After a student leader of the historic Tiananmen Square protests entered a 2022 congressional race in New York, a Chinese intelligence operative wasted little time enlisting a private investigator to hunt for any mistresses or tax problems that could upend the candidate’s bid, prosecutors say.
“In the end,” the operative ominously told his contact, “violence would be fine too.”
As an Iranian journalist and activist living in exile in the United States aired criticism of Iran’s human rights abuses, Tehran was listening too. Members of an Eastern European organized crime gang scouted her Brooklyn home and plotted to kill her in a murder-for-hire scheme directed from Iran, according to the Justice Department, which foiled the plan and brought criminal charges.
The episodes reflect the extreme measures taken by countries like China and Iran to intimidate, harass and sometimes plot attacks against political opponents and activists who live in the U.S. They show the frightening consequences that geopolitical tensions can have for ordinary citizens as governments historically intolerant of dissent inside their own borders are increasingly keeping a threatening watch on those who speak out thousands of miles away.
Im not trying to justify the crimes of Russia or China, Im trying to point out the hypocracy of the AP. I’m not sure this qualifies as whataboutism.
Hiding behind legality isn’t a convincing argument. In my opinion, what happened to Chelsea Manning was ‘legal’ in the same sense that slavery was once ‘legal’. Its an absolute disgrace and a moral stain on the nation.
So the remaining distinction is the violent violation of sovereignty, legality, and due process. When the US wants to violate these international norms, we label the target as a ‘terrorist’. We have killed thousands this way.
So maybe a better analogy to this situation is the murder of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, 16 year old US citizen dissident who was killed by Obama without a trial. Iran and China are following our example, and the way AP covers these stories shows their bias.
Are you really calling al-Awlaki a “dissident”? What a load of crap, dude was straight up al-Qaeda! We didn’t “label” him a terrorist, he was one.
I think you are confused, you seem to be referring to Anwar al-Awlaki, while I was referring to his son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.
You’re right, I was confused. That’s partially because your comment implied the US targeted him specifically, which was the case for the father but not for the son.
You also appear confused, since you refer to him as a “dissident”.
It’s tragic, but maybe don’t hang out with a bunch of terrorists. His father is to blame for taking his son into that company.