World News & Breaking News II

Bltizo said:

@ Jeff

The military and political relationship between China and the US is a complicated one.

In some domains they can cooperate and be friendly, but on others they poke each other in the eye, and sometimes at the same time.

It's the strangest relationship between two world powers in recent years.

Click to expand...

Well, I have to say that the Obama administration has committed some very bizarre foreign policy blunders...so I cannot be sure.

But, still, even for them, I would be truly shocked, even beyond what they have already done, if they had not provided significant back channel communications to the PRC regarding these people.

Bltizo said:

If they'd tried to negotiate over their fates with China then that's a fair go, but that wasn't what happened.
I can understand why the US wouldn't extradite them to China, but the fact that they would free individuals with self declared violent aims says to me that terrorism has differing definitions depending on who you are committing it against.

Click to expand...

Under what sort of formal mechanism and legal framework do you have in mind that would facilitate such negotiations? You have two different legal jurisdictions involved especially as disparate as the US and PRC and plus you layer on top the laws that came about post 9/11. Like many things once you try to formalize it within some legal road map it might be impossible to execute. I think it is overly simplistic and naïve just to say "well you can have them".

Jeff Head said:

Well, I have to say that the Obama administration has committed some very bizarre foreign policy blunders...so I cannot be sure.

But, still, even for them, I would be truly shocked, even beyond what they have already done, if they had not provided significant back channel communications to the PRC regarding these people.

Click to expand...

I would like to think that is true, but the US and quite a few western governments imo tend to give excess weight to an individual or group's status if they are a chinese "dissident" that are considered to be persecuted, and it often serves to perpetuate a particular political narrative. I think that narrative in turn effects rather sensitive decisions like the one we're discussing now.

Brumby said:

Under what sort of formal mechanism and legal framework do you have in mind that would facilitate such negotiations? You have two different legal jurisdictions involved especially as disparate as the US and PRC and plus you layer on top the laws that came about post 9/11. Like many things once you try to formalize it within some legal road map it might be impossible to execute. I think it is overly simplistic and naïve just to say "well you can have them".

Click to expand...

First I'm not talking about extradition, I'm talking about negotiation. Negotiation could have involved a whole range of topics to assess the fates of these would be terrorists, and extradition may or may not have been one of them (but would have been unlikely -- yes).

I'm not saying that such negotiations would have been successful.

I am saying that the lack of publicly extending possibility of such negotiation is concerning, if not inflammatory. Basically they didn't even try to address the fact that China might be interested in having a say in the futures of individuals who have stated their desires to commit terrorist acts against China.

And that's not even considering the basis of how individuals with similar stated desires to attack the US would have been treated, would they have been released as well? If not, then that goes back to what I've been saying -- that terrorism is only terrorism when it's aimed at a few particular countries.

solarz said:

If I understand you correctly, you are objecting to Shen's post on the grounds that you don't believe the US released those guys specifically to attack China.

I didn't read Shen's post that way. He said they were released because they were "only" training to attack China, not the US.

Click to expand...

Solarz, I objected to Shen's post because I don't believe there's solid proof US released the suspected terrorists on grounds they were only training to attack China and not the US. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem believing US would do all sorts of underhanded things for her national interests, but in this case, you could make a good argument for US turning over the suspects to China (quietly, of course) for goodwill and maybe for quid pro quo. In my view, there's enough doubt to prohibit definitive charges against the US.

Bltizo said:

First I'm not talking about extradition, I'm talking about negotiation. Negotiation could have involved a whole range of topics to assess the fates of these would be terrorists, and extradition may or may not have been one of them (but would have been unlikely -- yes).

I'm not saying that such negotiations would have been successful.

I am saying that the lack of publicly extending possibility of such negotiation is concerning, if not inflammatory. Basically they didn't even try to address the fact that China might be interested in having a say in the futures of individuals who have stated their desires to commit terrorist acts against China.

And that's not even considering the basis of how individuals with similar stated desires to attack the US would have been treated, would they have been released as well? If not, then that goes back to what I've been saying -- that terrorism is only terrorism when it's aimed at a few particular countries.

Click to expand...

Couple of things to consider for your comments :
1)Negotiation is a process to get to an end point or else it is a pointless exercise in itself. That end point is obviously the fate of those detainees and what the PRC wants. There is no formal legal mechanism to make that happen. If you are aware of any I would like to hear about it.
2)Whilst you are adamant that publicly there were no overtures (I just don't know); are you at the same time confident that there were no back room negotiations but eventually not securing any desired outcome?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Shen your making a leap here. The US government released them after determining that they were not a threat to the US or here allies. At no point did the US government mention the PRC. Therefore your statement is invalid. They were determined Not to be a threat to the US hence there release. You then make the leap that since they are more likely to be angry with the PRC and relations between the US and PRC are not smooth sailing The US released them to fight the PRC. If that was the case then why release there identities? By officially announcing who they are the US government gave the PRC there names with red flags saying "Watch these guys they intend you harm." It's not the job of the US to cooperate with PRC security Shen nor should it be US policy to cooperate with it.

Click to expand...

I wonder if you would still hold such a nuanced view if China caught a load of IS/Al-Q terrorists who were training to attack the US and cut them loose because China decided they were not going to attack the PRC and hence not a threat to China?

Besides, with all that has happened with the likes of Al-Q and now IS, surely you should recognise the utter folly of playing good terrorist bad terrorist? These are dangerous extremists who skirt the line of sanity at the best to times, and it doesn't take much for your housetrained pet terrorist to suddenly turn on you out of the blue.

Brumby said:

Couple of things to consider for your comments :
1)Negotiation is a process to get to an end point or else it is a pointless exercise in itself. That end point is obviously the fate of those detainees and what the PRC wants. There is no formal legal mechanism to make that happen. If you are aware of any I would like to hear about it.
2)Whilst you are adamant that publicly there were no overtures (I just don't know); are at the same time confident that there were no back room negotiations but eventually not securing any desired outcome?

Click to expand...

1: Obviously there is no formal mechanism, and in the end, negotiations may well have failed. But one's willingness to negotiate also reflects how they view the individuals and their motives in question. That is to say, simply the willingness to negotiate would have gone some ways to change the opinion many Chinese have of the release of these would be terrorists. At least it would have reflected some degree of good will and some degree of understanding by the US that these individuals do pose a credible concern to China. The way it was done (if there were no backroom negotiations), was basically laughing any Chinese concerns off with a wave of the arm or even giving the finger.

2: Well if there were public overtures I did not hear of it. If there were backroom negotiations then that would go some ways in reducing the offensiveness of such an act, but given the US political establishment's opinion on any groups they see as Chinese "dissidents," I doubt they would have been willing to discuss the fates of what they probably would've seen as Freedom Fighters working to Free their Persecuted Countrymen from a Totalitarian and Despotic Communist Regime (TM).

----

Look, just consider plawolf's reversed scenario. Do you think the US would tolerate such an act by China?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Well whatever the between the lines it the official release was due to then being categorized as not a enemy threat to the US or her allies. They were released quite publicly with names photographs and destinations more then available to PRC intelligence and security apparatus. I have little doubt that between the lines this second action of "open release" was done intentionally to allow the PRC to tag these guys, and we should have little doubt that they are under close surveillance by the PRC.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but they were NOT released or hand over to the PRC for interrogation and questioning of their CONTACTS to whom they are associating with a terrorists cell that is the more important information, not just names and faces.

JayFalsum said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Who do you think would support banning guns in the story above? The grandpa or those three monsters?

Click to expand...

Also an extreme and sensationalist story that is hardly representative of what happens the overwhelming majority of the time.

I would venture that those three scumbags would not have been so bold if they themselves did not have guns.

The typical pro-gun rejoinder that the criminals will not be stopped by making guns illegal is patently untrue, as is evidenced by every other country in the world.

True, truly determined criminals will always be able to get hold of guns, but tightly controlling the supply of guns and ammunition would significantly increase the cost of procurement and operation of any guns they might have. The consequences of being caught with a firearm would also be much more server and immediate.

All of that makes it far more unlikely that common criminals, like the ones in that story, would be able to afford to get guns or be inclined to use them lightly even if they had them.

The lack of large scale commercial shooting facilities would also greatly limit the ability of criminals to practice with any guns they go get, making them far less proficient with the guns than they would otherwise be if they could easily and legally practice regularly without worrying about drawing police attention.

That means that in the event that armed police have to take on armed criminals, the odds are overwhelmingly on the side of the police.

That makes the police far less jumpy and less incident to shoot first and ask questions later.

It is interesting that in the US today, it is literally impossible to gather reliable and comprehensive statistics on the number of people the police shoot and kill, even when there is a law explicitly demanding it (the law was sloppily written and the police have lost no time in exploiting loopholes to report meaningless statistics that comply with the law but which doesn't give any useful figures).

Based on anecdotal evidence, which unfortunately is the best anyone could get short of hacking every police force internal database in the US, if the actual figures were made known, it would probably shock a lot of Americans and far more non-Americans.

As a gun lover myself, I do often chaff at the strict gun laws the UK have in place, but I recognise that it is a necessary evil that saves a great many lives.

I really cannot understand how any reasonable person can look at the per capital gun related death rates in the US in comparison with every other country not in the midst of an active conflict and not think its gun laws play a pivotal part in that gruesome tally.

I mean, what other possible explanation is there for that inescapable fact? That Americans are just that much more homicidal than every other people in the world?