Arrested Chinese Blogger "Confesses" On State TV, Praises Censorship 349
Koreantoast writes "As part of a broader, chilling Chinese crackdown on Internet dissent, Chinese blogger Charles Xue appeared on Chinese state television in handcuffs on Sunday, denouncing his blog and praising government censorship. He 'confessed' to becoming drunk on the accumulated power of his Weibo blog, which peaked at 12 million followers, and confessed to recklessly spreading unverified rumors and slander, disrupting social harmony and becoming a vent of negative emotion on mainstream society. He also praised new government legislation cracking down on Internet freedom, stating how dangerous the Internet would be if left uncontrolled by the government. Xue was arrested on prostitution solicitation charges though his television confession did not discuss that. His arrest was also suspiciously around the same time as a broader government sweep that picked up other Chinese Internet activists."
Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the outcome that Diane Feinstein and others of her ilk would visit upon the U.S., given her way.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is exactly the outcome that Diane Feinstein and others of her ilk would visit upon the U.S., given her way.
This is what conservatives actually believe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is her ilk "Democrats" or is it "autocratic authoritarians"? There are plenty of the latter in both parties. Blindly bashing the other party, whatever your tribal affiliation, doesn't clean them out of your party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/06/19/we-dont-need-a-media-shield-law-for-fox-and-ap-we-already-have-the-first-amendment/ [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans would consider them to be acceptable casualties and collateral damage. And then it will be dailykos's turn.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Insightful)
FOX news will make that list (Score:2)
FOX news will make that list unless the GOP get's in power and then the other news channels may go down.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Interesting)
This is exactly the outcome that Diane Feinstein and others of her ilk would visit upon the U.S., given her way.
Excuse me, but what exactly makes you so confident that it isn't already this way? You can't blame "Diane Feinstein" or [insert another name here] for this. The situation would simply breed another person to take their place. Blame Obama! Blame Bush! Blame Canada!
Please. Every government in the world wants things to be sunshine and kittens. It's the basis for all propaganda. We got revisionist history rewriting our high school text books every year. We got angry white fat dudes in suits on Fox News screaming at us about how avoiding war in Syria is somehow a bad thing... because Russia offered a peaceful solution and Syria took them up on it. I mean, how twisted is it that the party that made it's main agenda "making Obama a one term president" is backing him now because he's all like Let's Bomb ALL TEH THINGZ!
With media distortion and control like that patently obvious to anyone who puts on their critical thinking cap, why are we thinking that we're somehow different than the Chinese in this regard? They got propaganda. We got propaganda. And?
Anyone who says they're "pro-" whatever is admitting they've been suckered by pro-paganda. About the only place you don't hear "I'm pro-this-thing" is in science, where people regularly say "Well, the new evidence says I'm wrong. SWEET! To the lab!" ... They don't care for being pro-anything except passion for the work. Learn from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Drudge is a "blogger" now? News to me. Unhinged, shit-flinging monkey perhaps, kind of like you appear to be.
You just described bloggers. 99.9% of them are worthless drivel.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:5, Insightful)
Drudge is a "blogger" now? News to me. Unhinged, shit-flinging monkey perhaps, kind of like you appear to be.
You just described bloggers. 99.9% of them are worthless drivel.
And you just assumed that an elected politician would know the difference between a blog and a "news" website. Rights are Rights. You either have them, or you don't. That is why ours are so black and white, to avoid generalized fucktard opinions like this that can become law.
Re: (Score:3)
If she had her way, there would be 26 little kids still alive going to Sandy Hook Elementary.
If anyone had their way, no one would have died. And unless she personally or some law enforcement she alerted somehow showed up outside the school with a sidearm before the bad guy got to the doors, she could have gotten her way. I don't picture that happening.
Depends (Score:2)
Contrast that with a pro-gun co
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Insightful)
Impossible? Really?
Machetes [nbcnews.com] work very well too.
The second amendment granted the PEOPLE the right to arms, not the government, and it was precisely to control the government that they were given these rights. It was fully expected that the PEOPLE would have the same arms as any soldier, which in this the modern era every citizen should be expected to have a fully automatic military long arm and a side arm.
See Switzerland. Vastly higher gun possession rate, gun death rate less than half of the US rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not universally agreed that the comma is significant at all. It merely separates a reason for a right from the actual statement of the right. It was never intended to be the only reason.
Furthermore there was discussion at the time to include several other reasons, self defense, hunting but southern delegates wanted the list to include suppression of slave uprising, snd northern delegates would have no truck with that.
Self defense was just assumed in those days, no on would question that. Stand your g
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
True. In theory.
False. In practice.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a ridiculous statement. The concept of human rights are a human creation. The truth is that every "right" you have is currently granted to you at the point of a gun, through social constructs like law and its enforcement. Viewing rights as intrinsic is dangerous, because in the end it's just an ideology. I do agree with the idea of basic human rights granted to everyone, but we should never lose sight that we only have them because we kill and imprison people who disagree.
Without the constitution, those "intrinsic" rights would cease to exist immediately to the whim of whoever owns the most efficient means of violence to enforce their views.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's my very point - they are not unalienable. They are made up. Human rights have no basis in reality, there's no fundamental law of nature that grant humans those rights. They are only an ideology and, as soon as someone with different views gathers the most power, they'll cease to exist. In the future, it's possible that technology will enable someone with a different ideology to seize power, and those "unalienable" rights would go away, perhaps never to return until humanity becomes extinct.
If rights effectively go away once you don't own the biggest guns anymore, then by definition they aren't unalienable : they are created by mankind. This is why you have to be willing to kill to defend your ideologies, otherwise people can use violence to enforce their way of life over you.
Re: (Score:2)
" that they were given these rights."
The PEOPLE weren't given these rights. They were born with these rights. The 2nd amendment prevents government from taking these rights away.
Re: (Score:2)
" that they were given these rights."
The PEOPLE weren't given these rights. They were born with these rights. The 2nd amendment prevents government from taking these rights away.
Not really.
An amendment is just an addition to the constitution. They are written by people.
They can be added, and changed, and they can be repealed.
At any time there can be a change (a "repeal with re-enactment") or repeal the 2nd amendment.
"A repeal without replacement is generally done when a law is no longer effective, or it is shown that a law is having far more negative consequences than were originally envisioned."
It is the constitution itself that provides for changing the amendments:
"The Congress,
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Informative)
See Switzerland. Vastly higher gun possession rate, gun death rate less than half of the US rate.
They have a very different setup from the US.
First: ALL able-bodied male Swiss citizens are drafted into the military around 20. All.
(Do you really want to return to a mandatory draft in the US?)
In the military they get extensive training in weapons safety, weapons handling, following order, etc.
Those with an exemption from service pay an additional 3% of annual income tax until the age of 30.
(So draft, or more taxes. No escape.)
Second: Every male head-of-household (remember, these are now former military) is required to maintain a working firearm. (They have the option of retaining their service weapon, but it is de-milled to remove full-auto operation.) [There is an upper age cutoff for this, I forget what it is.]
So, yes, there are LOTS of guns in Switzerland. But very, very different rules.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's your point.
All you've done is prove that an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.
Hardy justification for arms confiscation. Just the opposite.
Re: (Score:3)
So what's your point.
All you've done is prove that an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.
Hardy justification for arms confiscation. Just the opposite.
Hey great! I'm glad we agree.
Let's go ahead and pass the mandatory military draft law for all males, and proceed with confiscation of all firearms for anyone who has not finished their full military service.
Just like Switzerland.
You call NRA and let them know we're improving the system.
Re: (Score:2)
"In the military they get extensive training in weapons safety, weapons handling, following order, etc."
This is a crucial point which is usually overlooked: in order to use a gun safely, you need to learn the rules and practice them. Believe it or not, a car analogy actually works quite well here: no one would suggest that you don't have the right to travel, and therefore it would be wrong to deny you the right to drive a car, correct? But before you're allowed to drive a car, you have to learn the rule
Re: (Score:2)
And which part of the amendment discusses magazine size or automatic fire?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Blah blah blah the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Right of the People
Shall Not Be Infringed.
Re: (Score:3)
"A well regulated militia blah blah blah."
Context and meaning of the time please. Well regulated meant functional 200 years ago. A functional militia is necessary for free state not a potentially dysfunction but regulated militia.
Re: (Score:3)
Deceptive.
Enthusiasts have multiple guns. Even though you can only effectively shoot one at a time.
Yet every swiss male has at least one, and is required to practice with it.
One in every household is a higher percentage of households than the US.
Also its a higher rate of availability. Everybody has one spreads guns to a larger percentage of
the population than a small number of guys having large collections.
.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a government that has 'constitution-free zones', 'free-speech areas', and drone strikes the shit out of its own citizens without warrant or trial. And just this summer we found out the government's been spying on all of us. And you still think it's a brilliant idea for Congress to ban all guns.
I used to think gun control was a good idea. I thought all semi-automatic weapons should be outlawed. I could not see the case where a semi-auto rifle could deliver results that a bolt or lever-action simply couldn't provide. I thought the government could be trusted with taking up peoples' weapons. I was wrong.
My views changed on this subject last summer, due to articles about the NDAA, willy-nilly drone strikes, the NSA data center in Utah (hey! the conspiracy nuts were right...again), and the whole Julian Assange embassy business. Even if a gun ban worked perfectly, and everybody (including the criminals) turned in their weapons to Uncle Sam...what do you think would happen about government abuses? We're knocking down the four boxes pretty quick. Soap doesn't work. I don't have a multi-million dollar news network to spread my views. Ballot doesn't work. The elections are rigged. Jury doesn't work. Not with secret courts. We're down to the ammo box, friends and neighbors. Giving that ammo box back to the same critters who tyrannize us will do...what, exactly? A few million pissed-off people with hunting rifles can cause a hell of a lot of trouble.
Hey, I even used to buy into the whole 'mouth-breathing redneck meme', too. And then I started getting to know some. You know, being open-minded and all that crap. Turns out, they're pretty darned cool. Sure, they may not have sheepskins from universities on their walls, but they've got a hell of a lot more practical knowledge than I do. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met are farmers who dropped out of high school. Some of the stupidest, most naive jackasses I've ever encountered have multiple PhDs from Yale and Stanford. Don't generalize before you really hang out with a group. They might surprise you. Ah, and most of the 'mouth-breathing rednecks' I've known have exhibited extreme amounts of caution and safety when operating a weapon. They know how much damage it can do.
Gun ban legislation will only do one thing: spark civil war. The 'Joe Sixpacks' with their blue tick hounds are plenty pissed about the Patriot Act, NDAA, and all that other crap. Don't let the stupid media stereotypes fool you! They like the first amendment too. A gun ban will push them over the edge (last box). It will not work. Simply because a lot of people will not let it work. Good for them, I say.
I think you've got a very inaccurate misconception about rural people. Spend some time with 'em. They'll blow your mind. I betcha we're on the same side about all the overreaches of power and whatnot. Let's focus on *that* first. Priorities. Let's reestablish a free country with liberty for all again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Posting AC because the gun debate gets old after a while, but there is one point missing.
Guns are a wanted part of US culture, from the Wild West to the rednecks, to the gangbangers, and are part of every strata of US society.
Guess what will happen with a gun ban? Yep, the exact same thing that is happening because drugs are banned, and how alcohol was banned. Prohibition doesn't work. One has to change attitudes first (like drunk driving), then laws will change and be heeded.
A gun ban will get guns in m
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...would have made the massacre of children at Sandy Hook impossible.
No. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people like you condone atrocities like this?
Because I believe that freedom is more important than safety. Because I believe that we shouldn't punish everyone for the actions of a few. Because I have principles; unlike you. And I don't even own a gun.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Insightful)
A gun ban (like every other civilized country) would have made the massacre of children at Sandy Hook impossible.
Like a drug ban makes consuming drugs impossible and the prohibition caused everyone to stop drinking?
Here in Brazil we have a near total ban on guns. It's almost impossible to get a license to own a gun, and even more impossible to get the right to carry it around. Miraculously though, almost all criminals have guns, several of which military grade. Guess who are the only people who don't? A hint: starts with "law abiding" and ends with "citizens".
Here's what would stop any massacre in any school: an unknown number of armed teachers. Child-massacring wannabees chose schools because they know those are not only defenseless, but mandated by law to be defenseless. Break that assumption and the issue solves itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" The Second Amendment was meant for an army"
No it isn't. The army language was already somewhere else in the constitution. The 2nd amendment is a veiled threat against government misbehavior or else it will get replaced, by violent force if necessary by guaranteeing the people have the firepower to force the replacement. The 2nd amendment is a blanket ban on government arms control of any kind. All gun control laws are illegal when contrasted to the supreme law of the land. The curre
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not going to pretend Canada is some sort of crime-free nation but the crime index is interesting:
US:53.44
Canada: 34.98
Re: (Score:2)
90+% of all American shooting sprees occur in locations where conceal carry is prohibited. Another words these gunman almost certainly, with planning, picked their venue with the knowledge that his targets would not be able to shoot back.
Of course it doesn't mean that at all. It means that both society and the shooters recognized those places as being vulnerable - society thought it could protect them by banning guns there, the shooters liked it because the places were vulnerable anyway. It doesn't mean the shooters actually researched whether or not concealed carry was permitted. Since basically all mass shootings are deliberate forms of suicide, the shooters would actually do better to pick locations where concealed carry is explicitly
Re: (Score:2)
You mean places like Fort Hood? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not so fast:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/ [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I struggled a lot with whether to mod you up or reply in hopes of my karma boosting your post up some - someone please mod this up! Unfortunately, you can't count on many a /. reader going to your link, and all you did was dump it - but it is of value:
As Bier put it, "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’ "
While the rate is still higher when comparing similar categories (around ~700 some odd in the UK vs 340-ish in the US), even this comparison is riddled with holes. In summation, getting an "apples to apples" comparison of the crime rates in both countries is d
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Informative)
Let's compare violent crime rates per 100K people: US 466, UK 2034
A bullshit comparison that has been debunked often before. The definitions used for "violent crime" are totally different in either country, so it is impossible to compare the stats in any sensible way.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to know results, try Venezuela. A year ago, they removed the guns from private citizen's hands because of escalating violence. Their crime rate is now 1/1000 (yes, ten cubed) what it was before the gun ban.
They removed some small percentage of arms from the hands of citizens, mostly to prevent overthrow of Chavez, and since he is dead, nobody cares any more. Other than that your claim is totally bogus.
But then, posting as AC, its what we all expect.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us believe fundamental rights and freedoms are more important than a statistically minuscule chance of death. We're not willing to trade what we view as a fundamental human right because people have been hurt. It's like the argument about deaths by car. No one will ban cars because they are fundamental to our society. That's how we view firearms. We view these rights as critical for a society to be free.
We also don't believe in false dichotomies like that one you rolled out because we're intellectua
Re: (Score:2)
Anarchists want zero government. Not minimal. Zero. It' is a huge and fundamental difference between anarchists and everyone else.
So zero isn't minimal? How do you get less than zero?
Anyway, I'm done here. It's interesting to note that I started off simply by explaining to you that (at least some of) the people you disagree with have a logical, internally consistent belief systems that simply have different priorities than yours.
Ah yes, "I'm done here." That's what losers who can't articulate their thoughts in a logical and rational manner say when they realize they can't say anything that isn't self-contradictory. Stop thinking, and get back to your Fox News. You wouldn't want to have to actually have a discussion.
You responded to this with ad hominem attacks based on philosophies you don't understand and accusations that don't even make sense and refused to step back and think because you were too emotionally invested in your own sense of righteousness.
You said stupid things about guns, and I mocked you. I'm not emotionally invested. I couldn't care less whether you own a gun. Gun rights isn't a fundamental ri
Re: (Score:2)
There are other countries in the world without a gun ban, so while the US as a whole may suffer tremendously from hubris (no one could deny that), I believe that's a straw man in the context of this argument.
You can buy and own a gun in Australia, NZ, UK, but none of those three see it as a "right" as far as I can tell. There's a difference between something being "allowed" and it being a "right".
Do you know of anywhere else in the world where ownership of a firearm is considered a "right"?
And people assume that I want them banned. Despite the fact I've never said anything of the kind. I've looked at countries where they are tightly regulated, but allowed quite broadly, and it seems to work better that way
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats WONDERFUL! Say, whats the state of human rights, democracy, etc in Venezuela?
All of these things are connected, you know; the Bill of Rights wasnt drafted for no reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:5, Informative)
Venezuela's crime rate is 1/1000 of what it was? Why are articles like this http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/20130619-impunity-leads-soaring-venezuela-crime-rate so easily found?
Let's check on that real quick (Score:5, Informative)
The crime rate is 0.001% of what it was pre-ban? So if their crime rate was, say 10 in 100,000 citizens it would now be 1 in 10,000,000 citizens.
Ok well in the first two months of 2013 2500 people were killed. This is just murder here, we aren't looking at lesser crimes right now (http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/venezuelan-government-recognizes-record-murder-rate). That means we can expect around 15,000 murders this year. By your logic, that means there was 15,000,000 murders last year, or over half their population.
However if we do a little more looking, in the same article, we discover that no, there was about 16,000 murders last year, meaning this one looks about the same as the last.
In other words, you are just completely making shit up. If you have to resort to logic that faulty, that far out, that totally made up to support your position, it leads one to ask how valid your position is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I quick Google search says you fail it.
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/venezuelan-homicides-reach-record-high-in-2013 [insightcrime.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to know results, try Venezuela. A year ago, they removed the guns from private citizen's hands because of escalating violence. Their crime rate is now 1/1000 (yes, ten cubed) what it was before the gun ban.
Assuming the official statistics can be trusted, that is. The article I'm quoting is a few years old, but it points out some problems that were already occurring, regarding the country's response to the exploding homicide rate:
http://www.economist.com/node/21009630 [economist.com]
The government, however, seems less concerned with reducing the crime rate than with preventing press coverage of it. The main detective corps, known as the CICPC, closed its press office years ago, forcing crime reporters to meet under a nearby tree. In response to El Nacional's morgue photo, it announced that it would request that the paper be prosecuted for violating children's right not to be exposed to violent images. Police officers were stationed at the morgue to prevent any repetition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that Dianne Feinstein is actually a dick girl? If so, it would explain a lot about her, and why the liberals here in California love her so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I used Drudge as the example because he was the first to publicly cry "foul" at Feinstein. I don't read Drudge and I'm not a member of any political party, Republican or otherwise.
Obviously you have no argument against what I posted, or else you'd reply with something other than an ad hominem attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when does an unsupported ad hominem attack need to be debunked? You're making some very specific claims about what someone thinks, then are crying foul when someone throws it back in your face.
Say something supported with evidence, or can the party-line rhetoric.
Tent camp! (Score:4, Insightful)
The leaders of the so called free world promptly laid their coats over their laps after reading that little tidbit. I'm sure they were also wondering "How long till we can do that here?"
Just to be fair, I'm sure Merkel and Hillary had to cover their laps as well for similar "problems".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Five fingers (Score:2)
I will never understand why they coerce these false confessions. There can't be more than a handful of people, especially in China where trust in their government is even lower than over here, who believes he changed his mind on his own.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing happens when everyone is dependant on their government for every facet of thier lives.
Never need your government more than your government needs you.
its not about trust (Score:2)
Its affirmation that if you *will* conform, or else.
Re: (Score:2)
The population of the US actually pretty broadly trusts their government.
Here is a box of tissues.
Re: (Score:2)
The people that are left recall what happened to millions and millions and passed on that fear to their child.
The 1950~60's is not a distant memory for China.
A confession makes the system work and the person might just save their extended family from the same fate.
Bradley Manning (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet when Bradley Manning makes an eerily similar statement plenty of people are willing to take it as proof positive that he was a bad guy.
Re:Bradley Manning (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet when Bradley Manning makes an eerily similar statement plenty of people are willing to take it as proof positive that he was a bad guy.
The definition of patriotism is believing your country is the best country on Earth simply because you were born in it. Nobody's national anthem starts with "We're Number Two!" So when America says someone's bad, americans believe it, but nobody else does. When the Chinese say someone's bad, the chinese people believe it, but nobody else. And so on, and so on.
Nationalism is hardly a problem confined to America; It blinds people equally the world over. Here's some Russian [utdallas.edu] propaganda about American, and here's some American [designer-daily.com] propaganda about Russians. It's all the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Don't worry though, the rest of the world is watching.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Bradley Manning (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong! The first rule you learn in the US Army is that you are to uphold the Constitution and defend the citizens. You also learn that you are not to obey orders that are unlawful and therefor illegal.
Wear the Uniform and learn the job before you spout off bullshit propaganda. I proudly served my country defending it's citizens, consider myself to be pro-USA, and would have done exactly the same thing as Manning under the same circumstances.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong! The first rule you learn in the US Army is that you are to uphold the Constitution and defend the citizens. You also learn that you are not to obey orders that are unlawful and therefor illegal.
Uphold the Constitution [telegraph.co.uk], Defend the citizens [rnkr-static.com], and lawful orders [collateralmurder.com]. That would be the Abu Ghraib iraq prison scandal, the US government putting prisoners in a room with mustard gas to test its effects, and shooting unarmed bystanders trying to help the injured after a botched air strike, respectively.
Wear the Uniform and learn the job before you spout off bullshit propaganda.
I think the work speaks for itself. I don't think I need to participate in the torture and murder of people, or use chemical weapons on them, to arrive at the conclusion that some of the things our military has d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Average Twitter celebrity = Charles Xue
Bradley/Chelsea Manning = ???Chinese military whistle blower???
Average Twitter celebrity: still tweeting; Charles Xue: arrested, made to confess on TV
Bradley/Chelsea Manning: 35 years in jail; ???Chinese military whistle blower???: the world will never know this man or his fate
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig Orwell (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Where have I read this before...? (Score:2)
The video (Score:2)
i wonder what they threatened him with (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:i wonder what they threatened him with (Score:4, Insightful)
they're just basically making example of this guy as a message to its population to say "we can make you do whatever we want".
As they say in China: Kill the chicken to scare the monkey [chinesedic.com].
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The bradley manning confession, do you think american people were smart enough to believe it was forced?
Translation ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They threatened me and my family, and the only way I can escape prison or a firing squad is to publicly denounce this.
I do not believe this is anything other than agreeing to repeat the party line under duress.
SOP: leave the body as a warning to the others (Score:2)
Or since this is China, he'll be the most famous member of the "Bodies" exhibit in a year.
That's the only reason why he'd be pushed to renounce his beliefs and practices, because the guvmint wanted others like him to curl up and give up so they're making an example of him. And for the record, the Internet that he says is best controlled by the government is controlled by the government, it's behind the Great Firewall and required him to find a way around it to be heard.
Re: (Score:2)
O cruel, needless misunderstanding! (Score:3, Informative)
This man was tortured (Score:3)
No one seems to care
So, in other words: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, sure. Sounds like just another normal day in mainland China.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, you can tell how tortured, beaten, starved, and drugged he was during his broadcasted confession in this video:
http://v.163.com/zixun/V8GAM7JAP/V97SHLBI4.html
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Didn't they make people who were caught file-sharing write similar "anti-piracy" confessions for reduced charges?
Anyways, we criticize countries for not having freedom of press. But, on the other hand, when countries do have freedom of press, we exploit that by planing stories to produce a favorable climate (e.g. the Iran CIA coup started with planted stories in the press).
We have the largest prison population in the world and we have made incarceration and jails into a intricate behemoth of a syst
Re: (Score:3)
well, odds are they didn't have to do have of the extreme measures you suggest. Maybe this guy was exceptional, but all it usually takes is a good dose of cold water. A normal arrest and careful explanation of the consequences will get most people with family to fold. Of course, in the event they get a true idealist, then, yes, some or all of those measures will get the desired result.
Torture may not be that great for getting truthful information, but it works wonders to get someone to say something, anythi
Still think Assange "rape" charge has any merit? (Score:3)
Sounds familiar (Score:2)
Obligatory Orwell (Score:3)
"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
Re: (Score:2)
Propaganda at its finest written by people who most likely dont even own a passport, never mind have any first hand experience to back what they say.