I just saw CNN's reporting on the hearing, and they only refer to it as foreign currency and didn't give specifics.
I don't know if other sources give more detail.
ferristriangle
joined 4 years ago
I mean, he shouldn't be lionized regardless because he didn't do it.
Like a wise man once said, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"
Regarding the "he only disputed the cash" bit:
My understanding is that this isn't the murder trial, so none of the other items would have been brought up because they aren't relevant to the hearing. The only thing this hearing was for is whether he should be held behind bars and for how long, and the cash was relevant to make that determination because it was being argued that the cash (and in particular the fact that part of it was foreign currency) indicates that he's a flight risk and is trying to flee the country. That was being used as the basis for asking the judge to rule that he should be held without bail pending trial.
This wouldn't be the time or place for disputing the facts of the case because there is no case at this moment. No trial has occurred, and this courtroom doesn't even have jurisdiction to hold a trial for this case. The New York prosecutors office would need to make a request for extradition and he would need to be tried in a New York court.
So the fact that he only disputed the cash doesn't necessarily mean he is admitting the rest belonged to him. It's just as likely that the cash is the only thing that was disputed because it was the only thing that was presented as being relevant to make a decision regarding bail, and the other items weren't commented on because they weren't relevant to the matter being discussed.
If someone has more knowledge on everything that was presented in court and can comment further on the matter, feel free to correct me!
What else would learning R mean? The programming language?
No one is attacking your "factual and informative" comment.
No one is disputing the difficulties you've highlighted. What is being disputed is your assertion that those difficulties are relevant to your assertion that China won't be able to achieve this.
And the subject of the conversation is a technology that humans have already developed and is in use. So what is it about China/the PRC that would cause you to assert they are incapable of building/employing this technology?
Your argument is that "Hard science doesn't care about politics," so I assume you don't want to imply that you're critiquing the capabilities of China's political system. So what's left? Is it racism? The removed can't achieve what other humans have already proven is possible because the removed is subhuman?
You are making a political statement whether you intend to or not, you don't just get to whine about how you were only talking about the science and why is everyone being so mean when you only started a discussion about the science to reinforce (or deflect from) your original assertion.
No one is asking you to?
because there are not actually two parties
"The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them."
- Julius Nyerere
Well Israel is a settler-colonial project propped up by a global military empire who wants a military ally/outpost in the middle east, and that settler-colonial project is ripping people out of their homes to give land to settlers.
Palestinians are the ones getting ripped out of their homes, having legal rights stripped away from them, and ultimately being corralled into what are fenced-in, open air concentration camps as Israel continues expanding its borders. This is what has resulted in conditions like what we see in Gaza, which is currently one of the highest population density places on earth as a result of Palestinians having more and more of their land colonized and the families who weren't murdered in ethnic cleansing campaigns had to live closer and closer together as they were driven out of their homes. And as more and more people keep getting shoved into smaller and areas of land as Israel closes its borders in more and more via military occupation, Israel uses its control of the land surrounding these settlements to restrict food, medicine, and electricity from getting to Palestinians. Gaza usually only gets 4 hours of electricity every day despite living in an arid climate where not having air conditioning can result in death from heat stroke on particularly hot days. ~95% of the water in Gaza is not safe to drink, so death from starvation and dehydration are both incredibly common. And with extremely limited access to medical resources, very few people live to/past middle age, with the average age in Gaza currently sitting around 19 years old. Living conditions are so bad that suicidality among children is incredibly common, with over half of people under 18 reporting that they have no will to live when surveyed. And when Israel is not expanding its borders and settling more land, it preys on the desperation of the Palestinian people who have had their lives ripped away from them by employing them for cheap labor to make the lives of the settlers more comfortable. Those are the Palestinians who also have citizenship in Israel so that they can work in Israel, but even with citizenship they are second-class citizens without access to most political and legal rights.
Israelis don't have any particular reason to hate Palestinians, they're just doing what every settler-colony does and they keep experiencing blowback from the people they are colonizing. All of the propaganda about thousands of years of Holy War over a Holy Land is just a founding mythos used to obscure this colonizer/colonized relationship by pretending that these are two groups on equal standing that are bickering with each other because they just can't get along.
mismanagement
When talking about the US, it's more often correct to assume malice rather than incompetence
I wrote a long comment about this a few days ago (not about the DPRK specifically, but still very relevant)
They've provided a source, indicating that they have done investigation into the issue.
The quote isn't "If you don't do the specific investigation that I want you to do and come to the same conclusion that I have, then no right to speak."
If you believe their investigation led them to an erroneous position, it is now incumbent on you to make that case and provide your supporting evidence.