3 ms·

You'll shit bricks when you read about the undercover Chinese police stations then... https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/04/world/china-overseas-police-stations-i

You'll shit bricks when you read about the undercover Chinese police stations then... https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/04/world/china-overseas-police-stations-intl-cmd/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/04/world/china-overseas-poli...

GauntletWizard 4y ago
There's a huge difference between the US having an international network of law enforcement co-operation (even if we do have boots on the ground doing investigative work) and the Chinese Police Stations going out and strongarming people individually. Countries are supposed to have a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Lending it out is good international relations. Not that it's never acceptable to violate that - The Takedown of Bin Laden was a law enforcement action taken overseas by the US military in a country that was not informed until after it was on it's way out.
- mLuby 4y ago
  > Lending [a country's monopoly on force] out is good international relations. No, extradition is good international relations, but there the country retains its territorial monopoly on force. > Not that it's never acceptable to violate [sovereignty]. What would be different about a scenario where Russia snuck commandos into the US to "law enforcement action" some Ukrainians? Nothing, because it's not acceptable, it's simply "might makes right." (That said, bin Laden was horrible and Ukraine is awesome.)
loeg 4y ago
I don't see how this crude remark is responsive to my comment.
- NicoJuicy 4y ago
  > US views itself as having jurisdiction. I don't see how international agreed upon rules, eg. Regarding exchange, extradition and payment is equal to claiming jurisdiction. Additionally eg. SWIFT is European and not from the US. I'm giving you an example of a country that actually acts like it has jurisdiction everywhere around the world. Setting up police stations in secret, ... As a better example of "claiming jurisdiction".
  - loeg 4y ago
    This would have been a much more responsive comment than the one you wrote first!

GauntletWizard 4y ago

There's a huge difference between the US having an international network of law enforcement co-operation (even if we do have boots on the ground doing investigative work) and the Chinese Police Stations going out and strongarming people individually. Countries are supposed to have a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Lending it out is good international relations. Not that it's never acceptable to violate that - The Takedown of Bin Laden was a law enforcement action taken overseas by the US military in a country that was not informed until after it was on it's way out.

mLuby 4y ago
> Lending [a country's monopoly on force] out is good international relations. No, extradition is good international relations, but there the country retains its territorial monopoly on force. > Not that it's never acceptable to violate [sovereignty]. What would be different about a scenario where Russia snuck commandos into the US to "law enforcement action" some Ukrainians? Nothing, because it's not acceptable, it's simply "might makes right." (That said, bin Laden was horrible and Ukraine is awesome.)

loeg 4y ago

I don't see how this crude remark is responsive to my comment.

NicoJuicy 4y ago
> US views itself as having jurisdiction. I don't see how international agreed upon rules, eg. Regarding exchange, extradition and payment is equal to claiming jurisdiction. Additionally eg. SWIFT is European and not from the US. I'm giving you an example of a country that actually acts like it has jurisdiction everywhere around the world. Setting up police stations in secret, ... As a better example of "claiming jurisdiction".
- loeg 4y ago
  This would have been a much more responsive comment than the one you wrote first!