Sat 29 May 2010
Has USA already turned into a police state?
Posted by USA / theorem under Balkers
[20] Comments
Here is an ongoing case that shocked me utterly when I heard about it – a college student was arrested and charged with terrorism just because he got into a purely verbal dispute with a faculty member, and the police has kept him in cutody without informing his family.
The student’s name is TianTian Zhai, an international graduate student of Stevens Institute of Technology, NJ. Around April 15, there was a verbal dispute between him and a faculty member of Stevens Tech, but there was no physical contact between them. On April 16, Zhai was arrested and charged with terrorism, and nobody outside knew about his detention until a jail-mate of Zhai passed the news to a local restaurant owner in early May, who then passed the news to Zhai’s incredulous parents. Zhai is still being detained. It is unknown whether he is being represented by any lawyer.
According to the news reports in the Chinese American communities such as “Qiao Bao” (”Expatriate News Report,” May 20, 2010), during the verbal dispute Zhai said to the faculty member: “If worse comes to worst, I’ll fight you to the end.” While those words sound inappropriate and aggressive to me, it is clearly not terrorism. In addition, not having been in the states for long, Zhai might not really mean what his words sounded like. Furthermore, even if Zhai meant what he said, when did our country fall into a state that criminalizes people purely based on their speech?
Here is picture of Zhai–
—I doubt any sane person upon looking at the picture would not find the terrorism charge unbelievable.
Cases like this make me wonder if the real terrorists have already won their war. Paranoia has spread to even university campuses. Where is our good old tolerant trusting American way of life?
What Say You?
Should the U.S. cancel Constitutional freedoms which have served as a democracy model throughout the world, due to fear of terrorism from a small number of religious extremists?
Welcome to Balkingpoints theorem. The picture link you included isn’t pulling any image up. If you post an updated link I’ll make sure it’s added in.
The Patriot Act implemented in haste right after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, provided for some sort of non-Habeas Corpus detention (government does not have to make detainee available to anyone), and gag order for terror suspects I believe. The Act has been amended twice since then to try to balance it with constitutional protections against police-state powers, although I am not sure to what degree that effort succeeded – nor if those checks and limits are only for U.S. citizens.
The issue of growing federal police-state authority, is one of the main reasons it was critical to put the GOP out of power in Washington – which happened in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. However, Obama has been a disappointment to both progressives and libertarians in not fully repealing all of the power overreaches the Bush Regime was engaging in. There is a ton of that documentation available by Google search.
And see the Balk from 2009: Secret Bush Memos Reveal U.S. Dictatorship
I have to say that in this case, it sounds like more went on than just an argument. If you have other documentation to reference for more details, please post that as well.
when ppl say “fxxx you” , we should arrest them for “rape”
if zhai is guilty , 20% of youtube commenters should be arrested. and you can easily get evidence up there.
That arrest is ridiculous.
I doubt whether there is any other reason exists, unknown to us.
I’m sorry I don’t agree with your assessment. Presenting one example, which we are apparently supposed to accept word for word just as you describe it without question, is hardly justification for using the term “police state” to describe the state of law and order in the U.S.
It may well be that freedoms in Western countries in general have eroded since 9/11, but if you compare our societies to real police states (Cuba, Nazi Germany, Apartheid in S. Africa, N. Korea) there are vast differences in both the levels of wealth, freedom of expression and mobility, political participation, police power, religious tolerance, etc.
I agree that developments in the U.S. and U.K. in recent years should be troubling for those concerned with personal freedom, but I think using the term police state to describe current conditions is cynical hyperbole and only handicaps our ability to express the situation should the things get any worse.
As a long time smoker of marijuana I have personally experienced government intrusion in to what I consider my freedom of choice and lifestyle. However, I would only use the term police state if all my freedoms were similarly restricted and not just one out of thousands. I’m not excusing the disaster that is drug prohibition, just recognizing that it could be a lot worse.
“I doubt any sane person upon looking at the picture would not find the terrorism charge unbelievable.”
Are you seriously suggesting that a person’s guilt can be determined just by looking at picture? (It’s not loading btw)
“Where is our good old tolerant trusting American way of life?”
You mean back in the times of good’ole slavery? Or maybe your refering to the good’ole treatment of homosexuals, indigenous populations, and women back in the day? One could just as easily argue that the U.S. was closer to a police state at various times in the past than it is now.
As an asian perspective of view, the words spoken by Zhai is obviously terroristic threat and his look(face) manifests his terrorist characteristics.
Dear Roy, Thanks for the comments. Here is the link of a picture of TianTian Zhai:
http://i46.tinypic.com/302qp3d.jpg
In referring to a picture of Zhai, I was by no means suggesting that one’s appearance could determine one’s guilt. A picture is relevant, however, for us to consider Zhai as a person instead of just a foreign name.
Regarding your suggestion that there might be more than just an argument between Zhai and his professor: Although I do not know if Zhai had said more than what was quoted in my post, all the news reports about this case are consistent to the observation that Zhai had not taken any action or even an attempt of physical violence related to the verbal dispute. What ticked me off in this case is the fact that the authority is prosecuting a person purely for his words. It is of course easy for one to imagine hypothetical scenarios where words could be damaging (e.g., yelling “fire” in a crowded theater), but there’s got to be a gap between the norm and rare extreme cases.
As the point of my post is to express my worry about the slippery slope along which our Constitutional freedom is gradually eaten away by the fear of terrorism, I see little point to be engaged in cslos’s semantic debate on what “police state” means.
People, don’t believe what they say, but believe what they did and what you could see.
Terrorism is prevailing upon Asia. It has a history. Citizens including me are all affected. People like Thaksin Shinawatra is obviously guilty but why do some western countries are still accepting what he did. He’s sinful not only about being involved in corruption along with his whole family but also about terrorism supportive propaganda. Think of a common asian family who has no political power and not wealthy, but they are good people and perhaps working hard to earn their living.
Why do people tend to believe in power and money or even status of any social relations and forget to check the guilt underneath?
The school says Thai is a very smart person. And my conclusion is that for some suspects, it is not very obvious to find their guilt or violations against law. It is wise for the school and the administrations to thoroughly check the suspect’s records of all kind especially who has involved in street violence.
You couldn’t imagine that happens on a student who is capable of doing some research, issuing his paper work and is to affect the society. I am NOT pointing to some people who has great ambition of his/her scholarship yet who has some verbal conflicts with others around. If this is the case for Thai, I recommend him to prove his ability in his research and to show that his is different and made some accomplishment.
Readers,
I would just like to inform you that the media has been highly misinformed about this case. Zhai was a student at my school and was NOT charged with being a terrorist as many Chinese new outlets claim. In fact, he was arrested for making terroristic threats for calling the school and threatening to burn down one of the campus buildings. This was not a perceived threat. The threat was very real and the charges are very serious.
Stevens Institute of Technology (where he went to school) is a highly international community with hundreds of foreign nationals attending. The school is not some police force looking to quell dissenters and anyone who might be against them. Anyone who lives in America knows for a fact that it would be impossible to even try to get an arrest warrant for simply have a verbal disagreement. That’s just not the way things work, especially in an American University where the sharing of ideals is encouraged.
Please read our coverage of the event to more fully understand the nature of the charges. I think you’ll see why this blog post is rather ridiculous:
This story is quite a simple one, yet news sources have blown it up into sounding like America is arresting this poor grad student simply for raising his voice. That is not the case.
Zhai
It appears the link was not sent. Apologies:
http://media.www.thestute.com/media/storage/paper1092/news/2010/05/28/CampusNews/Grad-Students.Arrest.Makes.International.News-3921093.shtml
Dear Neuteboorm: Thanks for the comment. The blog you provided via your link, however, has not made the case for Stevens IT. Stevens IT surely has its reputation at stake here, and your blog merely covers the allegations made by the school administration against Zhai. In fact, the majority of the comments following your blog has provided a few rebuttals to your blog.
I have to admit that the term “terroristic threat” is new to me. So our country is really going down the route of criminalizing certain kinds of speeches? Adding the adjective “terroristic” surely could terrify a few. The problem is who is to decide whether a speech is sufficiently “terroristic” or not?
You seem to ignore the statement of the school. It was a real threat and very severe. Let’s just talk about it. Are you hoping that the U.S government law also to ignore this case, the fact of the suspect’s abnormal behavior? Then you may also directly go to a public building and shout to a security guard, “I am going to burn down this building!”, and you will be fine. But I personally doubt this.
theorem,
Thank you for the kind words. Our newspaper strives to get as many details as possible about our stories. Also, I was unaware of the comments on the website and took a look at them.
Let me provide some more background information. Actually, Stevens IT is not prosecuting in this case. Because these are criminal charges, Hudson County itself will be prosecuting.
Also, there seems to be a lot of stigma about people and things being labeled as “terroristic.” Terroristic threats are not something open to interpretation. Threats to burn down a school building are very serious. And this was not some paranoid delusion perceived by a professor. He literally called into the school and threatened to burn it down!
Several of my friends and my colleagues have filled in certain details about his odd behavior around the time of his arrest. Since he was suspended, the fear of deportation was most likely resting heavily on his mind. As well, even the department he was under was noticing his odd behavior as well.
Thanks for reading everyone. Remember, don’t believe everything you read! There are always two sides to every story. You should consult other sources before coming to an educated and informed conclusion.
on the one hand, US still has discriminations on the colored people. on the other hand, we are going to live in a reign of torror.
Mister Neuteboom, who wrote the original article for The Stute, has provided the clearest view of this situation. Zhai clearly made a violent threat to burn down a building — not too different from a bomb threat, really. People get arrested for that. Neuteboom’s article also indicates serious behavior problems earlier, including an arrest in New York. This is the same sort of behavior that went unaddressed in the case of Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, with sad consequences. Thirty-two gravestones is a number that resonates with administrators charged with campus safety.
Here is an update.
Even up to today the US prosecutors has failed to indict Zhai on any account. They had offered Zhai a plead bargain – if Zhai pleaded guilty to a “petit disorderly conduct” charge then Zhai would be released – apparently the prosecutors could not make the case for the “terroristic threat,” the allegation with which they had detained Zhai for months. Anyway, Zhai rejected the plead bargain, and then he was handcuffed and deported back to his home country. Where is the rule of law in the USA?
theorum: I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but in New Jersey “the rule of law” is alive and well, and protecting the public. Let’s be clear: Zhai made a definite threat against the school, a felony offense. Trials are expensive procedures, so plea bargains are often ways to save time and money; I also believe prosecutors were trying to treat an obviously disturbed young man with compassion. Zhai again displayed his evident irrationality by rejecting the plea, despite the fact that the alternative – deportation – was an even worse outcome for him personally. So instead of being allowed to live and study here (with the understanding that he would have to behave himself), he chose a set of bracelets and a plane ticket. I hope he calms down and avoids the opportunity to experience how China deals with those who threaten to burn down its public buildings.
bullshit! Just some words can make him a terrorist??
What actually TianTian Zhai said was really diffirent from What He actually did. Did he hide any guns or any fire device or bomb powder if yes ,put him in prison immediately!!!But if not he just had just said some inappropriate words,he was already put in prison for what he said for. what do some people really really want?!
Look, I know you like the guy — I get that. But, a couple of points:
First, the law doesn’t “make him a terrorist,” but uses the term “terroristic threats.” That is, a threat meant to terrorize or place someone in fear. Doing that is illegal. You cannot legally say, “I intend to harm you,” “I intend to blow up this building,” or “I intend to burn this building down.” Uttering the words themselves is an illegal act because they are threats, just as it is illegal to yell “FIRE” in a crowded building. Using threatening words is not what sane people do; your young friend was clearly having mental issues (as evidenced by his choice of deportation over a short jailhouse penance). School authorities and law enforcement officials remember Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, whose behavior prior to his murderous rampage was within half a stride of that of Zhai. Bottom line: Zhai is nuts. Loopy. Whacko. With a history of previous encounters with law enforcement. He made a threat to destroy a building. You can’t do that here. Zhai may be a hero to people who admire bad behavior; he may have had cultural issues; he may suffer from some organic mental trauma that is not his fault; but he is most emphatically NOT a victim in this case.