7 ms·

Bin Laden won the war on terror. They're all scared now. Even China does not monitor its own citizens like that. Soon Chinese citizens will enjoy more freedom a

Bin Laden won the war on terror. They're all scared now. Even China does not monitor its own citizens like that. Soon Chinese citizens will enjoy more freedom and privacy than western citizens.

mikegioia 14y ago
Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. You don't think China has this info?
- dragonbonheur 14y ago
  Chinese don't care what their own citizens do as long as they don't blow things up (or out of proportion). People should note that while in the Western world technology has increased the powers of the wealthy minority, in the east it's the people that have learned to harness it. The Chinese "human flesh search" is notorious for bringing corrupt officials to justice and to find lost children. In the west it's just iSheep staring blankly into their shiny iDevices and not giving a rat's ass about anything.
  - dragonbonheur 14y ago
    Some people just can't stand the truth and downvote...
    - dragonbonheur 14y ago
      Apparently writing iSheep anywhere on Hacker News is really offensive... COME ON! KILL THAT KARMA! :D
tptacek 14y ago
Sure. I mean, their local police are allowed to arrest people and send them to "Reeducation Through Labor" camps for 1-3 years without trial. But sure, the US, China, same thing.
- guelo 14y ago
  Are you saying the US does not detain people without charges for years at a time?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I'm saying that the local police in China can, on a whim, send you to a labor camp for 1-3 years, and that even after "reforms", the hearings that spring you from labor camps take longer than 1-3 years. And I'm saying that the police in the US can't. Equating civil liberties in the US with those of China make you, prima facie, a nutjob.
    - willurd 14y ago
      Please reread the NDAA 2012 (keyword: indefinite detention) and dispense with the ad hominem attacks. If you can't make your point without calling someone a nutjob, maybe you don't have a point to be made...
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Just citing the NDAA in this context is a tell that you haven't read it. The authorization to detain persons without trial doesn't come from the NDAA, it comes from the 2003 AUMF. The NDAA narrows the detention powers available to the US; the ACLU (rightly) is upset that it doesn't narrow those powers sufficiently. And, obviously, the detention powers available to the US under the AUMF/NDAA are nothing like those available to any local Chinese constabulary.
        willurd 14y ago
        I have read it, and I submit the relevant text from section 1021 below. Namely, the NDAA affirms the "authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force". A "covered person" is someone who has "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks" or who "was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." But no trial needs to be held in order to make the aforementioned conclusions: "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." So, our government can detain anybody it (who's that exactly?) deems is a "terrorist", without trial, until the end of "hostilities" (let me make a prediction: the "war on terror" isn't ending any time soon, hence "indefinite"). So, no, I am not making and will not make any comparisons between the United States and China. I am, however, backing up guelo's point that the US can legally "detain people without charges for years at a time", and very few people seem to care. SECTION 1021 Sec. 1021. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
tokenadult 14y ago
Soon Chinese citizens will enjoy more freedom and privacy than western citizens. Only if the one-party rule of Communist Party of China (CPC) ceases. Right now, under a policy introduced by that party as it consolidated power, there is not even freedom to change residence addresses in China. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-hukou-20121212,0,1248525.story http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-hukou-20121212,0... And Chinese citizens enjoying "more freedom and privacy than western citizens" is not likely even if the CPC allows free and fair elections, in the near term. But I wish the common people of China well in gaining more freedom, as their cousins in Taiwan have done over the last thirty years. 中共下台.
- dragonbonheur 14y ago
  Oddly enough I learned last week that there can be other political parties in china. It's just that the Communist Party is enormous by comparison. http://shanghaiist.com/2012/12/05/not_at_all_pointless_zhigong_party.php http://shanghaiist.com/2012/12/05/not_at_all_pointless_zhigo...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
grecy 14y ago
> Soon Chinese citizens will enjoy more freedom and privacy than western citizens. Soon Chinese citizens will enjoy more freedom and privacy than AMERICAN citizens.
- dragonbonheur 14y ago
  Didn't you read anything about how the British are imitating the Americans and installing microphones and cameras in EVERY lamp post? Google around.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    The British have been a surveillance society with cameras everywhere, but it's nothing they copied from America.

Bin Laden won the war on terror. They're all scared now. Even China does not monitor its own citizens like that. Soon Chinese citizens will enjoy more freedom and privacy than western citizens.

mikegioia 14y ago

Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. You don't think China has this info?

dragonbonheur 14y ago
Chinese don't care what their own citizens do as long as they don't blow things up (or out of proportion). People should note that while in the Western world technology has increased the powers of the wealthy minority, in the east it's the people that have learned to harness it. The Chinese "human flesh search" is notorious for bringing corrupt officials to justice and to find lost children. In the west it's just iSheep staring blankly into their shiny iDevices and not giving a rat's ass about anything.
- dragonbonheur 14y ago
  Some people just can't stand the truth and downvote...
  - dragonbonheur 14y ago
    Apparently writing iSheep anywhere on Hacker News is really offensive... COME ON! KILL THAT KARMA! :D

tptacek 14y ago

Sure. I mean, their local police are allowed to arrest people and send them to "Reeducation Through Labor" camps for 1-3 years without trial. But sure, the US, China, same thing.

guelo 14y ago
Are you saying the US does not detain people without charges for years at a time?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 14y ago
  I'm saying that the local police in China can, on a whim, send you to a labor camp for 1-3 years, and that even after "reforms", the hearings that spring you from labor camps take longer than 1-3 years. And I'm saying that the police in the US can't. Equating civil liberties in the US with those of China make you, prima facie, a nutjob.
  - willurd 14y ago
    Please reread the NDAA 2012 (keyword: indefinite detention) and dispense with the ad hominem attacks. If you can't make your point without calling someone a nutjob, maybe you don't have a point to be made...
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Just citing the NDAA in this context is a tell that you haven't read it. The authorization to detain persons without trial doesn't come from the NDAA, it comes from the 2003 AUMF. The NDAA narrows the detention powers available to the US; the ACLU (rightly) is upset that it doesn't narrow those powers sufficiently. And, obviously, the detention powers available to the US under the AUMF/NDAA are nothing like those available to any local Chinese constabulary.
      - willurd 14y ago
        I have read it, and I submit the relevant text from section 1021 below. Namely, the NDAA affirms the "authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force". A "covered person" is someone who has "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks" or who "was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." But no trial needs to be held in order to make the aforementioned conclusions: "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." So, our government can detain anybody it (who's that exactly?) deems is a "terrorist", without trial, until the end of "hostilities" (let me make a prediction: the "war on terror" isn't ending any time soon, hence "indefinite"). So, no, I am not making and will not make any comparisons between the United States and China. I am, however, backing up guelo's point that the US can legally "detain people without charges for years at a time", and very few people seem to care. SECTION 1021 Sec. 1021. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

tokenadult 14y ago

Soon Chinese citizens will enjoy more freedom and privacy than western citizens. Only if the one-party rule of Communist Party of China (CPC) ceases. Right now, under a policy introduced by that party as it consolidated power, there is not even freedom to change residence addresses in China. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-hukou-20121212,0,1248525.story http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-hukou-20121212,0... And Chinese citizens enjoying "more freedom and privacy than western citizens" is not likely even if the CPC allows free and fair elections, in the near term. But I wish the common people of China well in gaining more freedom, as their cousins in Taiwan have done over the last thirty years. 中共下台.

dragonbonheur 14y ago
Oddly enough I learned last week that there can be other political parties in china. It's just that the Communist Party is enormous by comparison. http://shanghaiist.com/2012/12/05/not_at_all_pointless_zhigong_party.php http://shanghaiist.com/2012/12/05/not_at_all_pointless_zhigo...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

grecy 14y ago

> Soon Chinese citizens will enjoy more freedom and privacy than western citizens. Soon Chinese citizens will enjoy more freedom and privacy than AMERICAN citizens.

dragonbonheur 14y ago
Didn't you read anything about how the British are imitating the Americans and installing microphones and cameras in EVERY lamp post? Google around.
- danielweber 14y ago
  The British have been a surveillance society with cameras everywhere, but it's nothing they copied from America.