Obviously a revelation on Twitter about a secretive organisation's workings should always be taken with a grain of salt. However these sorts of reports aren't too uncommon, and it surprises me how there's a lot of pro-china commentators in communities such as HN who seem to glaze over these sorts of things and still aggressively promote the "Chinese way of doing things" is superior to whatever western value or opinion is the discussion point of the day.

I agree that I see a lot of Chinese apologism in the form of "this is the Chinese way" here.

I wouldn't say that the comments are necessarily pro-China though, but rather just explaining that it is a different culture and things are done in a different way.

I do think it's a bullshit cop out though. I think that it's ignorant at best and racist at worst when people make comments here along the lines of "Chinese people like authoritarian societies and couldn't function in a democracy", usually justified by saying that China has been an authoritarian society since day 0. Europe, until recently, was a continent ruled by autocrats (whether in the form of kings, presidents, or emperors).

There are plenty of Chinese democracy activists, and I'm yet to meet a Chinese immigrant who has any love for the CCP and the Chinese government.

It's a popular argument that "Asian values" legitimise China's approach. But it appears to be wrong:

> Findings from our multinational survey suggest no obvious relationship between Asian values and support for freedom of expression at the country level. At the individual level, the data suggest a positive relationship between Asian values and support for freedom of expression when Asian values are treated as a single concept.

http://as.ucpress.edu/content/58/3/535

Moreover, the existence of Taiwan, a progressive, wealthy liberal democracy full of Chinese people, would disprove that claim too.

> I'm yet to meet a Chinese immigrant who has any love for the CCP and the Chinese government.

Plenty here, hence why China uses them to keep an eye on the migrants who don't... ...and to influence politics.

Would an immigrant Be an immigrant if they held love for the CCP and the Chinese Government?

I migrated from New Zealand to Australia, yet I like the current ruling coalition and government in New Zealand and dislike the Australian ruling coalition and government.

There are reasons to migrate beyond politics.

Because people are complicated and do things for complicated reasons.

There are a lot of reasons that people move to different countries, aside from feelings about the government they're moving away from.

There's been a lot of discussion recently about Chinese influence or interference in Australia, and much of that is through Chinese people living in Australia. For example, Chau Chak Wing is a Chinese-Australian billionaire with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, is one of Australia's top political donors, and is the unindicted co-conspirator in a bribery case involving the former president of the UN general assembly.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/political-donor-chau...

Edit: In today's news, more controversy around another Chinese billionaire with permanent residence in Australia and how he's getting involved in Australian politics for the benefit of the CCP https://www.smh.com.au/politics/western-australia/wyatt-s-al...

Chinese influence has been going on a long time.

I'm not sure whether politicians are aware and think they're immune. Or unaware and naive.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-28/news/mn-55837_1_busin...

I think what we call the skill of "analysis" is to divide an abstract object into a set of its containing elements, and then differentiate those elements and treat each element for its own different case.

China is one such abstract object...It's never about pro-china or anti-china -- after all it is a society of 1 billion individuals who are all differentiable from each other (and we have to differentiate a random chinese people from their government)...if we find a certain aspect of China appealing and potentially benecial to our own society, then why not just "like" that aspect and learn from them?

In the last few decades of the 5th century BC, Sparta and Athens fought a war with each other, which Athens had lost...but this did not prevent Plato (who was an Athenian) from praising certain aspects of Spartan society.

And also didn't prevent us (a couple thousand years later) from lumping them all together as "ancient Greece". Distance from the components, in time or space, lets us paint the set as homogeneous.

I was just doing a categorical mapping, which you might call it analogy...

How is that "lumping" relevant to the current discussion initiated by King-Aaron?

I certainly don't disagree. I do think that your point is possibly lost on a lot of people that are drawing these sorts of comparisons though...

sorry...analogy quite often can cause confusions...I will try to make more intuitive and relevant ones in the future...

It's just that the current situation between China and the U.S. bears a lot of similarities as that between Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta) and Athenian Empire during the Peloponnesian War. At the time, Sparta was an oligarchic society and Athens was a democratic one. Thucydides considered the cause of the war was because Sparta was worried about the rise of Athens could threaten its own way of life, and Athens wanted to spread democracy to other city states. There seemed to be no intrinsic conflict between the two states...the problem was that they did not trust each other, only because they were different. I personally feel this situation is quite like the current situation between US and China...There is no intrinsic conflict; they just don't trust each other (sometime even a bit phobic of each other), only because they are different...

And then didn't he die from ingesting hemlock?

>And then didn't he die from ingesting hemlock?

No. He probably died in his sleep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Death

You're probably thinking of Socrates, who deliberately killed himself by eating hemlock.

fwiw the tweet is by the author of the linked article

If you study the grammar on a lot of these posts, all over the internet even, you may come to the conclusion that the posters are government plants or Chinese CCP zealots.

I wouldn't rule out a massive propoganda campaign; HN, mainstream news article comments, suspicious Quora "questions" about China with manipulative "answers", Confucius Institutes!..

It would be nice if someone could come up with an algorithm that automatically tell which posts are astroturfing, just like fakespot.com But apparently this would be much more difficult than the algorithm used by fakespot, and seem to be less domain specific...

But at least, perhaps, we could do some information clustering, as comments written by independent individuals are more likely to have greater variances -- and quite often, difference is what makes an individual human so valuable...

Call it Pravda.

Musk is game for it.

Not even just comments on news articles.

I've read plenty of news articles that view China and their foreign policy with suspiciously rose tinted glasses. Especially around the One Belt One Road initiative.

The Chinese have an active propaganda machine for decades which tells all Chinese people the world is out to get them. They have completely internalized that. This makes them defensive and nationalistic so they can defend whatever the state does to them.

I try to be careful and separate 'Chinese' from 'China's Communist Party'.

Yeah it's barbaric what the Chinese do to spies. Next thing you know they'll be waterboarding prisoners or holding people without trial for a decade. Good thing we're superior westerners, huh?

Most of the comments are not pro China but highlight the brazen hypocrisy of getting worked out about China in the face of all encompassing surveillance currently run by the NSA, GCHQ and Google, Facebook and others which is a far bigger and ongoing threat to democracy and citizens here. China's actions are limited to China.

There is hardly any activism against the invasive surveillance of SV companies or protests against the NSA. This forum itself has its fair share of apologists for surveillance capitalism. So where are the protests in front of Google and Facebooks campuses and in Washington?

So if people don't care about these issues at home how can they care about them in China? This is simply not credible or serious.

China's actions don't impact people here, your governments and companies here do. In the absence of any mainstream activism, just singling out China for outrage and anger is duplicitous and comes across as motivated more by politics than any genuine concern for the issues or people impacted.

And using human rights for cheap points ultimately trivializes it and risks bad actors who have no interest in human rights pushing their own agenda. So better for the Chinese to fix their country, there are 1.3 billion of them, and for us to fix ours.

Out of curiosity, how do you think traitors providing potentially critical intelligence to one of the most dangerous agencies of a powerful and aggressive unfriendly foreign power should be treated, when there is literally zero doubt as to their guilt?

And to be clear, I'm not condoning this action but I'm also not so quick condemn it. I'm genuinely uncertain if I somehow were the Chinese government what my decision would be, but I think you are quite certain -- and it's sparked my curiosity.

So you are not condemning:

- death penalty - death penalty for relatives of criminals - death penalty for pregnant relatives

I'd love to know what country you live in and if you would condone laws that allow this.

"We kill people based on metadata": https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base...

Admittedly that only applies to non-US nationals outside the US, but the CIA and American overseas military operations have relied for years on executing people (and their wives, children, neighbours, wedding guests, and first responders) with missiles.

This is a false equivalency, and your language seems to be intentionally politicized to provoke an emotional response rather than a rational one. It reeks of "whataboutism."

You argument is comparing the actions of the US military against a foreign enemy - and their associates - to the actions of the Chinese internal security against their own people. Are you saying the Chinese are at war with their own people?

Don't forget the part where they carry the sentence in front of civilians.

Is silently making people disappear really that much better?

Spies are people that turn against their own country, often for little more than a payoff, and participate in activities that can and have resulted in the death, torture, and worse of countless individuals. For instance Augusto Pinochet, as just one example among many, was the direct and orchestrated product of a CIA "regime change" -- an activity that at it's most fundamental level relies on traitors. Spying is taking a position of trust and using it to intentionally hurt, potentially severely, immense numbers of people - for what is often a token payoff.

We can even see that in this exact case. Earlier this year, there were reports that this issue was not caused by a technological issue but by various spies. One, former CIA agent Jerry Chun Shing Lee [1], allegedly gave away the names of these CIA spies to the Chinese for $25,000. It's ironic that the CIA spies faced death, and probably worse, because of other spies - but that is the very essence of what spies do. Cause death and suffering, generally for small amounts of money. It's despicable.

[1] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-cia-officer-jerry-ch...

What does that have to do with my assertion?

Are you saying it is fine to execute relatives of spies?

And do you know what a straw man is? The reason I ignored suggestion of the wife being executed in my response is likely the same reason that the author's assertion was cut from the piece. Its based on one source referencing exactly one individual. This not only substantially increases the probability of this being a lie (consider: traitorous spies have, by definition, already shown an interest in hurting their nation and the people of it for money, and are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to achieve that end), but provides 0 information on what happened and why - which leaves the reader, you in this case, left to fill in the gaps with the most heinous story imaginable.

You were implicitly stating you oppose the execution of spies. And that is certainly your right. At the same time, I think many people do not consider what traitorous spies actually are and do. I'm also generally against the death penalty, but not unconditionally - traitorous espionage would certainly be near the top of the shortlist of things that I think fully justify execution.

Interestingly, the parent comments that you are replying to are directly discussing the execution of the relatives.

> but I think you are quite certain

Quite the contrary, not sure how this conclusion was drawn.

I just feel that "execution of them and their family broadcast to the entire staff" isn't really a value that is typically held in high esteem.

I think executing the pregnant wife of said traitors is a bit barbaric and in the long run barbaric regimes have tended to be less stable compared to countries/regimes which have treated traitors in a more civilized manner (due process, not executing their relatives etc).

I'm just surprised they didn't try to make them double agents or at least feed them false information. It seems like a rash judgement to suddenly eliminate 30+ people who you know are spies.

There's an incentive to do it all at once, or as rapidly as possible. If you try to recruit them, you run the risk of them reporting this and suddenly the other 29 spies are exfiltrated.

> It seems like a rash judgement to suddenly eliminate 30+ people who you know are spies.

It isn't a rash judgement if the CCP is so confident of their counter-intelligence program, that they evaluate the effort of neutralizing with disinfo or turning those 30+ is not worth their trouble and informational value. Considering the scale and depth of surveillance they employ within China, and continued heavy investment into more, I wouldn't want to off-hand rule out that possibility.

From an earlier NYT piece:

> According to three of the officials, one was shot in front of his colleagues in the courtyard of a government building — a message to others who might have been working for the C.I.A.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spie...

USA has the death penalty for treason too. Now you can argue back and forth (US wants China to eventually be democratic so I'm helping China by spying for CIA...etc) but they essentially betrayed their country. Chinese efficiency: Torture them till they tell want they know and then teach others a lesson along the way too.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The last execution of an American for treason was in 1862.

Martin James Monti, United States Army Air Forces pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen SS in 1944. He was paroled in 1960.

Robert Henry Best, convicted of treason on April 16, 1948 and served a life sentence. (Which turned out to be 4 years. Died in 1952 in prison of a cerebral hemorrhage.)

Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified by the name "Tokyo Rose", convicted 1949. Subsequently, pardoned by President Gerald Ford. (She was fined $10,000 and given a 10-year prison sentence. Paroled after 6.)

Mildred Gillars, also known as "Axis Sally", convicted of treason on March 8, 1949; served 12 years of a 10- to 30-year prison sentence.

Tomoya Kawakita, sentenced to death for treason in 1952, but eventually released by President John F. Kennedy to be deported to Japan. (In 1953, Eisenhower commuted sentence to $10,000 fine and life imprisonment. Kennedy ordered him released in 1963 on condition that he leave the US and not return.)

Robert Hanssen, a high-ranking FBI agent who was a spy for Russia, is spending several life sentences in the pokey but wasn't convicted of treason.

What about the Rosenbergs?

Quick Google suggests they were convicted for espionage (under the Espionage Act), not treason. Though it's really unclear to me why espionage against your own country and for another would not qualify as treason.

edit: Sibling commenter had a view on it: "Technically, this wouldn't be treason according to the US definition, because treason is only possible in the context of a declared enemy of the USA (i.e., war)."

So part of the reason is that since the end of WWII we have not technically been "at war" because that requires Congressional approval and politics gets involved.

Technically, this wouldn't be treason according to the US definition, because treason is only possible in the context of a declared enemy of the USA (i.e., war).

Also, there is a judicial process in the USA, not a summary execution.

Also, the pregnant wives of traitors aren't executed in the USA.

You're right, but it's worth remembering that the distinction appears to be eroding. I was going to mention the same case that my sibling, throwawayt1894, mentioned.

Drone strikes against US citizens in a country not a war with the US is at least worth thinking about. I can generally buy the ends-justify-the-means argument (or at least consider it), but the press secretary's response to this always rubbed me the wrong way: 'I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father...'

Yeah, the perpetual state of war and the drone strikes that coincide with that that America has gotten itself into is concerning. Still, I would strongly argue that there is a world of difference between the sins of America and China about targeting family members.

The third parties (i.e., children or wives) that are killed in drone strikes are surely collateral damage. America isn't targeting these people. (I'm certainly not arguing that it's right.)

China has shown on many occasions that it is willing to use the relatives of people it doesn't like as leverage. I don't know if it's because it has a long history of it [1] or just because it's effective and China isn't constrained by the rule of law. There have been many cases where the relatives of journalists working overseas have suffered [2], and Liu Xia was under house arrest for almost a decade because of her husbands "crimes" despite never being charged herself [3].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_familial_exterminations

2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-detains-relatives...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xia_(intellectual)

> The third parties (i.e., children or wives) that are killed in drone strikes are surely collateral damage.

Can you give some details about how you are certain that the death by drone bombing of Awlaki's 16-year-old son was collateral damage?

Keep in mind that Awlaki was targeted by drone two weeks before his son was killed. They are two separate drone attacks.

This whataboutism is not helpful.

Unless you think the boy was deliberately targeted to be killed, surely you can understand that being killed in a drone strike targeting another is very different to being deliberately shot to death.

It's a discussion directly comparing how two countries act towards the same crime. Don't participate in the thread if you don't find whataboutism helpful?

I don't have the strong moral reservations many have against drone strikes. Tactically advantageous, cheaper, no pilot at risk. Pretty compelling. But in their own way, they're terrifying specifically for the reason you mention: they are less discriminating.

You can think delibery shooting is much worse. And I can see how someone would feel that way. But I think a reasonable person ought to be able to understand how another reasonable person might see things differently.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/ev...

>>Also, the pregnant wives of traitors aren't executed in the USA.

No one meant to say that both countries treat people the same. However, Chinese treat traitors like USA treats, more or less terrorists. Traitors do cause a LOT of damage, in lives, money and potentially a lot more down the road.

China might have made his wife "confess" to knowing and abetting, just so all the boxes are checked. Their system is rigged, but I doubt they would just kill a person simply for being his wife, without trial. The legal justification might be that she confessed and is a traitor.

Death penalty is a bit different from summary execution.

just in time and expense

Chinese intelligence executed 30 operatives? Good thing we have a decentralized unaccountable police force larger than ALL national armies to carry out summary executions to the tune of 1,000 citizens per year and save us money.

>Good thing we have a decentralized unaccountable police force larger than ALL national armies to carry out summary executions to the tune of 1,000 citizens per year

I'm not in favor of that either.

And its still apples to oranges. A police shooting in the moment is much different from a planned and televised execution.

I think you may have a hard time convincing people that the difference between due process and summary executions is just in time and expenses.

It depends on one's perspective...

In terms of time and money, indeed, the difference is as what you said...

But in terms of information flow, the difference would be quite huge...

Missing the point. There's something to be said about treating every human with dignity, even the traitors.

I am sure they got a trial, albeit a 2 minute one, appeals included. Even in China looks like they improved from "Hanged, drawn and quartered," but let's be honest, things are different over there.

Or we may want to ask about being treated with dignity those that are in Guantanamo Bay. Bottom line, one that betrays his country should know the--locally decided--risks. In Russia they kill you even after "forgiving" you (see last case in UK)

People are people, over there or over here or anywhere.

This is exactly like the wild claims about "Iraqi babies being killed in incubators" [1]. It's an absurd, baseless claim but somehow it gets regularly accepted as true.

At some point you would think that journalists would show even a little intelligence, a little competence, a little skepticism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony

I think the reason why Chinese government would execute defected officials, instead of putting them in prison for life, is because historically defected officials often caused very serious losses to the chinese communist party. For instance, one of the most damaging defectors in their history was Gu Shunzhang, who led to the arrest of hundreds of their underground communists (many of those arrested were executed by the KMT government at the time). In those early days, the Chinese communist party was very weak and had to fight for its own survival. So as a result, Zhou Enlai ordered the assassination of almost Gu's entire family, as warning and revenge [1]...

I think this bears a certain similarity to the rationale of that IRA members assassinated their defectors and French executed their traitors in WWII...

It's just sad to see that certain traditions still remained unchanged with the Chinese government (or more specifically, their communist party) ...but at least we can see how much they hate defectors; and we can find some common root of that in all humanity...

Perhaps things will change when they value human life more, which I think they will do when their individual's economic condition continues to improve...When the existence of an average life makes little difference to a society, statistically, life would be socially regarded as cheap...

--

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/03/weekinreview/the-world-15...

I don't think it has anything to do with valuing human life or not.

I'm sure we both agree the US values human life, but the government is more than willing to accept the death of a 16 year old American citizen when trying to target his father during a drone strike.

I'm more surprised that they would reveal their hand so suddenly. Maybe I watch too many movies, but I would think if you have exposed the entire network, then doing counter-espionage would be the smarter tactic.

At the time of the drone strike, perhaps to the remote drone pilots, conceptually, the 16-year old kid was not an American citizen but merely someone who was different than they were...