5 ms·

To be fair, the same thing used to happen to suspected communists in the U.S., not so long ago. We still do it today, to youths in the Middle East. No trial,

To be fair, the same thing used to happen to suspected communists in the U.S., not so long ago. We still do it today, to youths in the Middle East. No trial, no warning - they just vanish, (and if they're lucky, show up in Guantanamo Bay a year later). Refusing to admit mistakes, assuming that power is right, paying lip service to high-sounding ideals while indiscriminately abrogating freedoms - in this, as in so many other aspects of pride and capitalism, China has learned well from us. Of course, they have much work to do in strengthening their social institution. But to stand aghast and sling mud at the audacious oppressors across the Pacific - it's a bit rich.

sielskr 17y ago
the same thing used to happen to suspected communists in the U.S. Name one suspected communist, please, who was detained by an authority in the U.S, who was denied a public hearing before a magistrate to challenge the legitimacy of the grounds for the detention or was denied a procedural right customary under English common law, such as the right to a trial by jury.
- chaostheory 17y ago
  I can't name a Commi but I can name someone from today who was illegally detained by our country: Mohammed Jawad I'm sure others can name more people (US citizens too) for whom our country has forgotten about Habeus Corpus
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    Yes, Bushies screwed with Habeus Corpus more than earlier efforts. However, earlier efforts like the Palmer raids arguably involved more political repression with recent illegal detentions being more like anti-crime photo-ops. Vicious, cruel and arbitrary anti-crime photo-ops that ruined peoples and even destroyed people's minds. But still, nearly devoid of political content, except perhaps to reinforce a certain racism. So, let's be accurate about this guys...
  - strlen 17y ago
    Communists did not disappear inside the United States. They were treated unfairly (fired from jobs, ostracized) but legally, they had the same rights to habeas corpus. At the height of McCarthy hearing, ostracism and loss of a career was the worst that could happen to a communist. However, this is the same treatment that was accorded (just previously) to the Nazi sympathizers in the US. In fact, HUAC was created to go after Nazi sympathizers. Of course communism had the appeal of being a non-racist ideology, so a lot more innocent (but extreme naive) people got tangled up when HUAC went after the communists. That being said, they're both totalitarian ideologies: I wouldn't want either Nazis or Communists holding public office in the United States, nor do I have any issues with private employers firing either (at least in employment-at-will states). At that time China was going through Great Leap Forward (mass artificial starvation, with millions dying) and (in the 60s/70s, after HUAC has died down) cultural revolution. Again, a very blood period. As for illegal detention, I am pretty squarely against it: either these people should be held as POWs or be tried as criminal defendants. Yet illegal detention that happens on the battlefield is much different from illegal detention of a political activist working within the system. If you want to compare apples to apples, I'd look at China's treatment of US prisoners during the Korean war or their treatment of their own Islamic extremists in Xianjing province (yes-- there are real Islamic extremists targeting civilians in China and no, they're not "freedom fighters"). That being said, it's a silly comparison to do irrespective: provided US was as flagrant about human rights as China, that doesn't justify China treating their citizens in the same fashion. Nor does China treating their citizens horribly justify human rights violations by the US. The original article did not claim anything along those lines. Arguing that "two wrongs make a right" is logically fallacious and morally bankrupt.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      > Yet illegal detention that happens on the battlefield is much different from illegal detention of a political activist working within the system. That's only a matter of degree if you declare the battlefield to be whatever suits you.
      - strlen 17y ago
        Perhaps "outside of your civil jurisdiction, involving people who aren't your country's citizens" is a better way to put it (the only, so far, exception to this seems to be Jose Padilla-- yet even then he didn't "disappear"). However, that's odd for me to have this sort of argument, I am against extra-judicial detention. Either someone is a PoW (if they're a member of an army that follows the rules of war) or they're a criminal.
- embeddedradical 17y ago
  I don't know about communists, but I do know of some Anarchists, and this article I found that talks about it mentions "a large number of [people]." There were perhaps communists with them, it gives that impression; I'd be surprised if they were all anarchists. Palmer and his assistant, John Edgar Hoover, found no evidence of a proposed revolution but large number of these suspects were held without trial for a long time. The vast majority were eventually released but Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Mollie Steimer, and 245 other people, were deported to Russia. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcommunist.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcommunist.htm Like someone in another comment mentioned, there's the modern day issues (Guantanamo), but I don't think it should matter much which country it happens in - the point is, our government isn't a white knight either. In the declaration of independence the words read that all men have such unalienable rights by God (not because of where they are born), and so it is hypocritical for the same political justification and claim of truth to alienate these rights when it is elsewhere. That said, I am arguing for things that I don't think matter - I do this for clarity. I guess there's also no reason to go into why it doesn't matter here.
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    In the early-mid Twentieth Century, The US detained people on various pretexts. It was bending the rule of law whereas China is breaking it entirely. I won't say one is worse than the other BUT it is worth keeping the distinction in mind. These states might each do bad things but we should be exact when speaking about what they do.
    - cglee 17y ago
      Being exact is precisely what we can't do, because no one knows exactly what's happening in the Chinese government. So we speculate and assume the worst.
- pingswept 17y ago
  The point is well made by the case of Maher Arar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar Arar was not suspected of communism, but it's a fine example of the US disappearing someone just like China has done to Xu Zhiyong. To be clear, I think the US is miles (km) ahead of China in regard to human rights. But, both countries need to do better, and as a US citizen, I think I bear more responsibility for the crimes committed by my government than for those committed by China.

sielskr 17y ago

the same thing used to happen to suspected communists in the U.S. Name one suspected communist, please, who was detained by an authority in the U.S, who was denied a public hearing before a magistrate to challenge the legitimacy of the grounds for the detention or was denied a procedural right customary under English common law, such as the right to a trial by jury.

chaostheory 17y ago
I can't name a Commi but I can name someone from today who was illegally detained by our country: Mohammed Jawad I'm sure others can name more people (US citizens too) for whom our country has forgotten about Habeus Corpus
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  Yes, Bushies screwed with Habeus Corpus more than earlier efforts. However, earlier efforts like the Palmer raids arguably involved more political repression with recent illegal detentions being more like anti-crime photo-ops. Vicious, cruel and arbitrary anti-crime photo-ops that ruined peoples and even destroyed people's minds. But still, nearly devoid of political content, except perhaps to reinforce a certain racism. So, let's be accurate about this guys...
- strlen 17y ago
  Communists did not disappear inside the United States. They were treated unfairly (fired from jobs, ostracized) but legally, they had the same rights to habeas corpus. At the height of McCarthy hearing, ostracism and loss of a career was the worst that could happen to a communist. However, this is the same treatment that was accorded (just previously) to the Nazi sympathizers in the US. In fact, HUAC was created to go after Nazi sympathizers. Of course communism had the appeal of being a non-racist ideology, so a lot more innocent (but extreme naive) people got tangled up when HUAC went after the communists. That being said, they're both totalitarian ideologies: I wouldn't want either Nazis or Communists holding public office in the United States, nor do I have any issues with private employers firing either (at least in employment-at-will states). At that time China was going through Great Leap Forward (mass artificial starvation, with millions dying) and (in the 60s/70s, after HUAC has died down) cultural revolution. Again, a very blood period. As for illegal detention, I am pretty squarely against it: either these people should be held as POWs or be tried as criminal defendants. Yet illegal detention that happens on the battlefield is much different from illegal detention of a political activist working within the system. If you want to compare apples to apples, I'd look at China's treatment of US prisoners during the Korean war or their treatment of their own Islamic extremists in Xianjing province (yes-- there are real Islamic extremists targeting civilians in China and no, they're not "freedom fighters"). That being said, it's a silly comparison to do irrespective: provided US was as flagrant about human rights as China, that doesn't justify China treating their citizens in the same fashion. Nor does China treating their citizens horribly justify human rights violations by the US. The original article did not claim anything along those lines. Arguing that "two wrongs make a right" is logically fallacious and morally bankrupt.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    > Yet illegal detention that happens on the battlefield is much different from illegal detention of a political activist working within the system. That's only a matter of degree if you declare the battlefield to be whatever suits you.
    - strlen 17y ago
      Perhaps "outside of your civil jurisdiction, involving people who aren't your country's citizens" is a better way to put it (the only, so far, exception to this seems to be Jose Padilla-- yet even then he didn't "disappear"). However, that's odd for me to have this sort of argument, I am against extra-judicial detention. Either someone is a PoW (if they're a member of an army that follows the rules of war) or they're a criminal.
embeddedradical 17y ago
I don't know about communists, but I do know of some Anarchists, and this article I found that talks about it mentions "a large number of [people]." There were perhaps communists with them, it gives that impression; I'd be surprised if they were all anarchists. Palmer and his assistant, John Edgar Hoover, found no evidence of a proposed revolution but large number of these suspects were held without trial for a long time. The vast majority were eventually released but Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Mollie Steimer, and 245 other people, were deported to Russia. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcommunist.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcommunist.htm Like someone in another comment mentioned, there's the modern day issues (Guantanamo), but I don't think it should matter much which country it happens in - the point is, our government isn't a white knight either. In the declaration of independence the words read that all men have such unalienable rights by God (not because of where they are born), and so it is hypocritical for the same political justification and claim of truth to alienate these rights when it is elsewhere. That said, I am arguing for things that I don't think matter - I do this for clarity. I guess there's also no reason to go into why it doesn't matter here.
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  In the early-mid Twentieth Century, The US detained people on various pretexts. It was bending the rule of law whereas China is breaking it entirely. I won't say one is worse than the other BUT it is worth keeping the distinction in mind. These states might each do bad things but we should be exact when speaking about what they do.
  - cglee 17y ago
    Being exact is precisely what we can't do, because no one knows exactly what's happening in the Chinese government. So we speculate and assume the worst.
pingswept 17y ago
The point is well made by the case of Maher Arar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar Arar was not suspected of communism, but it's a fine example of the US disappearing someone just like China has done to Xu Zhiyong. To be clear, I think the US is miles (km) ahead of China in regard to human rights. But, both countries need to do better, and as a US citizen, I think I bear more responsibility for the crimes committed by my government than for those committed by China.