Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (8997)	8/3/1999 8:36:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Stephen- <<I can't see how it is in the Government's interest to make a huge issue out of the Lee case if they are not prepared to release the evidence or place him on trial. The government certainly comes off looking lame.>> Here I go, violating my own preference to stay out of this. But you have to distinguish between the various facets of government. I'm middling certain security types in DISA and the FBI would have preferred the Lee case not become a public display- and only in part because the Lee case appears to underscore their own lapses. But Congress has its own agenda- from political theater to genuine outrage of just another example of Clinton's lying, only this time he was likely playing his own political agenda to the detriment of the security of the United States. <<If Lee's sole transgression was copying of files onto an insecure computer, how do we deduce that he was spying for China? Assuming that he is spying, he could just as easily be spying for Israel, or Taiwan, either of which would give plenty to get their hands on nuclear secrets.>> No, you don't deduce he was spying for China based purely on the evidence you cited. And the FBI and DISA don't rush to that judgement either. What makes you think they do?? You seem to presuppose that you know the relevant facts. But even much of the Cox report was classified. Insofar as Mary Cluney was saying a person should not be convicted in the court of public opinion, I agree with her (but in fact, she said much more). <<If such copying of files is standard practice among scientists, as Lee claims (and I do not find the claim incredible), why was Lee singled out?>> If this was a common practice at the lab where he worked, I am confident it is no longer so. But if Lee was "singled out" it may well have been for reasons that are not public and will not be made public. I regard as unfortunate that the laws governing criminal proceedings- the requirement of open trials- sometimes make it so that security cases are not prosecuted. The government does not want to disclose certain information that would be necessary to prosecute such people. In this way, people who have jeopardized the security of the United States- and freedom itself- sometimes escape criminal prosecution. Your suggestion of racism on the part of those who handled Lee's case is utterly unsupported. Larry Bu