Is arresting Individual Researchers for books on SOE cartel like activities, cartel like activities?

   I would say, it has a very similar affect to freedom of information and clarity for international commerce. As the Communist Party will not actually completely clarify its actual use of their SOE's and how their intertwine so that the public can see how their strategies affect their local markets and the ability of the Chinese people to compete in international commerce. As the SOE's do bully their way into markets domestic and foreign markets using their police and military to arrest anyone who tries to do open public research on them. I would say at the point in time any researcher trying to do research on companies that are supposedly public companies like State Owned Enterprises and their actually impact on areas around China are being arrested. That is a problem. If the Communist party will not let researchers non affiliated with governments come in for their books and reports on SOE  strategic allegiances between each other. Than I think a NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON FREE MARKETS SHALL CONVENE ON THEM AND DO THE RESEARCH. As obviously they do not follow their constitution and think that their economic cartel like strategies are more important than free markets for domestic and foreign economic stability. As I think that placing free humans in jail for doing research on companies that are supposed to be completely clear  is a violation of WTO policy and Chinese Constitutionality, PLUS HOSTILE CARTEL LIKE ACTIVITIES.

    Further, it has also come to my attention that the Communist Party has also bribed and been caught for economic political sabotage before and currently uses their military and intelligence community to sabotage politicians to allow SOE's to acquire economic infrastructures so they can further their cartel like activities. As such is the actually catching of spies during the Clinton Admin which then there was no proper defenses against the Communist Cartels strategies to purchase a port via an arm of their cartel like activities. Which means that the Communist government took away the ability of a free market avoid of government interest to own the port and intact monetary value and spread it through out the world without a political agenda at the helm as port business's owned by individuals or corporations avoid of government interest usually do.

   However, the use of Port acquisition will be explained in my theory on how it plays a huge part in the cartel activities of the Communist's party political and monetary impositions of the international commercial marketplace. Of course then again that is if they do not put a bullet in my head first as I believe my individual ability to do research avoid of government interest has lead me to the very theory that will help balance the international economy.

  I do not wish for any hatred, I purely wish for a better economic climate regarding fair business and abusive governments use of their State Owned Enterprises strategies. I beg humble apologize for my outburst of being upset. However, at every turn of my research where I should find a board, committee or other wise to deal with the problems I find, I see they have been infiltrated and disbanded, are so inapt do deal with it that it is hard for them to take on the new study, or are inactive when the worlds biggest cartel like activities have happened. I further find that it breaks my heart to see so many not having the Spirit of freedom to stand up and tell them yes, we have may been part of the problem in the crash. However, if you look at the actually roots of this crash you will find the erosion is because of an outdated and imperial tested and disproved theory that is being held onto and abused by one single huge political party in this world, and their cartel like activities within their party across borders and oceans. As such this goes to all my brothers and sisters just wanting to know the truth and having to sit in jail with no actual government interest or help. To the' when it is my turn to lead, unless killed or economically dismantled by the single party, I will be an advocate for 1st Amendment rights of researchers who do research on things of economics and I see not how economic research is a state secret when the SOE's are supposed to be public entities. As I know in the free societies of the world any so called public entity that is not owned by governments but a group of individual like minded people has to completely disclose all financial statements to their public. However, for some reason the Communist think they can call their SOE's companies of public and not clarify or even attack researchers from public investment firms who wish to invest in their cloaked activity of acting like a free society public entity.

   These my friends are activities of a Cartel that has caused major problems and needs major reforms. As such, with the understanding I place myself on the Cartels hit list for speaking out against their Cartel like strategies however, wishing no harm, This is what I am saying to you loud and clear. The Chinese Communist Single Party is now inconsideration by an individual human being with no ties to any government except taxes etc. and the sending of emails when I think it is important, for CARTEL LIKE ACTIVITIES WHICH CAUSED THE FEAR OF COMMUNIST AND CARTEL ANTI-TRUST ANTI-COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES TO CRUSH THE WORLD'S ECONOMIES.
That is harsh and a little extreme and needs to be edited. I will have to come back and slim it down, and take our the upset speech and replace in gentle speech later. I will start my editing of this page to meet gentleman like conduct today. I am sorry, I write how I feel then later go over it and take it down a couple notches.

Rider I

quoted from:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-06/china-jails-u-s-citizen-to-8-years-on-state-secrets.html

"China Jails U.S. Citizen to 8 Years on State Secrets
July 06, 2010, 6:06 AM EDT


More From Business week
July 6 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. geologist was sentenced to eight years in prison by a Chinese court after being convicted of violating the state secrets law by selling a database on the country’s oil industry.

The U.S. said it was “dismayed” by the sentence given to Xue Feng and remains concerned about his rights to due process under Chinese law. Xue was also fined 200,000 yuan ($29,550) yesterday by a Beijing court at a hearing that was attended by U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, Richard Buangan, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy said.
The case highlights China’s use of the law to protect economic information, three months after the jailing of four Rio Tinto Group executives strained relations with Australia. Groups including the U.S.-China Business Council have criticized China’s definition of state secrets as too broad and say lack of transparency is hurting the confidence of foreign investors.
“These cases definitely make international companies worried,” said Nicolas Groffman, a Beijing-based partner at Australian law firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques.
China rejected criticism over the sentencing and said the process was fair
“Will they say China’s legal system is open and transparent if we release him without any charges?” Qin Gang, a spokesman at the foreign ministry, asked at a press conference today. “I can guarantee that during the trial, all the defendant’s legal rights were guaranteed.
Legal Changes
China in April passed legal changes aimed at making people, companies and organizations more responsible for protecting state secrets, according to amendments approved by legislators at the time.
State secrets include information that may damage the nation in fields ranging from defense and diplomacy to “national, economic and development projects” and technology. The government also has the power to label anything else a state secret, according to the amendments passed in April.
Three Chinese nationals were sentenced with Xue yesterday. Li Yongbo, a manager at Beijing Licheng Zhongyou Oil Technology Development Co., was sentenced to eight years and fined 200,000 yuan, AP reported, citing Xue’s lawyer Tong Wei. Chen Mengjin and Li Dongxu, who worked at a research institute affiliated with PetroChina Co., were each given 2 1/2 year sentences and fined 50,000 yuan, according to AP.


Rio Tinto Charges
Former Rio Tinto executive Hu, an Australian citizen, was detained in July 2009 with three colleagues. They were initially accused of stealing state secrets, with the accusations later reduced to bribery and infringing commercial secrets.
“These kinds of cases have been linked to international politics as a weapon of retaliation in the Chinese government’s arsenal,” Hank Wang, a Beijing-based lawyer at Garvey Schubert Barer and co-chairman of the legal committee at the American Chamber of Commerce in the People’s Republic of China, said in an e-mail. “As the U.S. and China have reopened talks on human rights issues, this should be included in the agenda.”

China “missed an opportunity” to be transparent and give companies more confidence when the government decided to hold Hu’s and his colleagues’ hearings in secret, then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said in March.

‘Irresponsible Remarks’

Qin had rejected Rudd’s criticism at the time and said Australia should respect the result of the process and “stop such irresponsible remarks.”

The database that Xue arranged to sell contained detailed information on the state of the Chinese oil industry, AP reported. China’s three biggest oil companies are all state- owned.

China, the world’s fastest-growing major economy, has been dipping into $2.4 trillion of foreign currency reserves to buy stakes in oil and natural-gas fields and has spent at least $21 billion on overseas resources in the past year. China Petrochemical Corp. bought a stake in a Canadian oil sands project for $4.65 billion in April.

Since his detention, Xue has appeared three times in court before yesterday’s hearing, AP reported. The court also repeatedly postponed sentencing, according to the report.

--With assistance from Debra Mao and Yidi Zhao. Editors: Joe Schneider, Douglas Wong

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Douglas Wong at dwong19@bloomberg.net"


Update on laws Quoted from:
http://www.chinalawblog.com/2010/07/on_the_state_of_china_state_secrets.html

On The State Of China State Secrets.


Posted by Dan on July 19, 2010
Share LinkChina Economic Review just published an article by CLB co-blogger, Steve Dickinson, entitled, "Chinese Walls."
Steve starts out his article by discussing the inherent tension between China's desire to manage "economic information" while at the same time wanting to move to becoming a "modern market economy." China has responded to this tension by overhauling its state secrecy system:
In recent months the State Council has promulgated an amended State Secrets Law and the state assets regulator has put forward new rules regarding commercial secrets held by state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
The idea is to limit the scope and amount of information classified as secret and improve the systems for preventing disclosure of classified information.
China's new approach to state secrecy focuses on the following three themes:
Restricting the scope and quantity of state secrets. Only information classified in advance as secret by an authorized government agency qualifies as a state secret. And, under the Secrets Law, the number of agencies able to make classification decisions is strictly limited. The old system where virtually any government agency or SOE was authorized to arbitrarily designate information as a state secret has been eliminated.
Both Chinese and foreign observers have criticized the PRC state secrets system because of the overly broad definition of what can be classified as a state secret. This criticism reflects a misunderstanding of how the law works. It is true that the definition is broad, but information is only a state secret once classified as such by a relevant government authority. Thus, while the potential scope of secrets is vast, the actual quantity is limited by the requirements of the classification procedure.
Clearly distinguishing between state and commercial secrets. SOEs are owned and supervised by the government, which begs the question: Do SOE secrets automatically count as state secrets? If so, then an SOE could reasonably be classified as a government agency and not as a private commercial enterprise. This is contrary to the country's economic development policy and would cause enormous difficulties for SOEs in their international business dealings.
In order to prevent any confusion, on this issue the regulations provide clearly that SOE secrets are neither private commercial secrets nor state secrets. The companies themselves do not have the power to classify any information as a state secret. This clear separation between normal commercial secrets and state secrets is consistent with international law on the separation between SOEs and government agencies.
Protecting state secrets from disclosure in the digital world is the critical issue. The State Council estimates that in the past decade, over 70% of disclosure of state secrets has occurred electronically. Much of this disclosure was inadvertent, resulting from failure to adopt normal computer and telecommunications security measures.

The Secrets Law addresses this issue in two ways. First, it imposes an obligation on all agencies and persons with access to state secrets to follow data protection best practices such as use of secure networks. Second, it requires all telecom operators in China to cooperate with the relevant government agencies in monitoring the unauthorized disclosure of state secrets.

Steve then goes on to discuss how many foreign observers have wrongly concluded that telecom operators are now being asked to act as censors regarding state secrets. No operator has the power to define a state secret - this can only be done by the relevant government authority. The only requirement imposed by the new law is that they must cooperate with the government if a disclosure of state secrets has occurred.

Telecoms operators have no right to question the government's classification of something as a state secret so this "may be an issue for foreign investors in Chinese telecoms operations, since they may not agree that certain information should be ruled secret."

I wonder if this law means that those who had previously been sent to jail for doing basic research of SOE's and their impacts or the nature of SOE's that are Cloaked State Owned Enterprise under the warped theory of a public entity when really they are political and military entitites should if it is truly trying to act like a corporation avoid of government ownership be free to have public investigations about it. As such y'all should let got the investigators and news writers y'all have held up behind bars like animals for wanting to know what they should have been told.

Another cite regarding the issue of cartels arresting investigators on the tight laws of clarity that the SOE's uncompetitivly hold onto:


Quoted from:
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/07/06/chinas-state-secret-laws-cast-a-dark-could-over-shanghais-ambitions/

"China’s state secret laws cast a dark cloud over Shanghai’s ambitions


July 6, 2010 12:00pmby Geoff Dyer
Share

The eight year prison sentence given yesterday to the American geologist Xue Feng for spying has revived the controversy over China’s often vague secrets laws but it is also another blow to Shanghai’s ambitions to become an international financial centre.

Xue, a naturalized US citizen born in China, was convicted of spying and collecting state secrets by a court in Beijing which said that his actions had “endangered our country’s national security”. According to the verdict, he got access to documents about the geology of oil wells in China and a database with information about 30,000 oil and gas wells belonging to PetroChina, which was then sold to his employer, the consultancy IHS.

There are plenty of questions about the case that make it rash to rush to judgement, especially as IHS has had little of substance to say. But two of the conclusions that are being drawn have huge importance for Shanghai and mainland financial markets. The first is the fact that the information he obtained appears to have been classified as a state secret only after the event:

As I understand it, this database was not classified as a state secret until afterwards,” said Joshua Rosenzweig, a senior researcher at Dui Hua. “Under Chinese state secrets laws, we have seen in the past that you can’t always go into a transaction knowing beforehand that what you are doing is wrong, because you can’t always know what is a state secret.

Then, according to a report by the Associated Press (which first revealed Xue’s arrest), geologists say that the sort of information he collected is widely available in most countries and represents no threat to national security, given that the government has complete control over who has access to the resource.

Cases like this cast a dark cloud over Shanghai’s ambitions. To become one of the cities where cross-border finance feels at home, Shanghai needs more than just a big domestic economy at its back - it also needs to be a place where important information can be circulated freely and where the legal framework is clearly understood by all. China’s interest in meeting such conditions has been questioned before, including during the various attempts by Beijing to exert more control over the market for financial information.

The erratic application of catch-all state secrets laws is another major obstacle."



 
Rider I

I guess that is the scary thing about Freedom that you have to trust your people with the freedom of information and that you have to have a good defense team to prevent bad guys from using the liberty of freedom for harm.

I could not imagine, imaginary I think: having to try and pay someone for basic investor information about a firm before merging or buying then being charged with bribing because the deal did not go the way I wanted. Or eve the horrors of doing a basic observation report for an investment firm on a energy firms complete dose and then get arrested for spying. Woa, I think I would not feel free if that happened in America.
I think I might kick some body's butt if that happened in America. Freedom is a liberty that one has to trust their people with, and have the belief that the defense team will catch any bad guys that try and abuse that freedom.

Done