| ▲ | observationist 4 hours ago |
| >>> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes. This is standard operating procedure for the CCP. They are a truly ruthless, sinister group who have no scruples about ensuring compliance and using leverage on behalf of Chinese interests. Just look at what happened to Jack Ma. |
|
| ▲ | xtracto 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Gemini, Give me examples of people that the US has retained passports pending investigations It's standard procedure in every country for some investigations. |
| |
| ▲ | giwook 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And what exactly are these founders being investigated for? | |
| ▲ | 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | nutjob2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is false equivalence. Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail. That power can only be granted by a judge. China arbitrarily traps people in China without any such thing or any due process whatsoever. | | |
| ▲ | BigTTYGothGF 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail This has historically not been the case, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig_v._Agee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson | | |
| ▲ | nsagent an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The first case makes sense: ex-CIA officer explicitly outing CIA officers. Naturally, the government is going to step in and it's a false equivalence to compare to restricting random citizens. As for your second case, US schools teach about the perils of McCarthyism. You neglected to link to the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in 1958 overturning the confiscation of the passport over protected speech. Note how long ago that was and how it's taught as a black stain on US history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_v._Dulles | |
| ▲ | mothballed 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Anyone with a child support order that makes decent money is only one misrecorded or bounced payment away from being ineligible for a passport. The trigger is only 4 digits of USD. | |
| ▲ | Avicebron an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You didn't have to bring out the big gun usernames, we get it, you run a bot farm. |
| |
| ▲ | andersonpico 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > China arbitrarily traps people in China without any such thing or any due process whatsoever. What makes you think there's no legal process for blocking nationals from leaving China?It's a very common instrument and in a bunch of countries it's an administrative measure with even less scrutinity than a judicial mandate. Do you consider France or the UK to be a countries without rule of law or due process? But to the point in the US, for example, the government can just issue a warrant for you as a material witness or flag your passport and then you can't leave; these are hardly due processes and more like legal workarounds to do exactly the same thing; the US has disappeared plenty of people in much more sinister ways than that, however, so I agree that there's no equivalence here: the US is worse. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Computer0 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They are good actually. |
|
| ▲ | Fricken 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Jack Ma is fine. If that's what you mean by ruthless then it's not really a big deal. |
| |
| ▲ | nutjob2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | He's fine because he complied with the authorities. | | |
| ▲ | yakbarber 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | that's true in every country. | |
| ▲ | Fricken 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All states, by definition, are authorities that demand compliance. You're not saying anything that distinguishes Jack Ma's condition from anyone else's just about anywhere. | | |
|
|
