[helen___keller]

> the charges were dropped on the basis of legal technicality

Charges can only exist on the basis of legal technicality. That’s how law works.

What you are describing is guilt by association with China. It is not illegal to work to promote scientific collaboration with China. It is not illegal to participate in advancing Chinese scientific interests. Some people might consider these things immoral. Some people might not.

Clearly the prosecutor felt as you do, that because Dr Chen’s work involved advancing Chinese scientific interests, he must be some kind of spy or traitor. If you remove the preconception of guilt by association with China, you might realize it’s possible to want to do science, even science funded by a foreign country and advancing that countries interests, and not automatically be some kind of traitor or spy.

[defaultprimate]

>Charges can only exist on the basis of legal technicality. That’s how law works.

Don't be coy, you know exactly what I mean. If you get away with, for example, sexual crimes like Cosby due to legal technicalities, it doesn't mean you aren't guilty or weren't malicious.

The NYT piece tries to pretend that Chen was not doing anything at all worth scrutinizing. He clearly was, just in a way different than the initial charges cover - mandatory disclosure.

>What you are describing is guilt by association with China

No, what I'm describing is secretive collaboration with an adversarial government on research funded by the US federal government for the express purpose of advancing the interests of that adversarial government, which is exactly what happened. Read the quotes from his communications in the criminal complaint.

Like I said, time will tell if further charges are brought.

[helen___keller]

I’ve skimmed the original filing including the quote from his emails on bullet 19.

It’s clear Dr. Chen does not consider China to be an adversarial government. Believe it or not, many idealistic people believe in a collaborative future, and unless Dr Chen’s work is classified or military in nature I don’t see a reason to assume anything but the best.

Similarly, he may have committed a crime like espionage but I don’t see any reason to assume this is true unless the government can bring forth evidence supporting that. Such evidence has not materialized yet.

If I study forestry and collaborate with the Canadian government, am I betraying the United States by helping a competing economic power get ahead in forestry? Ultimately, these sort of arguments always rely on moral absolutionism that China is Bad Always. Not everyone agrees with this.

[defaultprimate]

>It’s clear Dr. Chen does not consider China to be an adversarial government

Then he shouldn't be doing research funded by DoD and DARPA, and certainly shouldn't be sharing it with the CCP. You've literally made my point for me.

>Dr Chen’s work is classified or military

DoD and DARPA research are military in nature by definition. Most DoE research, along with the former two, are ITAR restricted as well.

>If I study forestry and collaborate with the Canadian government, am I betraying the United States by helping a competing economic power get ahead in forestry?

Massive false equivalence between China and Canada. China is not merely a "competing economic power". It is not up to Chen to decide who is an approved cooperative partner based on his personal feelings.

>Not everyone agrees with this.

You can disagree with an objective fact all you want, it doesn't make it any less of an objective fact. The CCP is evil and malicious.

[helen___keller]

You obviously know government agencies better than I do, and I’m not trying to defend the CCP so I won’t claim they aren’t evil or malicious.

My point is just that in this situation, the point of the law is to disambiguate where your personal liberties as someone who might feel positive towards China end, and your collective responsibility towards your country begin.

Feeling friendly to China isn’t illegal or immoral. Helping China in a way that your government forbids, be it for national security or otherwise, is illegal and probably immoral.

If Chen did not break the law, then he did not betray the moral guidelines outlined through law. Unless you want to claim that the spirit of the law was that he should disclose more than legally required to disclose.

Claiming anything more than this just sounds like virtue signaling.

[defaultprimate]

Not being guilty of breaking specific mandatory disclosure laws doesn't mean he didn't break the law or participate in grossly inappropriate and dangerous behavior, especially given the sources and nature of his federally funded research.

As I've said, time will tell whether or not there is sufficient evidence to file criminal charges on the basis of actual espionage, but just looking at his communications is enough to illustrate he should not be trusted with federal funding or research in the primary domains in which he works.

[captainredbeard]

> What you are describing is guilt by association with China. It is not illegal to work to promote scientific collaboration with China

Perhaps it should be.