> How is this different than the US requiring passport surrender of a citizen charged with a crime along with their father?
Source?
For your passport to be surrendered, you need to be charged with a crime. Being related to the accused isn’t a crime. (The black eye that is Guantanamo notwithstanding.)
More critically, many of these people have been charged with nothing. No process is pending. They are held with no next steps. There is simply no analog for this behaviour in countries with the rule of law, whether that be Taiwan or Japan or Germany or the United States.
> How does one mention Gitmo and forget about it in the very next sentence?
One doesn’t. Gitmo is a black eye on our judicial system.
But there is a difference between a widely-debated exception and a generally-accepted baseline. Gitmo is abnormal in America. It is a baseline for Xi’s regime.
Excellent point. It's horrible and needs to become regular court based but it's an exception, not the standard. I still hate that it happens in my country.
By noting that gitmo is legally controversial, has a bunch of asterisks next to what can happen there (afaik they cannot send people on US soil there), and it's been used on a grand total of 800 "enemy combatants" In the last 20 years.
It is in every sense an anomaly, and is not even remotely comparable to what is discussed here.
Source?
For your passport to be surrendered, you need to be charged with a crime. Being related to the accused isn’t a crime. (The black eye that is Guantanamo notwithstanding.)
More critically, many of these people have been charged with nothing. No process is pending. They are held with no next steps. There is simply no analog for this behaviour in countries with the rule of law, whether that be Taiwan or Japan or Germany or the United States.