Also, the sex pest business is bad and should be condemned but would hardly give carte-blanche for extrajudicial torture.
Would you even know who this man was if he hadn't offended your precious intelligence community, fucker?
I wonder why he isn't. It's not like he can evade trial for it where he is now.
They have a whole page dedicated to him: https://apnews.com/hub/julian-assange
I also get a chuckle when people attack the AP. I guess non profit collectives are threatening to communists. ;)
Hexbear sees something they disagree with and cleverly evades thinking by blaming the CIA.
Liberals are insecure about their casual connections to the intelligence community, and afraid of actual leftists noticing and getting scared off, so they pretend we think EVERYTHING's controlled by the CIA so we'll look crazy in comparison. Classic lazy hyperbole.
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaganda-network-built-by-the-cia-a-worldwide-network.html
Hmm so you're agreeing that even free speech and democracy will not stop authoritarianism?
In May, a court rejected Lai’s bid to halt his security trial on grounds that it was being heard by judges picked by Hong Kong’s leader. That is a departure from the common law tradition China promised to preserve for 50 years after the former British colony returned to China in 1997.
Don't tell me that British laws are actually that corrupt. No way, right?
You are misunderstanding what it means. The article specifically about this explains it better:
When Hong Kong returned to China in 1997, it was promised that trials by jury, previously practiced in the former British colony, would be maintained under the city’s constitution. But in a departure from the city’s common law tradition, the security law allows no-jury trials for national security cases.
It's absolutely not. There used to be right to trial by jury in all cases in Hong Kong before China took it away, which is what this article is about. So already it's clearly not the "world standard." Another example, United States routinely holds jury trials with classified national defense information and goes to great lengths to create a system to do this, since there is a constitutional guarantee to a trial by Jury. Process explained in this article: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/14/trump-trial-classified-documents-public-00102023 in regards to the trump case, which is a great example involving highly sensitive national security information. And that involves a jury too. I'd say you could just search online yourself and find out how wrong you are, but i doubt you're arguing in good faith. So as you can see, the standard in China is not the same thing as the standard "the world over." This was a right forcibly removed from the people of Hong Kong by China.
Take your authoritarian apologist made up nonsense elsewhere.
LOL, unironically accusing me of authoritarian apologia because I am for the reintegration of a former British colonial holding with the country the British stole it from.
You're comparing to a country that has FISA courts? That extrajudicially assassinates foreign nationals? That operates one of the most notorious extrajudicial agencies in living memory?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/29/us/politics/pentagon-guantanamo-secret-courtroom.html
https://www.npr.org/2013/06/07/189430580/the-history-behind-americas-most-secretive-court
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1991/us/
https://www.aclu.org/documents/frequently-asked-questions-about-targeting-killing
Not even just foreign nationals, remember when Obama drone-killed that 16 year old American?
Fisa courts are a process to obtain search warrants. They don't try suspects. If a warrant resulted in information that led to charges, they would be indicted by a grand jury and that would then lead to a public jury trial. You're also changing the subject because you're clearly wrong here and don't want to admit it, or more likely just arguing in bad faith. You said it was the "world standard" to strip someone of a right to trial by jury if it involved national security information. And that's obviously untrue. Hong Kong (until China changed it) and the USA are two such places where it is not the standard. Some quick internet searching would show you many countries in the world protect a right to trial by jury, even in cases involving national security information. Which I really doubt is the case here, more likely some pretext by the Chinese government so they can continue to persecute any political opposition to their one party authoritarian rule. Just because China decided to not grant their citizens a trial by jury right does not mean it is the standard in the whole world. Don't conflate the two.
You're saying that what the UK did in 1973 in was wrong? So China should copy that wrong and withhold a right to trial by jury from their citizens to persecute political prisoners as well? Weird take but alright, if that's your viewpoint. Enjoy authoritarianism.
They didn't just do it in 1973, they do it to this day and it seemed to be used regularly until 2007.
CCP
Who? Communist Party of Canada?
What did we do, lend him our last printing press? 🤣
Governance according to the will and best interest of the people. But my definition isn't very interesting since I'm not the subject of this article. What makes Jimmy Lai pro-democracy? What does democracy mean when AP writes it?
Don't knock your importance. Your definition is very interesting.
"Best interest of the people" can be very subjective. How is the will of the people determined? Is that through voting directly or through a representative they voted for?
As for what AP likely means: most likely either direct or respresentative democracy whereby the general public votes either directly on legislation or votes for a representative to vote on legislation for them.
Voting is just a component of some democratic systems. There’s a lot more you have to consider. For example, imagine you have a system where people vote for their representatives but the media is owned by the wealthy and political parties depend on wealthy donors for funding. In that case policy will not reflect the interests of the people but instead the interests of a wealthy minority. I imagine that’s the kind of “democracy” the AP is referring to when they describe Jimmy Lai as pro-democracy.
There is no democracy without the general public voting. It is a component of ALL democratic systems.
What evidence do you have that your scenario is what AP means when they refer to democracy?
It’s a fair description of the system the British set up in Hong Kong right before they had to hand it back to China. It’s the same system that “pro-democracy” advocates in Hong Kong were defending. As such I think it’s reasonable to assume that’s what the AP and Jimmy Lai are referring to.
As for voting I’m not saying it isn’t a useful mechanism through which the general will of a population can be expressed. Instead, I am saying that voting alone is not the crux upon which democracy hinges. I personally prefer voting as a mechanism over sortition and consensus in most cases. However, that wouldn’t mean either of those mechanisms couldn’t be the basis for democratic decision making.
The British lawyer might have more relevant training among western lawyers depending on how old he is and if he dealt with old HK law. One needs to conclude that either no HK lawyer is willing to take the case (perhaps due to fear of retribution) or the westerners think it would be a bad move (for example, if a HK lawyer simply tells the truth to Congress and does not get punished back in HK). I'm just speculating, though.
