Glad to mention this guy. Based on the evidence, though

来源: baiwen 2009-09-12 17:59:48 [] [博客] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读: 0 次 (1146 bytes)
本文内容已被 [ baiwen ] 在 2010-03-20 20:03:25 编辑过。如有问题,请报告版主或论坛管理删除.
circumstancial, he would have been shot if he did what he did in China.

FBI did not win the case because they did not have strong hard evidence to win conviction. It is not like that this guy work around years, day in and day out and never go outside the country and suddenly got arrested and charged of spying out of blue.

If you look all the evidence, especially timeline and materials he carried with him in travelling, ahd locations he visited, (and again they are all circumstancial), they smell as fishy as hell.

It goes like:
Country A does not know how to make this critical machine part; Country B knows and have done it. Person X was orking for company which makes this machine part in country B and know how this part is made. One day person X visited country A; One year and so later, country A announced they successfully made break-through in making this critical part. However, person X was charged for leaking top secret and then exonerated.

If country B is China, person X would be executed. If country B is US, person X is innocent, legally. as innocent as OJ Simpson





请您先登陆,再发跟帖!

发现Adblock插件

如要继续浏览
请支持本站 请务必在本站关闭/移除任何Adblock

关闭Adblock后 请点击

请参考如何关闭Adblock/Adblock plus

安装Adblock plus用户请点击浏览器图标
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安装Adblock用户请点击图标
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”