All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[PwrdOn]

Oh brother.



https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Ho...tradition-bill

So it sounds like you're confused between Carrie Lam /saying./ she would do it and it actually happening.

In the meantime, Honk Kong dissidents will be breathing a sigh of relief that the Chinese government can not legally disappear them to the mainland, as has happened to others.

The legislature wasn't in session when she made the announcement, this latest move is just a formality. It's not as if people were holding their breath thinking that she was going to do a 180 and reintroduce the bill or anything like that. And all those disappearances involved people who were already in mainland China when they were arrested, something that can still happen with or without an extradition bill. It's not as if the bill is giving legal cover to Chinese agents are going across the border to snatch people, and I imagine that after months of protests, the risk of that happening has probably gone up if nothing else.

Hong Kong only has the special status it does because as an offshore tax haven, it's a useful conduit for companies to skirt the much harsher laws for doing business in mainland China. While this has made the city wealthy, predictably this little experiment in capitalism gone mad has produced a deeply unequal society, and of course the people there blame everything on those damned dirty mainlanders coming in and taking their jobs rather than their own faulty governance. While the Chinese government can be incredibly repressive in places like Xinjiang and Tibet, it is uncharacteristically hands off when it comes to Hong Kong and rarely interferes in their affairs because of its importance as a financial center and the fact that many top party officials have their own business interests there. Oh sure, the protesters love to use flowery language about freedom and democracy, but so do Brexiteers and Trump voters.

[Tendrin]

The legislature wasn't in session when she made the announcement, this latest move is just a formality.

Jesus Christ, man. It was called 'formal withdrawal'.

It's not as if people were holding their breath thinking that she was going to do a 180 and reintroduce the bill or anything like that.

It was formally wiothdrawn today. I posted that it was formally withdrawn. Nobody suggested that the bill was going forward.

And all those disappearances involved people who were already in mainland China when they were arrested, something that can still happen with or without an extradition bill.

Sure. That's why I deleted the disappearance link, because I remembered that they were arrested outside of Hong Kong.

It's not as if the bill is giving legal cover to Chinese agents are going across the border to snatch people, and I imagine that after months of protests, the risk of that happening has probably gone up if nothing else.

It's giving them legal cover by allowing them to indict them under oppressive laws and request extradition to mainland China so they no longer have to snatch them if they want to. I also feel compelled to point out the chilling impact on free speech knowing China can charge you under Chinese laws and have you extradited to the mainland for speaking against the Chinese government. It's not exactly like the Chinese legal system is hospitable and friendly, my dude.

Edit: Yes, I'm sure the average Hong Kong dissident *really* wants to count on the importance of Hong Kong as a financial center to 'protect' them from being extradited if they speak out against the Chinese government or write unflattering things about it on the internet. Jesus.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Official's homophobic slur ignites explosive reaction against Tennessee tourism hot spot

Sevier County officials moved swiftly Tuesday to distance themselves from a county commissioner who used a homophobic slur to describe presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg.

Commissioner Warren Hurst, who's held his seat for 33 years, made the remark during an unprompted rant ahead of a vote on a gun measure at Monday night's commission meeting. He railed against the national Democratic Party and said better presidential candidates could be found in the local jail.

Hurst, a toothpick in his mouth, went on to say, "I'm not prejudiced, but by golly a white male in this country has very few rights, and they're getting took more every day."

At least one woman stormed out of the meeting, but many in the crowd applauded Hurst, and some said, "Amen."

The county, one of the nation's most popular travel destinations, received a flood of criticism after Knoxville TV station WVLT posted a video clip from the speech.

The community is the gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the nation's most visited national park. It's also home to Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge, which host dozens of tourist attractions, including Dollywood and restaurants owned by Paula Deen and Blake Shelton. Many social media posts criticizing Hurst’s statements have tagged the tourist attractions and organizations.

Sevier County's official Twitter account on Tuesday morning disavowed Hurst's comments, saying they "do not reflect the opinion or position of Sevier County administration."

The city of Sevierville followed up with a statement condemning the "offensive" remarks.

"The City of Sevierville Board of Mayor and Aldermen and City administration reject bigotry and prejudice towards any and all persons," the statement reads, in part. "Mr. Hurst’s remarks do not reflect the feelings of our residents, who are friendly, caring people and neighbors. The City of Sevierville and the entire Smoky Mountain community is a welcoming place for the millions that visit our region and the thousands who live here."

[Mister Mets]

Note he said announced, not passed.

There is no bill and it seems to be one official in Uganda rather than Uganda as a collective entity.

It is relevant that the rest of the government disagreed.

Thank you, jetengine. Now I'm just left wondering what horrible conservative causes Mets won't reflexively defend.

When liberals are wrong, I will point it out. As I do when the right is mistaken.

Unfortunately every time a left-winger exaggerates, it makes their criticisms of Trump less effective.

[kidfresh512]

Despite the trump administration doing everything it can to try and force non cooperation with subpoenas and appearances before Congress. There is a line of diplomats telling all in great detail

All, backing up the heart of the Impeachment Inquiry with sworn testimony and notes and documents. All trying Trump directly to using his office for his own personal interest over the National interest of America.

But, glance over at Fox News and their top concern is conspiracy theories of ex spy chiefs. The only mention they have on the testimony yesterday is that they shot down everything Taylor testified about "in 90 seconds". Despite Trump, Mulvaney publicly admitting it happened and us reading the partial call transcript.

Which is exactly why you cannot trust the Senate GOP to actually do their jobs. They wont ever convict.

There is no bill and it seems to be one official in Uganda rather than Uganda as a collective entity.

It is relevant that the rest of the government disagreed.

When liberals are wrong, I will point it out. As I do when the right is mistaken.

Unfortunately every time a left-winger exaggerates, it makes their criticisms of Trump less effective.

That's the problem. The criticism of Trump should be "left winger" only. He is saying the Constitution is "phony". He is putting national security at risk for his own personal gain. He tried to hand government contracts to himself. And the only reason he had to back off is the massive outrage from the public and even GOP said they cant back it.

[Kirby101]

Yes the Chic-Fil-As in NYC are always busy, mores the pity.

[Tami]

Trump says he may leave some U.S. forces in Syria to protect oil, but not Kurds

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump suggested Monday that he would leave some U.S. troops in Syria to protect oil resources, but said he saw no need for U.S. forces to defend America's Kurdish partners.

"We never agreed to protect the Kurds for the rest of their lives," Trump told reporters at a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

"Where is the agreement we have to stay in the Middle East for the rest of humanity?" he added.

He said the military personnel would be "leaving not expeditiously, intelligently" and that the priority would be protecting the region's oil resources. He said the U.S. would work out a deal where some oil revenue would go to the Kurds, and suggested a large oil company could be involved. He also said the U.S. would leave a small number of troops near Jordan at the request of Israel.

"Keep the oil, we want to keep the oil and we will work something out with the Kurds so they have some money, they have some cash flow," Trump said.

[Tami]

Trump might end up putting US Military into a ground war with Russia, Syria, and Turkey. Not to protect the Kurds, but to protect Oil that belongs to Syria.

[Tami]

Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO quietly tests presidential bid

Ed Stack, the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods and a longtime Republican donor, is testing the waters for a possible third-party presidential bid that could scramble the dynamics of the 2020 general election.

Various messages were presented to a focus group in southern Wisconsin this week centering on the billionaire businessman, along with possible three-way match-ups against Donald Trump and Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.

A source familiar with Stack’s thinking said, “Mr. Stack enjoys running Dick's Sporting Goods and has no plans to run for any elected office.”

The message testing told a different story. Those in the group were shown several short videos of other candidates including Biden, Warren and former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz — a fellow billionaire who explored a presidential bid as an independent before announcing in September that he would not run — but viewed eight or nine videos that included Stack messaging, according to a focus group participant.

The focus group member, who presented paperwork to verify participation, declined to be named.

Among the questions posed to the roughly two dozen participants: ‘would you be open to voting for a third party candidate?’”

[PwrdOn]

It's giving them legal cover by allowing them to indict them under oppressive laws and request extradition to mainland China so they no longer have to snatch them if they want to. I also feel compelled to point out the chilling impact on free speech knowing China can charge you under Chinese laws and have you extradited to the mainland for speaking against the Chinese government. It's not exactly like the Chinese legal system is hospitable and friendly, my dude.

Edit: Yes, I'm sure the average Hong Kong dissident *really* wants to count on the importance of Hong Kong as a financial center to 'protect' them from being extradited if they speak out against the Chinese government or write unflattering things about it on the internet. Jesus.

Like most extradition agreements, it would only have applied to acts that were illegal in both areas, and so abusing the law to arrest dissidents would be just as illegal as it is now. I wouldn't put it past the Chinese government to do that, but it wouldn't empower them to take any action that they couldn't already do now.

Fundamentally, HK was founded as a place where foreign companies could have a free hand to do business free from Chinese authority, and whatever personal freedoms trickled down to the people as a result were purely incidental and have always been conveniently ignored when expedient, such as during the leftist riots in 1967. The Chinese government has ruled with a light hand because it has a commercial interest in doing so, which is far more important than anything written on a piece of paper, but these protests will probably end up pushing the Chinese government into adopting much harsher policies in the future.

[Tendrin]

Like most extradition agreements, it would only have applied to acts that were illegal in both areas.

I'm not sure that's true.

The introduction of the bill caused widespread criticism domestically and abroad from the legal profession, journalist organisations, business groups, and foreign governments fearing the erosion of Hong Kong's legal system and its built-in safeguards, as well as damage to Hong Kong's business climate. Largely, this fear is attributed to China's newfound ability through this bill to arrest voices of political dissent in Hong Kong. There have been multiple protests against the bill in Hong Kong and other cities abroad. On 9 June, protesters estimated to number from hundreds of thousands to more than a million marched in the streets and called for Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down.[4][5] On 15 June, Lam announced she would 'suspend' the proposed bill.[6] Ongoing protests called for a complete withdrawal of the bill and subsequently the implementation of universal suffrage, which is promised in the Basic Law. On 4 September, after 13 weeks of protests, Lam officially promised to withdraw the bill upon the resumption of the legislative session from its summer recess.[7][8]

The key provisions of the bill, as originally tabled, are as follows:
In the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO) (Cap. 503):[13]
To differentiate case-based surrender arrangements (to be defined as "special surrender arrangements" in the proposal) from general long-term surrender arrangements;
To stipulate that special surrender arrangements will be applicable to Hong Kong and any place outside Hong Kong, and they will only be considered if there are no applicable long-term surrender arrangements;
To specify that special surrender arrangements will cover 37 of the 46 items of offences based on their existing description in Schedule 1 of the FOO, and the offences are punishable with imprisonment for more than three years (later adjusted to seven years) and triable on indictment in Hong Kong. A total of nine items of offences will not be dealt with under the special surrender arrangements;
To specify that the procedures in the FOO will apply in relation to special surrender arrangements (except that an alternative mechanism for activating the surrender procedures by a certificate issued by the Chief Executive is provided), which may be subject to further limitations on the circumstances in which the person may be surrendered as specified in the arrangements;
To provide that a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Chief Executive is conclusive evidence of there being special surrender arrangements, such that the certificate will serve as a basis to activate the surrender procedures. Such activation does not mean that the fugitive will definitely be surrendered as the request must go through all statutory procedures, including the issuance of an authority to proceed by the Chief Executive, the committal hearing by the court and the eventual making of the surrender order by the Chief Executive. Other procedural safeguards, such as application for habeas corpus, application for discharge in case of delay, and judicial review of the Chief Executive's decision, as provided under the FOO will remain unchanged;

[PwrdOn]

I'm not sure that's true.

The thing you quoted specifically states that the extraditable offenses must be "triable on indictment in Hong Kong."

[Tendrin]

The thing you quoted specifically states that the extraditable offenses must be "triable on indictment in Hong Kong."

You know, I was looking for that and I missed it in the legalese. Thank you. However:

he Hong Kong Bar Association released a statement expressing its reservations over the bill, saying that the restriction against any surrender arrangements with mainland China was not a "loophole", but existed in light of the fundamentally different criminal justice system operating in the Mainland, and concerns over the Mainland's track record on the protection of fundamental rights. The association also questioned the accountability of the Chief Executive as the only arbiter of whether a special arrangement was to be concluded with a requesting jurisdiction without the scrutiny of the Legislative Council or without expanding the role of the courts in vetting extradition requests.[23] Twelve current and former chairs of the Bar Association warned that the government's "oft-repeated assertion that the judges will be gatekeepers is misleading", as "the proposed new legislation does not give the Court power to review such matters and the Court would be in no such position to do so."[24]

Three senior judges and twelve leading commercial and criminal lawyers called the bill "one of the starkest challenges to Hong Kong's legal system" in a Reuters report. They feared it would "put [the courts] on a collision course with Beijing", as the limited scope of extradition hearings would leave them little room to manoeuvre. They were concerned that if they tried to stop high-profile suspects from being sent across the border, they would be exposed to criticism and political pressure from Beijing. The judges and lawyers said that under Hong Kong's British-based common law system, extraditions are based on the presumption of a fair trial and humane punishment in the receiving country—a presumption they say China's Communist Party-controlled legal system has not earned.[24]

I really think you underestimate the impact of the bill and the amount of leverage it would give mainland China over dissidents. Self-censorship for fear of the consequences is already endemic over there for a reason. It's amusing, though, that tax evasion was removed from the extraditable offenses for the sake of the 'concerns' of the business community.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump might end up putting US Military into a ground war with Russia, Syria, and Turkey. Not to protect the Kurds, but to protect Oil that belongs to Syria.

Priorities, yo! Gotta keep that Middle East crude safe from harm!

[Tami]

When Trump wanted to bring the Cabinet to his June kickoff rally, Mulvaney cautioned about Hatch Act violations.

“I’m in charge of the Hatch Act,” Trump barked, saying his chief was “weak” for making the suggestion.

Trump later backed off the idea.

Twitter Link