3 ms·

This is a troubling story in so many ways, I don't know what the answer to the problem is but feel something needs to change within the government when people a

This is a troubling story in so many ways, I don't know what the answer to the problem is but feel something needs to change within the government when people are subjected to what can only be described as a witch trial bordering on McCarthyism. The fact the state and his own lawyer were pressing him to take a deal is also very troubling as it echoes the plight of many impoverished young men who lost their families, careers, reputations and futures by pleading down trumped up charges laid against them. These are the stories the RWM doesn't cover as it does not fit their narrative.

qazpot 5y ago
> These are the stories the RWM doesn't cover as it does not fit their narrative. As if LWM is totally unbiased and cover stories even if they do not fit their narrative.
throwawayay02 5y ago
> These are the stories the RWM doesn't cover as it does not fit their narrative. That's just ridiculous.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ghufran_syed 5y ago
I agree with all of your points except the last - I’m guessing you dont read “RWM”? https://www.wsj.com/articles/mit-professor-gang-chen-says-misunderstanding-lay-at-root-of-u-s-case-11643224325 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mit-professor-gang-chen-says-mi...
- sigmaprimus 5y ago
  You are right. I apologize for injecting a subject that has no relevance to the conversation, sometimes I forget that doing so is not within HN guidelines. (And by right I obviously mean correct, although it is an interesting double entendre!)
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    The WSJ article is objectively better than the NYT article, too. It gives much more info about what he was actually accused of, and how the case fell apart. So instead of just apologizing for bringing it up, maybe you should work to recalibrate your views.
JackFr 5y ago
When both the state and his lawyer were pressing him to take the deal, both the state and his lawyer believed he was guilty. The charges were withdrawn, as I understand it, when the Department of Energy clarified the understanding of the grant application for the US attorney and they came to the conclusion that there was not a duty to disclose the particular affiliation. There’s no doubt that this caused professional harm to him. At the same time the US government has a reasonable interest in knowing of the foreign government affiliations of researchers it funds, and should reasonably pursue those who flout the rules. Was this prosecution flawed? It seems very much so. Was it pursued reasonably and in good faith? It’s hard to say it wasn’t, unless your outlook is to be immediately suspicious of prosecutors.
- jhugo 5y ago
  You seem to imply that he flouted the rules, but we don't know if he has any ties to China beyond the ties that anybody born there would have.
  - JackFr 5y ago
    No I don't imply that at all. The article is clear, at least seemed to be to me, that he had affiliations with Chinese organizations, he did not disclose them, and most importantly to the charges being dropped, based on Department of Energy regulations, he was under no obligation to disclose them. The US attorney brought charges based on the idea that he was obligated to disclose them. The US attorney was wrong according to the Department of Energy, who administered the grant.
mlindner 5y ago
I don't get what the issue is here. He wasn't put in jail, and he was acquitted. The system worked correctly.

qazpot 5y ago

> These are the stories the RWM doesn't cover as it does not fit their narrative. As if LWM is totally unbiased and cover stories even if they do not fit their narrative.

throwawayay02 5y ago

> These are the stories the RWM doesn't cover as it does not fit their narrative. That's just ridiculous.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ghufran_syed 5y ago

I agree with all of your points except the last - I’m guessing you dont read “RWM”? https://www.wsj.com/articles/mit-professor-gang-chen-says-misunderstanding-lay-at-root-of-u-s-case-11643224325 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mit-professor-gang-chen-says-mi...

sigmaprimus 5y ago
You are right. I apologize for injecting a subject that has no relevance to the conversation, sometimes I forget that doing so is not within HN guidelines. (And by right I obviously mean correct, although it is an interesting double entendre!)
- jaywalk 5y ago
  The WSJ article is objectively better than the NYT article, too. It gives much more info about what he was actually accused of, and how the case fell apart. So instead of just apologizing for bringing it up, maybe you should work to recalibrate your views.

JackFr 5y ago

When both the state and his lawyer were pressing him to take the deal, both the state and his lawyer believed he was guilty. The charges were withdrawn, as I understand it, when the Department of Energy clarified the understanding of the grant application for the US attorney and they came to the conclusion that there was not a duty to disclose the particular affiliation. There’s no doubt that this caused professional harm to him. At the same time the US government has a reasonable interest in knowing of the foreign government affiliations of researchers it funds, and should reasonably pursue those who flout the rules. Was this prosecution flawed? It seems very much so. Was it pursued reasonably and in good faith? It’s hard to say it wasn’t, unless your outlook is to be immediately suspicious of prosecutors.

jhugo 5y ago
You seem to imply that he flouted the rules, but we don't know if he has any ties to China beyond the ties that anybody born there would have.
- JackFr 5y ago
  No I don't imply that at all. The article is clear, at least seemed to be to me, that he had affiliations with Chinese organizations, he did not disclose them, and most importantly to the charges being dropped, based on Department of Energy regulations, he was under no obligation to disclose them. The US attorney brought charges based on the idea that he was obligated to disclose them. The US attorney was wrong according to the Department of Energy, who administered the grant.

mlindner 5y ago

I don't get what the issue is here. He wasn't put in jail, and he was acquitted. The system worked correctly.