4 ms·

How is supporting the military of your adversary not treason? Especially if a war does break out and those weapons are used against the US. Remember China is n

How is supporting the military of your adversary not treason? Especially if a war does break out and those weapons are used against the US. Remember China is not the ally of the US. You don’t ship fentanyl and other synthetic drugs to a country you are friends with. China actively works to disrupt the US. They only go as far as they currently think they can get away with.

singleshot_ 3y ago
It’s not treason because words have meanings. It ain’t good, but it sure ain’t treason.
- staplers 3y ago
  Similarly, was it treason to supply Afghan militias with weapons during the 80s? They were used later against US forces but wasn't something the US necessarily expected.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > It’s not treason because words have meanings There's an argument for it, which is sufficient to leave alone unless you want to argue the merits (not quibble about a specific definition).
some_random 3y ago
I largely agree with you, but fwiw treason has a specific and pretty limited definition encoded in the Constitution. My understanding is that since the US and China aren't at war it can't be treason under that definition.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> Remember China is not the ally of the US. The raft of trade deals, tourism, cultural exchange, investment and massive trade relationship would say otherwise.
ramblenode 3y ago
> How is supporting the military of your adversary not treason? For one, because treason refers to an enemy, not an adversary, and China is not legally an enemy of the US (at war). You can't just assert that China is an enemy in court without some legal basis. Note that not even the Rosenbergs were charged with treason for sharing US nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union. That's how high the bar for treason is.
philippejara 3y ago
> How is supporting the military of your adversary not treason? For a given meaning of adversary it is, for others it isn't, clearly the line in the sand at least for the US is when they are at war, arguably when a trade ban happens if we want to be a bit more relaxed with definitions. If you do disagree and believe the line in the sand encompasses china the real worry should not be a "measly" 3 billion from random VCs but the 1 trillion dollars of the US national debt china holds. > You don’t ship fentanyl and other synthetic drugs to a country you are friends with. You ship them to where people are buying them, unless you're saying it's a government operation and not a case of lax export regulations, which I'd be very surprised if it was the case, at least directly.
m2mdas2 3y ago
For fentanyl crisis you should look at your own country to stop the demand and prosecute the people who have enabled it with prescribed opioids instead sheltering them and pointing fingers to others. Today it's China tomorrow it will be India or a poor country from Africa who can make those drugs cheaply as long there is ever increasing demand. Case in point if slackers were found guilty in China (or any country of Asia) destroying millions of lives using prescription drugs he would have been shamed, his company would have been desolved and executed immediately instead of wasting years of time in court debating on the technicality of the issue in the name of giving proper justice.

singleshot_ 3y ago

It’s not treason because words have meanings. It ain’t good, but it sure ain’t treason.

staplers 3y ago
Similarly, was it treason to supply Afghan militias with weapons during the 80s? They were used later against US forces but wasn't something the US necessarily expected.
Supermancho 3y ago
> It’s not treason because words have meanings There's an argument for it, which is sufficient to leave alone unless you want to argue the merits (not quibble about a specific definition).

some_random 3y ago

I largely agree with you, but fwiw treason has a specific and pretty limited definition encoded in the Constitution. My understanding is that since the US and China aren't at war it can't be treason under that definition.

sandworm101 3y ago

>> Remember China is not the ally of the US. The raft of trade deals, tourism, cultural exchange, investment and massive trade relationship would say otherwise.

ramblenode 3y ago

> How is supporting the military of your adversary not treason? For one, because treason refers to an enemy, not an adversary, and China is not legally an enemy of the US (at war). You can't just assert that China is an enemy in court without some legal basis. Note that not even the Rosenbergs were charged with treason for sharing US nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union. That's how high the bar for treason is.

philippejara 3y ago

> How is supporting the military of your adversary not treason? For a given meaning of adversary it is, for others it isn't, clearly the line in the sand at least for the US is when they are at war, arguably when a trade ban happens if we want to be a bit more relaxed with definitions. If you do disagree and believe the line in the sand encompasses china the real worry should not be a "measly" 3 billion from random VCs but the 1 trillion dollars of the US national debt china holds. > You don’t ship fentanyl and other synthetic drugs to a country you are friends with. You ship them to where people are buying them, unless you're saying it's a government operation and not a case of lax export regulations, which I'd be very surprised if it was the case, at least directly.

m2mdas2 3y ago

For fentanyl crisis you should look at your own country to stop the demand and prosecute the people who have enabled it with prescribed opioids instead sheltering them and pointing fingers to others. Today it's China tomorrow it will be India or a poor country from Africa who can make those drugs cheaply as long there is ever increasing demand. Case in point if slackers were found guilty in China (or any country of Asia) destroying millions of lives using prescription drugs he would have been shamed, his company would have been desolved and executed immediately instead of wasting years of time in court debating on the technicality of the issue in the name of giving proper justice.