How bad is corruption in China ? (Temprarily Closed)

You are going in circles like the rest of people
Let me remind you, the single basis was the original article. That was the only source of information and it stated that the Chinese police apprehended a known fugitives under PRC law in Malaysia. From only that information you can only deduce that the Chinese police went beyond their realm of authority and followed and caught the fugitive in foreign soil. That is clearly a violation of local law since the Chinese police has no jurisdiction within another nation and placing the person in question under custody and returning to their home country is another violation in terms of immigration law as well.
There was no other information that suggests otherwise.
I do not carry the burden of proof since my proof was the original article. The one who argues is required to provide the evidence to suggest otherwise.

SamuraiBlue said:

You are going in circles like the rest of people
Let me remind you, the single basis was the original article. That was the only source of information and it stated that the Chinese police apprehended a known fugitives under PRC law in Malaysia. From only that information you can only deduce that the Chinese police went beyond their realm of authority and followed and caught the fugitive in foreign soil. That is clearly a violation of local law since the Chinese police has no jurisdiction within another nation and placing the person in question under custody and returning to their home country is another violation in terms of immigration law as well.
There was no other information that suggests otherwise.
I do not carry the burden of proof since my proof was the original article. The one who argues is required to provide the evidence to suggest otherwise.

Click to expand...

That is a load of BS.

China violating another country's sovereignty to arrest the suspect was blatantly not the only deduction someone could make from the information provided in that article, it is not even remotely close to being the most likely.

Police going to another country, with the authorisation of the home government, to arrest fugitives on the run is a pretty common occurrence, and has been like that for decades.

In fact, it is your suggestion, that one country would send police officers to arrest suspects in another country, without the approval of the home government that is without precedent.

If you know the home country is not going to co-operate with you on the arrest, you are going to have to conduct a black bag op, so you send in black ops, not regular police.

Did the US use the FBI/US Marshals or the CIA to rendition people without the knowledge or approval of home countries?

Use your head, historical precedents and sheer common sense man.

All you are doing with this stubborn and futile defence of the indefensible is digging a bigger hole for your self and making yourself look more and more silly.

SamuraiBlue said:

No sir in a court of law the prosecutor and defense makes it's case based on the evidence at hand.

Click to expand...

The key word here is "evidence". The definition of "evidence" in a dictionary is:

something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Click to expand...

Evidence has to be plain and clear. In a court, evidence has to be fact. What fact do you have based on the article? The article did not say anything about the involvement of the Malaysian govn't. The only fact is that the involvement of the Malaysian govn't was not mentioned in the article. That is a fact.

You cannot use what was NOT said as evidence!! I don't think how much clearer I need to be on this point... There is NO evidence, one way or another. The prosecution (that would be you in this case) cannot assume the Malaysian govn't did not participate. The defendent (it would be China in this case) cannot claim the involvement of the Malaysian govn't. It is not said, therefore cannot be used as evidence. Plain and simple...

SamuraiBlue said:

In my case my original basis cannot be proven wrong since within the article it clear states the Chinese police apprehended the suspect within Malaysia. As I said since the Chinese police does not have any investigation authorities on foreign soil it only suggests that it was done under illegal means.

Click to expand...

Note that you used the word "suggest". So you know that is not fact. Fact does not need to suggest anything. Fact is fact. It does not need explanation and does not need suggestion.

Secondly, as plawolf explained, you, the accuser, bare the burden of providing the proof, which should be facts. Not indirect suggestions, etc. That is something law school teaches on the first day of classes. If it is your way, there would be no way anyone could mount a successful defense. The prosecution can simply throw out all kinds of crazy ideas. Then the defense has to run circles to find evidence to disprove the prosecution. That is unheard of in the court of law!

To use your logic, I can claim that Chinese police had the help of aliens, which made them invisible when they were in Malaysia. That's why no Malaysian involvement was mentioned. No one could see them! Malaysian govn;t didn't even know... Disprove that for me! If you cannot find evidence to disprove me, then I am correct! Aliens helped the Chinese capture fugitives in Malaysia!

Second claim using your logic: the Chinese police dept has a special ghost unit, whose members are all superheros, including Superman and Batman. Batman used an advanced cloaking device to infiltrate Malaysia and captured the Chinese fugitive. Disprove that! If you cannot, then I am correct.

Another claim: China has a teletransportation device that "beamed the fugitive up" and back to China. So no Chinese agent was actually in Malaysia to catch the guy. So no violation of Malaysian sovereignty... Disprove that! If you cannot, I am correct once again!

SamuraiBlue said:

I sure was not persuaded with all the baseless argument without any objective evidence before additional article was presented.

Click to expand...

Bravo!! You said it yourself! "no objective evidence". Then how did you come to your conclusion "without any objective evidence"? Note that evidence is fact! not something suggestive, could be, should be, would be, etc etc etc. Fact!

Please note that no one is trying to convince you the potential Malaysian involvement based on the first article. We are NOT trying to convince you that the Chinese had Malaysian cooperation when capturing that fugitive. NO! All we have been saying is that you cannot make any conclusion based on what the first article says. No one can claim that the Chinese had Malaysian help. And no one can claim the Chinese did it without Malaysian help. There is no evidence one way or another. Nothing to base on.

So you are correct that you were not persuaded. Absolutely! There is nothing in the article to convince anybody of anything.

SamuraiBlue said:

Let me remind you, the single basis was the original article. That was the only source of information and it stated that the Chinese police apprehended a known fugitives under PRC law in Malaysia. From only that information you can only deduce that the Chinese police went beyond their realm of authority and followed and caught the fugitive in foreign soil. That is clearly a violation of local law since the Chinese police has no jurisdiction within another nation and placing the person in question under custody and returning to their home country is another violation in terms of immigration law as well.
There was no other information that suggests otherwise.
I do not carry the burden of proof since my proof was the original article. The one who argues is required to provide the evidence to suggest otherwise.

Click to expand...

OK, let me give you a simple example. I always tell people that I came to the US when I was 16. I stated this in my profile page. I did not say anything about getting a visa. In fact, I didn't mentioned anything about the US govn't.

So does that mean I came to the US without a legal visa and without permission of the US govn't? Was I an illegal immigrant? Can anyone say that based on my statement above? Based on your logic, that would be the only conclusion?! As a Chinese national, I cannot go to another country without a legal visa. I had no right to enter the US without permission. Yet, I came to the US. That would be illegal trespassing and illegal immigration based on my statement above? Simply because I didn't say anything about getting a visa??????

NOTE that you have been making conclusions based on what was NOT said. What is not said cannot be used as evidence. That is pure speculation.

Jeff made a visit to Houston a few weeks back. In his post (#1414) in the "Real life thread", he described a pleasant trip including a visit to his daughter's house. He didn't mention his wife in the post. Can we conclude that Jeff came to Houston by himself? Using your logic, that would be the only conclusion.

Guys, you know the saying about wrestling with pigs and arguing on the internet?

Guys let's move on... It's like world peace ... Everyone wants it but no knows how to achieve it...

Well except for ms world contestants however since none of us are that pretty it's futile discussion.