunch 6y ago
  It was more than just that: "Jin’s co-conspirators created fake email accounts and Company-1 accounts in the names of others, including PRC political dissidents, to fabricate evidence that the hosts of and participants in the meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre were supporting terrorist organizations, inciting violence or distributing child pornography."

by 99_00 6y ago

LatteLazy 6y ago

Thanks. If the victims were in the US, that makes more sense. Though it still leaves a question mark over what happens when other countries do the same thing...

felipelemos 6y ago
> Though it still leaves a question mark over what happens when other countries do the same thing... This is whataboutism.
- didntkillself 6y ago
  The version of the question I heard OP ask is: "Is this might makes right, or is there an international legal standard and international judicial body to resolve this on a consistent basis?" The way the OP asked it suggests OP thinks this may be "might makes right". But the question about international legal basis is a good one.
  - willis936 6y ago
    If this is being asked: “Do other countries have jurisdiction in China?” the answer is a flat no. You could go ahead and try. Nothing will happen.
    - didntkillself 6y ago
      The question "Do other countries have jurisdiction in X?" is "no" for all countries X. I presume you meant that as an informal straw man to represent the question as less pertinent than it is?
      - willis936 6y ago
        Is it? That is not a very generous interpretation. I am restating how I see the topic. If you think I have misinterpreted it then feel free to correct.
        didntkillself 6y ago
        My opinion is that you've misinterpreted and misstated. The way you've framed it, the question does not use the word "jurisdiction" in a consistent manner with its definition or practice and does not address operative elements of the international legal system. The framing of the question also is also not on topic: the question about the legal basis of the challenge (all the way at the top of the thread) is a general one, and your framing here hyperfocuses on non-operative concepts ("juristiction") and a single country ("China"). Not only have you framed the wrong question in my opinion, but the question is rhetorical, and then you also bother to provide an answer. In summary I'd say your comment is not relevant to discussion about legal basis of the challenge. It contributes to a different topic not being discussed: "What is your personal feeling about China?" to which you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China."
        willis936 6y ago
        >you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China” How can what I said be interpreted as a “Boo China”? You could try to apply local laws in any superpower and be ignored. Just because I didn’t needlessly maximize generalization at the cost of context doesn’t mean I’m singling out countries.
        didntkillself 6y ago
cpncrunch 6y ago
It was more than just that: "Jin’s co-conspirators created fake email accounts and Company-1 accounts in the names of others, including PRC political dissidents, to fabricate evidence that the hosts of and participants in the meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre were supporting terrorist organizations, inciting violence or distributing child pornography."