5 ms·

It is stated in the piece, but not emphasized enough: the charges were dropped on the basis of legal technicality regarding mandatory disclosure, not because he

It is stated in the piece, but not emphasized enough: the charges were dropped on the basis of legal technicality regarding mandatory disclosure, not because he wasn't actually hiding associations with known state or state-affiliated actors in mainland China. He was. Expect mandatory disclosure laws to change as a result of this case. Based on his PRC affiliations supported by mountains of evidence in the criminal complaint, I will also not be surprised if espionage specific charges are filed in the future. A naturalized US citizen doing research with federal funding, especially from DoD and DARPA, has no business participating in conversations with PRC officials while using "we" and "our" to refer to China and its ambitions in the technology sectors for which they have received federal funding. The complete obfuscation of the facts by NYT is farcical. https://www.wwlp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2021/01/Chen-Gang-criminal-complaint.pdf https://www.wwlp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2021/01/Che...

helen___keller 5y ago
> the charges were dropped on the basis of legal technicality Charges can only exist on the basis of legal technicality. That’s how law works. What you are describing is guilt by association with China. It is not illegal to work to promote scientific collaboration with China. It is not illegal to participate in advancing Chinese scientific interests. Some people might consider these things immoral. Some people might not. Clearly the prosecutor felt as you do, that because Dr Chen’s work involved advancing Chinese scientific interests, he must be some kind of spy or traitor. If you remove the preconception of guilt by association with China, you might realize it’s possible to want to do science, even science funded by a foreign country and advancing that countries interests, and not automatically be some kind of traitor or spy.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  >Charges can only exist on the basis of legal technicality. That’s how law works. Don't be coy, you know exactly what I mean. If you get away with, for example, sexual crimes like Cosby due to legal technicalities, it doesn't mean you aren't guilty or weren't malicious. The NYT piece tries to pretend that Chen was not doing anything at all worth scrutinizing. He clearly was, just in a way different than the initial charges cover - mandatory disclosure. >What you are describing is guilt by association with China No, what I'm describing is secretive collaboration with an adversarial government on research funded by the US federal government for the express purpose of advancing the interests of that adversarial government, which is exactly what happened. Read the quotes from his communications in the criminal complaint. Like I said, time will tell if further charges are brought.
  - helen___keller 5y ago
    I’ve skimmed the original filing including the quote from his emails on bullet 19. It’s clear Dr. Chen does not consider China to be an adversarial government. Believe it or not, many idealistic people believe in a collaborative future, and unless Dr Chen’s work is classified or military in nature I don’t see a reason to assume anything but the best. Similarly, he may have committed a crime like espionage but I don’t see any reason to assume this is true unless the government can bring forth evidence supporting that. Such evidence has not materialized yet. If I study forestry and collaborate with the Canadian government, am I betraying the United States by helping a competing economic power get ahead in forestry? Ultimately, these sort of arguments always rely on moral absolutionism that China is Bad Always. Not everyone agrees with this.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      >It’s clear Dr. Chen does not consider China to be an adversarial government Then he shouldn't be doing research funded by DoD and DARPA, and certainly shouldn't be sharing it with the CCP. You've literally made my point for me. >Dr Chen’s work is classified or military DoD and DARPA research are military in nature by definition. Most DoE research, along with the former two, are ITAR restricted as well. >If I study forestry and collaborate with the Canadian government, am I betraying the United States by helping a competing economic power get ahead in forestry? Massive false equivalence between China and Canada. China is not merely a "competing economic power". It is not up to Chen to decide who is an approved cooperative partner based on his personal feelings. >Not everyone agrees with this. You can disagree with an objective fact all you want, it doesn't make it any less of an objective fact. The CCP is evil and malicious.
      - helen___keller 5y ago
        You obviously know government agencies better than I do, and I’m not trying to defend the CCP so I won’t claim they aren’t evil or malicious. My point is just that in this situation, the point of the law is to disambiguate where your personal liberties as someone who might feel positive towards China end, and your collective responsibility towards your country begin. Feeling friendly to China isn’t illegal or immoral. Helping China in a way that your government forbids, be it for national security or otherwise, is illegal and probably immoral. If Chen did not break the law, then he did not betray the moral guidelines outlined through law. Unless you want to claim that the spirit of the law was that he should disclose more than legally required to disclose. Claiming anything more than this just sounds like virtue signaling.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  > What you are describing is guilt by association with China. It is not illegal to work to promote scientific collaboration with China Perhaps it should be.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
The FBI did not present any evidence that Gang Chen had anything other than normal scientific collaborations in China, of the type that are not only common, but actually actively encouraged by scientific organizations around the world. The goal of the FBI (and the goal that you appear to be advocating here and later in this thread) is to criminalize normal, open scientific exchange between American and Chinese scientists. They hoped that by going after one of the most high-profile ethnically Chinese scientists in the US, they could make an example that would scare everyone else away from normal scientific collaboration with Chinese scientists. > A naturalized US citizen doing research with federal funding, especially from DoD and DARPA, has no business participating in conversations with PRC officials while using "we" and "our" to refer to China and its ambitions First of all, anyone can express themselves however they want, and even if we believe what the FBI wrote in the complaint, there's no evidence of espionage or other wrongdoing here. Second of all, it came out that the FBI had truncated and fundamentally misrepresented this email. This email contains Prof. Chen's notes on a talk he saw by a Chinese scientist. The "we" and "our" in the email are part of Prof. Chen's paraphrase of what the Chinese scientist said. The US already went through one paranoid period in the 1950s in which it targeted scientists based on their ethnicity and perceived political views. One of the people the US government went after was the co-founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Qian Xuesen. They stripped him of his security clearance, which effectively ended his scientific career in the US. When he tried to leave the US, they arrested him and held him for years. When he was released, he went to the People's Republic of China and founded their rocketry program. The US' persecution of Qian Xuesen was not only immoral, but stupid. Not much has been learned in the last 70 years, it seems.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  >open scientific exchange between American and Chinese scientists There is no such thing. The disparity in open, original research output of US vs China is massive, and virtually all research done "in collaboration" with Chinese scientists is for malicious purposes of the CCP. I 100% have no problem plainly stating that US (or any really) researchers should not collaborate with Chinese researchers that have familial, geographic, financial, or political ties to mainland China. The CCP's tactics for espionage and IP theft are too pervasive and far reaching to risk it. Chinese researchers should not be allowed to participate in scientific research in foreign host countries if they intend to ever return to mainland China for any reason. People have no problem conceptualizing why it would have been a bad idea to have Nazi scientists, even before WWII broke out, collaborating on military endeavors elsewhere, but it's all of the sudden some insane logical and ethical leap to state the same thing about a nation whose government is just as evil. There are plenty of good natured and good intentioned Chinese scientists with genuine desires to pursue scientific inquiry for science's sake in positions where their family is held in China with a gun to their head, forcing the scientist abroad to make dubious ethical decisions any one of us would make for the sake of our family. It sucks, but it's reality. The extent the CCP will go to in order to lie, cheat, steal, genocide, and con their way to the top is limitless. They have no problem threatening and harming their own citizens. >First of all, anyone can express themselves however they want, and even if we believe what the FBI wrote in the complaint, there's no evidence of espionage or other wrongdoing here. No, you literally can't when working with DoD or DARPA funding. We'll see regarding wrongdoing different from violating mandatory disclosure laws. >Second of all, it came out that the FBI had truncated and fundamentally misrepresented this email. This email contains Prof. Chen's notes on a talk he saw by a Chinese scientist. The "we" and "our" in the email are part of Prof. Chen's paraphrase of what the Chinese scientist said. Did you just make this up? I'd love to see the complete logs if they're available. >Qian Xuesen It is highly likely this was his plan all along. He explicitly stated in a deposition his allegiance was to communist China and that he would not alter this based on pressure from the US if armed conflict broke out between the two nations. He also repeatedly stated in various ways to various people that his loyalties were to his homeland.

helen___keller 5y ago

> the charges were dropped on the basis of legal technicality Charges can only exist on the basis of legal technicality. That’s how law works. What you are describing is guilt by association with China. It is not illegal to work to promote scientific collaboration with China. It is not illegal to participate in advancing Chinese scientific interests. Some people might consider these things immoral. Some people might not. Clearly the prosecutor felt as you do, that because Dr Chen’s work involved advancing Chinese scientific interests, he must be some kind of spy or traitor. If you remove the preconception of guilt by association with China, you might realize it’s possible to want to do science, even science funded by a foreign country and advancing that countries interests, and not automatically be some kind of traitor or spy.

defaultprimate 5y ago
>Charges can only exist on the basis of legal technicality. That’s how law works. Don't be coy, you know exactly what I mean. If you get away with, for example, sexual crimes like Cosby due to legal technicalities, it doesn't mean you aren't guilty or weren't malicious. The NYT piece tries to pretend that Chen was not doing anything at all worth scrutinizing. He clearly was, just in a way different than the initial charges cover - mandatory disclosure. >What you are describing is guilt by association with China No, what I'm describing is secretive collaboration with an adversarial government on research funded by the US federal government for the express purpose of advancing the interests of that adversarial government, which is exactly what happened. Read the quotes from his communications in the criminal complaint. Like I said, time will tell if further charges are brought.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  I’ve skimmed the original filing including the quote from his emails on bullet 19. It’s clear Dr. Chen does not consider China to be an adversarial government. Believe it or not, many idealistic people believe in a collaborative future, and unless Dr Chen’s work is classified or military in nature I don’t see a reason to assume anything but the best. Similarly, he may have committed a crime like espionage but I don’t see any reason to assume this is true unless the government can bring forth evidence supporting that. Such evidence has not materialized yet. If I study forestry and collaborate with the Canadian government, am I betraying the United States by helping a competing economic power get ahead in forestry? Ultimately, these sort of arguments always rely on moral absolutionism that China is Bad Always. Not everyone agrees with this.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    >It’s clear Dr. Chen does not consider China to be an adversarial government Then he shouldn't be doing research funded by DoD and DARPA, and certainly shouldn't be sharing it with the CCP. You've literally made my point for me. >Dr Chen’s work is classified or military DoD and DARPA research are military in nature by definition. Most DoE research, along with the former two, are ITAR restricted as well. >If I study forestry and collaborate with the Canadian government, am I betraying the United States by helping a competing economic power get ahead in forestry? Massive false equivalence between China and Canada. China is not merely a "competing economic power". It is not up to Chen to decide who is an approved cooperative partner based on his personal feelings. >Not everyone agrees with this. You can disagree with an objective fact all you want, it doesn't make it any less of an objective fact. The CCP is evil and malicious.
    - helen___keller 5y ago
      You obviously know government agencies better than I do, and I’m not trying to defend the CCP so I won’t claim they aren’t evil or malicious. My point is just that in this situation, the point of the law is to disambiguate where your personal liberties as someone who might feel positive towards China end, and your collective responsibility towards your country begin. Feeling friendly to China isn’t illegal or immoral. Helping China in a way that your government forbids, be it for national security or otherwise, is illegal and probably immoral. If Chen did not break the law, then he did not betray the moral guidelines outlined through law. Unless you want to claim that the spirit of the law was that he should disclose more than legally required to disclose. Claiming anything more than this just sounds like virtue signaling.
captainredbeard 5y ago
> What you are describing is guilt by association with China. It is not illegal to work to promote scientific collaboration with China Perhaps it should be.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

The FBI did not present any evidence that Gang Chen had anything other than normal scientific collaborations in China, of the type that are not only common, but actually actively encouraged by scientific organizations around the world. The goal of the FBI (and the goal that you appear to be advocating here and later in this thread) is to criminalize normal, open scientific exchange between American and Chinese scientists. They hoped that by going after one of the most high-profile ethnically Chinese scientists in the US, they could make an example that would scare everyone else away from normal scientific collaboration with Chinese scientists. > A naturalized US citizen doing research with federal funding, especially from DoD and DARPA, has no business participating in conversations with PRC officials while using "we" and "our" to refer to China and its ambitions First of all, anyone can express themselves however they want, and even if we believe what the FBI wrote in the complaint, there's no evidence of espionage or other wrongdoing here. Second of all, it came out that the FBI had truncated and fundamentally misrepresented this email. This email contains Prof. Chen's notes on a talk he saw by a Chinese scientist. The "we" and "our" in the email are part of Prof. Chen's paraphrase of what the Chinese scientist said. The US already went through one paranoid period in the 1950s in which it targeted scientists based on their ethnicity and perceived political views. One of the people the US government went after was the co-founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Qian Xuesen. They stripped him of his security clearance, which effectively ended his scientific career in the US. When he tried to leave the US, they arrested him and held him for years. When he was released, he went to the People's Republic of China and founded their rocketry program. The US' persecution of Qian Xuesen was not only immoral, but stupid. Not much has been learned in the last 70 years, it seems.

defaultprimate 5y ago
>open scientific exchange between American and Chinese scientists There is no such thing. The disparity in open, original research output of US vs China is massive, and virtually all research done "in collaboration" with Chinese scientists is for malicious purposes of the CCP. I 100% have no problem plainly stating that US (or any really) researchers should not collaborate with Chinese researchers that have familial, geographic, financial, or political ties to mainland China. The CCP's tactics for espionage and IP theft are too pervasive and far reaching to risk it. Chinese researchers should not be allowed to participate in scientific research in foreign host countries if they intend to ever return to mainland China for any reason. People have no problem conceptualizing why it would have been a bad idea to have Nazi scientists, even before WWII broke out, collaborating on military endeavors elsewhere, but it's all of the sudden some insane logical and ethical leap to state the same thing about a nation whose government is just as evil. There are plenty of good natured and good intentioned Chinese scientists with genuine desires to pursue scientific inquiry for science's sake in positions where their family is held in China with a gun to their head, forcing the scientist abroad to make dubious ethical decisions any one of us would make for the sake of our family. It sucks, but it's reality. The extent the CCP will go to in order to lie, cheat, steal, genocide, and con their way to the top is limitless. They have no problem threatening and harming their own citizens. >First of all, anyone can express themselves however they want, and even if we believe what the FBI wrote in the complaint, there's no evidence of espionage or other wrongdoing here. No, you literally can't when working with DoD or DARPA funding. We'll see regarding wrongdoing different from violating mandatory disclosure laws. >Second of all, it came out that the FBI had truncated and fundamentally misrepresented this email. This email contains Prof. Chen's notes on a talk he saw by a Chinese scientist. The "we" and "our" in the email are part of Prof. Chen's paraphrase of what the Chinese scientist said. Did you just make this up? I'd love to see the complete logs if they're available. >Qian Xuesen It is highly likely this was his plan all along. He explicitly stated in a deposition his allegiance was to communist China and that he would not alter this based on pressure from the US if armed conflict broke out between the two nations. He also repeatedly stated in various ways to various people that his loyalties were to his homeland.