6 ms·

I feel for Mrs. Chen, I really do. The U.S Government should not have moved forward without solid evidence. However, after reading the article, several of her a

I feel for Mrs. Chen, I really do. The U.S Government should not have moved forward without solid evidence. However, after reading the article, several of her actions did and should have throw up some red flags. Flags which should have been (and were) investigated. The way this article is presented (and the way a few commenters are responding to it), it's almost as if they had zero cause to investigate her. They most certainly had cause to check her out. Plenty of the things she did was suspicious. She has linked to mid-level government officials in China (they didn't know the nature of the relationship at the time, how could they), she traveled to China once a year, and she was asking for sensitive information which required passwords that she didn't have. It's easy to look back now where you have all the information. But put yourself in a position where you have been compromised by Chinese spies numerous times before, know there are Chinese spies operating as you speak, and you have some pretty alarming evidence/connections which are throwing up red flags. It's not like they just scooped her off the street and accused her of being a spy... Again, it's a shame what happened to her. I hope she's compensated well for the hell she's been through. But I feel there was enough evidence to justify further looking into her actions. Chinese spies have taken a page from the Russian playbook where they will be model citizens for decades (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/02/AR2008040203952.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04...) before taking action. They also busted a large Chinese spy ring just recently. (Source: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-f-b-i-cracked-a-chinese-spy-ring http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-f-b-i-cracke...)

nl 11y ago
Just how sensitive was the information she shared? To me it sounds mostly like the kind of information that should be made publicly available.
- mahranch 11y ago
  I think that's missing the point. Even if the information appears benign, it's still government trade secrets. Countries like China aren't singularly focused on stealing super top secret blueprints for the U.S's latest weapons technology (though I'm sure they'd jump at the chance), much of their spying is on the more mundane stuff. Like public works projects and infrastructure related information. That kind of information isn't nearly as interesting so it's not publicized as much.
  - nl 11y ago
    Even if the information appears benign, it's still government trade secrets. I understand that. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be.
    - mahranch 11y ago
      But you're arguing from a position of ignorance. We don't know how important the information is. There may be completely valid reasons those things are top secret. You cannot know why because you're not privy to that information and neither am I. More than that, you're not responsible for a nation's security so you don't know what kind of threats and challenges a country faces (not just the U.S). There could be perfectly valid and justifiable reasons for wanting to keep something that might "appear" mundane, a secret.
      - nl 11y ago
        But you're arguing from a position of ignorance. We don't know how important the information is. Err.. My post asked "Just how sensitive was the information she shared?" I was hoping someone would have some details of what the information was. I'd note that there are no claims it was classified let alone top secret, just that some fields weren't publicly available. There appears to be no claim she shared those non-public fields. The details of funding sounds precicly the kind of information that should be public - and probably is - somewhere.
EliRivers 11y ago
I guarantee you, I can find in your behaviour reason to investigate you. I can find isolated facts that, when linked together, suggest that you are spying for someone or that you're an insurgent against your government or that you're planning a crime or something, doesn't matter what, I'll pick something to accuse you of when I get round to filling in the charge sheet. If we look for spies, we find spies. If we look for child abusers, we find child abusers. If we look for terrorists, we find terrorists (sometimes we have to create them ourselves first and then arrest them). In theory, there are checks and balances and procedures and, to be honest, sensible adults in the system to ensure that we aren't just joining up disparate facts about people into bullshit conspiracies. However, the system is not working properly and these are the victims. Also, going to China, where you have family, is suspicous now? On a tangential note, I'm (amongst other things) a naval officer; I've been to China and North Korea on holiday, more than once, and my unit security officer's reaction was to say "Wow, brilliant!", because he's an adult.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  I always assumed that anybody going to NK would be banned from having anything to do with sensitive things (in the US) ever again. Not that it makes any sense, but the US government is insanely paranoid (they may have to be, but from the outside it looks to be too much).
  - EliRivers 11y ago
    On an even more tangential note, I had to read a list of security notes and had to say I understood them. I did not understand them. Ultimately, he had to explain the notion of "honey trap" to me with hand puppets; the breakthrough came when he explained that there were people who, upon trapping some gorgeous local and bringing her back to the hotel room for the night, wouldn't tell everyone they knew as quickly as possible.
- mahranch 11y ago
  > Also, going to China, where you have family, is suspicous now? Did you read the article? She went to China and met with a senior Chinese official. She then came back to the U.S and immediately started asking about sensitive and protected information. So yeah, I would say that's pretty darn suspicious.
adekok 11y ago
> I feel for Mrs. Chen, I really do. The U.S Government should not have moved forward without solid evidence. Reasonable, but it's followed by a caveat which misses the key point: > However, after reading the article, several of her actions did and should have throw up some red flags. Flags which should have been (and were) investigated. No one, including her, is claiming to be hurt by an investigation. Government workers are investigate all of the time. People with secret clearance have to have their lives investigated before the clearance is granted. The bone of contention here is the prosecution. A competent investigation would result in a report of "No evidence of any malfeasance. Much evidence of her following proper channels". At that point, she might not even know that the investigation had taken place. Someone who truly felt for her would feel for her real pain. The pain of being falsely prosecuted. And not spend most of the comment talking about "An investigation is reasonable". I find this attitude deeply disturbing. This woman was abused by an incompetent, uncaring, or malicious prosecution. Your response to that is similar to the prosecutors, TBH.
- mahranch 11y ago
  > it's followed by a caveat which misses the key point Which is a bit ironic since you missed my point. I agree she was abused by an uncaring and incompetent prosecution. I don't think anyone disputes that. My point was that the article and the comments here and on the article seem to insinuate that she was free of culpability and should have never been investigated. Again, they're treating this almost as if they just scooped a random person off the street and accused them of spying. That could be further from the truth. She had all the red flags. Hell, she could still be a Chinese spy for all we know. Not that I believe it, but the only thing we know for certain is that the prosecution dropped the case. We don't know why they dropped the case. A lack of evidence isn't proof of innocence. Or she could have even been a double agent and maybe their prosecution was a miscommunication or an accident, or maybe it was to make everything appear more legit. Not that I believe any of that, but they do say reality is stranger than fiction.
  - A_COMPUTER 11y ago
    They did the same thing with the Wen Ho Lee case. The government engaged in malfeasance which led a bunch of people to take the completely opposite position, which is that any investigation of him was unwarranted. Then you read the facts of the case and it's really obvious that yes an _investigation_, at least, was warranted. Also like the Lee case, you have people blaming this on racial profiling, when from the facts you can tell the trigger for the investigation was obviously because of the combination of access and behavior, which can be a consequence of your naturalized citizen status. People, like the coworker in the article complaining about the password access not being suspicious if Chen was white, have a really hard time contextualizing that access was used in conjunction with expropriating data to a foreign government official. It's idiotic and needs to be pointed out. Speaking of possible double agent, Wen Ho Lee's wife was a spy for the CIA, and one of the accusations against Lee was when he was in China with his wife, while she was at a conference and apparently "working". And there's some evidence that one of the people that Lee was in communication with sending NOFORN documents to, Lee mistakenly thought was working for Taiwan, not China. I have never given up thinking it's possible something else was going on there and the government may have known more than it could reveal in court to secure a prosecution. But if you read contemporary media accounts, Lee's case has been completely whitewashed of any suspicious behavior that rightfully should have flagged an investigation whether or not it turns out he was actually guilty of anything.
nraynaud 11y ago
so you think all non-US countries should detain and investigate every US citizen on their territory who had a contact with mid-level US officials?
- mahranch 11y ago
  I didn't say detain, I said "investigate". There's quite a difference. And yes. If the evidence suggests there might be something there, they should investigate.
  - nraynaud 11y ago
    there is a huge flight risk when they start an investigation, hence the detention.

nl 11y ago

Just how sensitive was the information she shared? To me it sounds mostly like the kind of information that should be made publicly available.

mahranch 11y ago
I think that's missing the point. Even if the information appears benign, it's still government trade secrets. Countries like China aren't singularly focused on stealing super top secret blueprints for the U.S's latest weapons technology (though I'm sure they'd jump at the chance), much of their spying is on the more mundane stuff. Like public works projects and infrastructure related information. That kind of information isn't nearly as interesting so it's not publicized as much.
- nl 11y ago
  Even if the information appears benign, it's still government trade secrets. I understand that. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be.
  - mahranch 11y ago
    But you're arguing from a position of ignorance. We don't know how important the information is. There may be completely valid reasons those things are top secret. You cannot know why because you're not privy to that information and neither am I. More than that, you're not responsible for a nation's security so you don't know what kind of threats and challenges a country faces (not just the U.S). There could be perfectly valid and justifiable reasons for wanting to keep something that might "appear" mundane, a secret.
    - nl 11y ago
      But you're arguing from a position of ignorance. We don't know how important the information is. Err.. My post asked "Just how sensitive was the information she shared?" I was hoping someone would have some details of what the information was. I'd note that there are no claims it was classified let alone top secret, just that some fields weren't publicly available. There appears to be no claim she shared those non-public fields. The details of funding sounds precicly the kind of information that should be public - and probably is - somewhere.

EliRivers 11y ago

I guarantee you, I can find in your behaviour reason to investigate you. I can find isolated facts that, when linked together, suggest that you are spying for someone or that you're an insurgent against your government or that you're planning a crime or something, doesn't matter what, I'll pick something to accuse you of when I get round to filling in the charge sheet. If we look for spies, we find spies. If we look for child abusers, we find child abusers. If we look for terrorists, we find terrorists (sometimes we have to create them ourselves first and then arrest them). In theory, there are checks and balances and procedures and, to be honest, sensible adults in the system to ensure that we aren't just joining up disparate facts about people into bullshit conspiracies. However, the system is not working properly and these are the victims. Also, going to China, where you have family, is suspicous now? On a tangential note, I'm (amongst other things) a naval officer; I've been to China and North Korea on holiday, more than once, and my unit security officer's reaction was to say "Wow, brilliant!", because he's an adult.

tomjen3 11y ago
I always assumed that anybody going to NK would be banned from having anything to do with sensitive things (in the US) ever again. Not that it makes any sense, but the US government is insanely paranoid (they may have to be, but from the outside it looks to be too much).
- EliRivers 11y ago
  On an even more tangential note, I had to read a list of security notes and had to say I understood them. I did not understand them. Ultimately, he had to explain the notion of "honey trap" to me with hand puppets; the breakthrough came when he explained that there were people who, upon trapping some gorgeous local and bringing her back to the hotel room for the night, wouldn't tell everyone they knew as quickly as possible.
mahranch 11y ago
> Also, going to China, where you have family, is suspicous now? Did you read the article? She went to China and met with a senior Chinese official. She then came back to the U.S and immediately started asking about sensitive and protected information. So yeah, I would say that's pretty darn suspicious.

adekok 11y ago

> I feel for Mrs. Chen, I really do. The U.S Government should not have moved forward without solid evidence. Reasonable, but it's followed by a caveat which misses the key point: > However, after reading the article, several of her actions did and should have throw up some red flags. Flags which should have been (and were) investigated. No one, including her, is claiming to be hurt by an investigation. Government workers are investigate all of the time. People with secret clearance have to have their lives investigated before the clearance is granted. The bone of contention here is the prosecution. A competent investigation would result in a report of "No evidence of any malfeasance. Much evidence of her following proper channels". At that point, she might not even know that the investigation had taken place. Someone who truly felt for her would feel for her real pain. The pain of being falsely prosecuted. And not spend most of the comment talking about "An investigation is reasonable". I find this attitude deeply disturbing. This woman was abused by an incompetent, uncaring, or malicious prosecution. Your response to that is similar to the prosecutors, TBH.

mahranch 11y ago
> it's followed by a caveat which misses the key point Which is a bit ironic since you missed my point. I agree she was abused by an uncaring and incompetent prosecution. I don't think anyone disputes that. My point was that the article and the comments here and on the article seem to insinuate that she was free of culpability and should have never been investigated. Again, they're treating this almost as if they just scooped a random person off the street and accused them of spying. That could be further from the truth. She had all the red flags. Hell, she could still be a Chinese spy for all we know. Not that I believe it, but the only thing we know for certain is that the prosecution dropped the case. We don't know why they dropped the case. A lack of evidence isn't proof of innocence. Or she could have even been a double agent and maybe their prosecution was a miscommunication or an accident, or maybe it was to make everything appear more legit. Not that I believe any of that, but they do say reality is stranger than fiction.
- A_COMPUTER 11y ago
  They did the same thing with the Wen Ho Lee case. The government engaged in malfeasance which led a bunch of people to take the completely opposite position, which is that any investigation of him was unwarranted. Then you read the facts of the case and it's really obvious that yes an _investigation_, at least, was warranted. Also like the Lee case, you have people blaming this on racial profiling, when from the facts you can tell the trigger for the investigation was obviously because of the combination of access and behavior, which can be a consequence of your naturalized citizen status. People, like the coworker in the article complaining about the password access not being suspicious if Chen was white, have a really hard time contextualizing that access was used in conjunction with expropriating data to a foreign government official. It's idiotic and needs to be pointed out. Speaking of possible double agent, Wen Ho Lee's wife was a spy for the CIA, and one of the accusations against Lee was when he was in China with his wife, while she was at a conference and apparently "working". And there's some evidence that one of the people that Lee was in communication with sending NOFORN documents to, Lee mistakenly thought was working for Taiwan, not China. I have never given up thinking it's possible something else was going on there and the government may have known more than it could reveal in court to secure a prosecution. But if you read contemporary media accounts, Lee's case has been completely whitewashed of any suspicious behavior that rightfully should have flagged an investigation whether or not it turns out he was actually guilty of anything.

nraynaud 11y ago

so you think all non-US countries should detain and investigate every US citizen on their territory who had a contact with mid-level US officials?

mahranch 11y ago
I didn't say detain, I said "investigate". There's quite a difference. And yes. If the evidence suggests there might be something there, they should investigate.
- nraynaud 11y ago
  there is a huge flight risk when they start an investigation, hence the detention.