Hacker News Reader

Comment by rfoo | Hacker News Reader

I don't know. Even Russia wasn't a foreign adversary 10 years ago. Japan allegedly was one very briefly 35 years ago. So who knows, the safest move is indeed sell to U.S. companies.

View on HN

Russia definitely was a foreign adversary 10 years ago. They annexed Crimea in March 2014. Of course, the one persons opinion that mattered(Obama) thought "lol it's not the 80s anymore"

to be fair to obama, let's not pretend he didn't have an army of super smart planners, strategists and analysts behind him in various corners of the pentagon, the CIA and the NSA that led him to that decision

Do you have any evidence that the analysis supported the decision "nah let it slide"?

You don't need a bench of NSA analysts to grow a spine.

The reality is, the Obama administration kept drawing red lines that kept getting stepped over with no consequences. Syria, Iran, ISIS...Russia saw that and that there'd be no real consequences. Same thing happening now with the Biden foreign policy of "don't". Might call it the anti-Roosevelt doctrine: speak timidly, and what stick?

edit: minor grammar fix

North Korea.

Not entirely his fault but they got the bomb on his watch.

Sure, but were those super smart planners, strategists, and analysts just providing plans, strategy, and analysis that Obama already agreed with? Romney saw Russia for what it was in 2012 - Obama/Romney vote percents in 2012 was 51/47, a fairly close election. If Romney did win, would all of those planners/strategists/analysts be trying to convince Romney that Russia wasn't a threat, or would he just have had a different set that were telling him Russia is a major threat?

Right, I should have said 11 years ago, or 10.2 years ago.

from the language of the now-signed bill/law [1]:

  (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.

10 USC 4872(d)(2) [2]:

  (2) Covered nation.—The term “covered nation” means—
      (A) the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea;
      (B) the People’s Republic of China;
      (C) the Russian Federation; and
      (D) the Islamic Republic of Iran.

in other words—the law is and will continue to be express about which "foreign adversary countries" cannot operate and/or control ByteDance.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872

Nicely written bill of attainder...

i do believe that determination would be reserved for a court of competent jurisdiction, but tight indeed.

> tight indeed

Not even close. Bills of attainders named a person and suspended their rights with no right to trial. (Analogous to proscription.)

The only thing this law has in common with those is it names a person, ByteDance, as an intended target of enforcement. The enforcement actions must still be done through the courts to which ByteDance retains access.

you miss my point (i.e., i'm on your side). what i've meant to say, like you, is that only a court of competent jurisdiction can make an actual legal determination as to whether or not some challenged legislative act amounts to a so-called and therefore invalid 'bill of attainder' as prohibited by the Attainder Clause, the third of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution[1].

it's merely my personal opinion that the legislative act at-issue is 'tightly' drafted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...

This is true of any legal question. That doesn’t mean third parties can’t opine on legality. This law is so far from a bill of attainder that it would be laughable for a lawyer to suggest to their client that it’s within the scope of reason.

yes. still in agreement with your opining.

but a reasonable lawyer representing the interests of a challenger would be remiss not to at least submit the argument before the tribunal. even clear-loser claims should properly be reserved for any subsequent appeal.

(by the way, i'm trying to figure out where we've commented past each other and i think it might be with my use of the word 'tight.' i've meant to employ 'tight' idiomatically, like as in air- or water-tight. well drafted to say it plainly. i was simply playing off the "Nicely written..." comment to which i was replying.)

Echoes of "Axis of Evil" from the post 9/11 era.

Edit:

Actually not even echoes. Just literally the "Axis of Evil"[1] redefined for 2024 geopolitics:

> In 2024, Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg and his predecessor Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, have been forming new alliance of tyrants.[6][7] The same states have been recognized as a new axis of evil by several American politicians, including Christopher Cavoli,[8] Mike Johnson,[9] and Mitch McConnel.[10]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

I think it's worth noting that particular list wasn't introduced with the bill. It goes back to at least January 18, 2021: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/22/2021-01...

> The term “adversary country” means the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, or, as determined by the Secretary of Commerce, any other foreign nation, foreign area, or foreign non-government entity engaging in long-term patterns or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national or economic security of the United States.

the bill/now law at-hand makes only reference to earlier (and legislatively amendable) codification, that's correct.

Why? Once ByteDance sells to some company, why would they care if said company because a US adversary in the future?

> why would they care

ByteDance would not care, but would that "some company" care? Certainly.

If they are going to care and they think it may happen, does this make them reconsider whether to buy or not, and at what price? Sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com