| >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. |
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.