CCP loyalist should be sent to Gitmo after arrest for alleged pathogen smuggling, says China expert
"This has been going on for at least a half decade, because in 2020, Americans in all 50 states received from China unsolicited seeds, and that's an attempt to plant these invasive species," Chang said Thursday.
"This has to stop."
Chang argued that no bail should be offered to 33-year-old Communist Party loyalist and University of Michigan post-doctoral research fellow Yunqing Jian, one of the suspects who allegedly smuggled the pathogen.
Suspected Chinese Bioterrorists Smuggled Dangerous Agent Into Us In Boots, Officials Say
The FBI alleges that Jian and her 34-year-old boyfriend, Zunyong Liu, plotted the pathogen's transport in what many suspect was an effort to cripple the American food supply.
Read On The Fox News App
"She should be sent to Guantanamo," Chang insisted.
"But the point here is that we shouldn't be talking to a regime that is actively taking our country down. This is not just the fungus, this is fentanyl, this is COVID, this is all the rest of it."
According to an arrest affidavit, Jian first brought Fusarium graminearum, described as a "potential agroterrorism weapon" in scientific literature, to the U.S. in August 2022.
A transcribed WeChat conversation between Jian and Liu shows Liu instructing Jian on how to smuggle the fungus, according to the affidavit.
According to the Department of Justice, fusarium graminearum creates "head blight," a disease of wheat, barley, maize and rice, and "is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year."
Patel: Chinese Nationals Charged With Smuggling 'Known Agroterrorism Agent' Into Us Is A 'Direct Threat'
The pathogen is also toxic to humans.
Chang accused U.S. universities of "making a lot of money from China" through students, contributions and other methods, as he explained the rationale for a suspected enemy being on American soil.
"That's why we have these very disturbing ties between American institutions of higher learning and China, and we need to break that, because obviously the dangers are there, as we see with this fungus case."
The University of Michigan released a statement regarding the incident on Wednesday.
"As one of the world's leading public research institutions, the University of Michigan is dedicated to advancing knowledge, solving challenging problems and improving nearly every facet of the human experience. Our research enterprise across all three campuses is united in this commitment to serving the people of Michigan and the world," the school said.
"We strongly condemn any actions that seek to cause harm, threaten national security or undermine the university's critical public mission. It is important to note that the university has received no funding from the Chinese government in relation to research conducted by the accused individuals. We have and will continue to cooperate with federal law enforcement in its ongoing investigation and prosecution."
Fox News' Peter D'Abrosca contributed to this report.Original article source: CCP loyalist should be sent to Gitmo after arrest for alleged pathogen smuggling, says China expert
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US teen influencer pilot accused of unauthorized Antarctic landing reaches deal to leave Chile
A judge in Chile has agreed to suspend proceedings against a teenage American pilot and social media influencer who has been stuck on a remote Antarctic island since late June after he was accused of landing there without permission. Ethan Guo was attempting to fly to all seven continents solo, raising funds for cancer research, when he landed on a part of Antarctica where the South American country maintains a territorial claim. Prosecutors accused him of providing false information to ground control about his landing point. On Monday, a judge approved an agreement between Guo's lawyers and prosecutors to suspend the proceedings on the condition that he donate $30,000 to a children's cancer foundation within 30 days. He must also leave the country and will be prohibited from reentering Chilean territory for three years. Chilean prosecutor Cristián Crisosto told CNN on Tuesday that if Guo does not meet the conditions, the agreement would become void and the court proceedings would continue. CNN is attempting to reach Guo for comment. Crisosto said Guo and his plane were still in Antarctic territory and that he would also have to pay the costs of 'aircraft security and personal maintenance.' In previous cases, he said, such costs have been roughly $600 a day. Guo has several options to leave the Antarctic, Crisosto added, including boarding a military ship or commercial plane. The next commercial flight is expected to take off from the southern Chilean city of Punta Arenas in early October. Chilean authorities said that Guo had submitted a false flight plan and took off from Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Airport in Punta Arenas as the sole passenger and crew member aboard a Cessna 182Q aircraft, registered as N182WT, in late June. At one point during that flight, authorities say he turned off course toward Antarctica. Guo's lawyer has previously said that the young pilot experienced 'complications' while flying. 'While already in the air, he began to experience a series of complications,' Karina Ulloa said, adding that Guo claims 'that he was conducting an exploratory flight to see if he could follow this route or not.' Guo, whose website states he was trying to raise $1 million for cancer research by becoming 'the first person ever to fly to all seven continents solo,' had broadcast his continent-hopping journey since last September to more than a million Instagram followers. Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Just say no to Big Dope — and its push for even more legal marijuana
Will more marijuana use make America a better place? Not many who've seen and smelled what legalizing the drug has done to cities like New York, Washington, DC, and San Francisco would say so. Yet President Donald Trump is contemplating a change to marijuana's federal classification that would make it easier to buy and more profitable to sell. The pot industry — Big Dope — is heavily invested in getting its product recategorized from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug. Industry leaders ponied up for a $1-million-a-plate Trump fundraising dinner earlier this month to hear what the president had in mind, according to The Wall Street Journal. The president should ignore the well-funded cannabis lobby: What matters is what more and cheaper marijuana will mean for ordinary Americans. Twenty-four states have legalized recreational use of the drug, despite the ugly results experienced by the first state to do so. Taking advantage of high Democratic turnout the year of President Barack Obama's re-election, activists passed a Colorado ballot measure to make pot legal back in 2012. Legalization didn't take effect until 2014, but by 2022 marijuana use in Colorado and other states that had then legalized was 24% higher than in states where recreational use remained illegal. A study by the South Korean scholar Sunyoung Lee published in the International Review of Law and Economics this year examines what's happened to crime levels in US states that legalized pot. Lee reported his findings 'do not yield conclusive evidence supporting a reduction in crime rates after legalizing recreational marijuana. Rather, they underscore notable positive associations with property crimes and suggest potential correlations with violent crimes.' The marijuana lobby claims that drug prohibition, not the drug itself, drives violent crime. That would be a bad argument even without evidence like Lee's, which suggests legal weed makes crime worse. After all, any profit-driven criminal enterprise could be shut down by simply legalizing the crime in question. If bank robbery were legal, bank robbers wouldn't need to use guns. If auto theft were legal, carjackers wouldn't have to use force, and there wouldn't be any violence associated with black-market chop shops because the chop shops would all be as legal as the commercial marijuana industry is today. Legalize everything Tony Soprano does, and Tony won't have to get rough — but he'll only do more of what he was doing before. Libertarians who argue for legalizing drugs to stop drug violence are closer than they realize to the radical leftists who argue property crimes shouldn't be prosecuted. The psychology is the same: They sympathize with the people who make it harder to live in a civilized society and reject society's right to defend its rules. There are downsides to laws against marijuana, just as there are costs to protecting private property and citizens' bodily safety. But the costs are well worth paying when the alternative is passivity in the face of aggression, handing your belongings or your life over to any thug who makes a demand. For a time marijuana legalization was sold to voters as just a matter of leaving people alone to consume whatever they want in private, without bothering anybody else. Yet millions of Americans have now lived long enough with pot legalization, or the non-enforcement of laws still on the books, to know the pot lobby perpetrated a fraud. What the country has actually had to deal with is pot smoking so rife in public that the offensive smell — and the sight and sounds of intoxication — smacks you in your face. It's hardly different from dope-users blowing smoke right in your eyes on the street. That's not the worst crime in the world — but neither is shoplifting, and there's no reason to tolerate that, either. Tolerating such things only breeds more tolerance for worse abuses, which is what has led progressives to treat even violent criminals with the utmost leniency. Two scenes in the suburbs of DC convinced me pot tolerance has gone too far. First was seeing an African-American bus driver, on a blazing hot summer day, order two dope-smoking teens to put out their joints and be aware there were children around. To the extent our cities work at all it's because of working-class men like him — and the rest of us have to decide whether we're on his side or the punks'. A year or so later I watched a young mother one bright October afternoon hold her small daughter's hand as they walked through a neighborhood reeking of high-potency pot. The multibillion-dollar weed industry got to advertise its product to a little girl about 4 years old that day. It's an industry that notoriously even sells its drug in candy form, as 'gummies.' Our cities and towns shouldn't be open-air drug dens — and Trump shouldn't let a lobby get high off of making Americans' lives worse. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trial in National Guard lawsuit tests whether Trump will let courts limit authority
Minutes after Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth trumpeted plans to 'flood' Washington with National Guard troops, a senior U.S. military official took the stand in federal court in California to defend the controversial deployment of soldiers to Los Angeles. The move during protests earlier this summer has since become the model for President Trump's increasing use of soldiers to police American streets. But the trial, which opened Monday in San Francisco, turns on the argument by California that Trump's troops have been illegally engaged in civilian law enforcement. 'The military in Southern California are so tied in with ICE and other law enforcement agencies that they are practically indistinguishable,' California Deputy Atty. Gen. Meghan Strong told the court Tuesday. 'Los Angeles is just the beginning,' the attorney went on. 'President Trump has hinted at sending troops even farther, naming Baltimore and even Oakland here in the Bay Area as his next potential targets.' Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said in court that Hegseth's statements Monday could tip the scales in favor of the state, which must show the law is likely to be violated again so long as troops remain. But the White House hasn't let the pending case stall its agenda. Nor have Trump officials been phased by a judge's order restricting so-called 'roving patrols' used by federal agents to indiscriminately sweep up suspected immigrants. After Border Patrol agents last week sprang from a Penske moving truck and snatched up workers at a Westlake Home Depot — appearing to openly defy the court's order — some attorneys warned the rule of law is crumbling in plain sight. 'It is just breathtaking,' said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, part of the coalition challenging the use of racial profiling by immigration enforcement. 'Somewhere there are Founding Fathers who are turning over in their graves.' The chaotic immigration arrests that swept through Los Angeles this summer had all but ceased following the original July 11 order, which bars agents from snatching people off the streets without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally. An Aug. 1 ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed to assure they could not resume again for weeks, if ever. For the punch-drunk Department of Justice, the 9th Circuit loss was the latest blow in a protracted judicial beatdown, as many of the administration's most aggressive moves have been held back by federal judges and tied up in appellate courts. '[Trump] is losing consistently in the lower courts, almost 9 times out of 10,' said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. In the last two weeks alone, the 9th Circuit also found Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship unconstitutional and signaled it would likely rule in favor of a group of University of California researchers hoping to claw back funding from Trump's war on so-called DEI policies. Elsewhere in the U.S., the D.C. Circuit court appeared poised to block Trump's tariffs, while a federal judge in Miami temporarily stopped construction at Alligator Alcatraz. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has crowed that his Department of Justice had sued the administration nearly 40 times. But even the breakneck pace of current litigation is glacial compared with the actions of immigration agents and federalized troops. Federal officials have publicly relished big-footing Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who have repeatedly warned the city is being used as a 'petri dish' for executive force. On Monday, the White House seemed to vindicate them by sending the National Guard to Washington. Speaking for more than half an hour, President Trump rattled off a list of American cities he characterized as under siege. When asked if he would deploy troops to those cities as well, the president said, 'We're just gonna see what happens.' 'We're going to look at New York. And if we need to, we're going to do the same thing in Chicago,' he said. 'Hopefully, L.A. is watching.' The Department of Justice argues that the same power that allows the president to federalize troops and deploy them on American streets also creates a 'Constitutional exception' to the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law that bars the soldiers from civilian police action. California lawyers say no such exception exists. 'I'm looking at this case and trying to figure out, is there any limitation to the use of federal forces?' Judge Breyer said. Even if they keep taking losses, Trump administration officials 'don't have much to lose' by picking fights, said Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University and a Constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute. 'The base likes it,' Somin said of the Trump's most controversial moves. 'If they lose, they can consider whether they defy the court.' Other experts agreed. 'The bigger question is whether the courts can actually do anything to enforce the orders that they're making,' said David J. Bier of the Cato Institute. 'There's no indication to me that [Department of Homeland Security agents] are changing their behavior.' Some scholars speculated the lower court bloodbath might actually be a strategic sacrifice in the war to extend presidential power in the Supreme Court. 'It's not a strategy whose primary ambition is to win,' said Professor Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. 'They are losing cases right and left in the district court, but consistently having district court orders stayed in the Supreme Court.' Win or lose in the lower courts, the political allure of targeting California is potent, argued Segall, the law professor who studies the Supreme Court. 'There is an emotional hostility to California that people on the West Coast don't understand,' Segall said. ' deemed a separate country almost.' An favorable ruling in the Supreme Court could pave the way for deployments across the country, he and others warned. 'We don't want the military on America's streets, period full stop,' Segall said. 'I don't think martial law is off the table.' Pedro Vásquez Perdomo, a day laborer who is one of the plaintiffs on the Southern California case challenging racial profiling by immigration enforcement, has said the case is bigger than him. He squared up to the podium outside the American Civil Liberties Union's downtown offices Aug. 4, his voice trembling as he spoke about the temporary restraining order — upheld days earlier by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — that stood between his fellow Angelenos and unchecked federal authority. 'I don't want silence to be my story,' the day-laborer said. 'I want justice for me and for every other person who's humanity has been denied.'
