CFO of Huawei arrest at VIA
- Thread starter vantim
- Start date
As above. It was not if, but when.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/wor...michael-kovrig-detained-in-china-sources-say/
Blatant hostage taking. Chinese are the new ugly Americans.
Seeing all those pseudo-Canadians protesting on behalf of Meng was disgusting.
If you like China so much more than Canada get the fuck out.
Funny I never heard of any immigrants trying to jump the line to get into China.
Seeing all those pseudo-Canadians protesting on behalf of Meng was disgusting.
If you like China so much more than Canada get the fuck out.
Funny I never heard of any immigrants trying to jump the line to get into China.
I have some friends that went to China a number of years ago to teach English. They stayed at a university in the dorm there. A Chinese teacher lived on the floor above them. They got to be friends with him and eventually he came to visit after he was done teaching. He told my friends he was instructed by the government to spy on them while they were in China.
The USMCA treaty/agreement forces Canada to do so. We have a stupid prime minister and party.
From https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/huawei-meng-wanzhou-bail-hearing-vancouver-1.4940849
If I ever get arrested, I hope I'm allowed to hire the people who would confine me. I imagine there are a few talented and qualified advertisers on this board up for the job.
Free on bail with some pocket change as a surety, and they confiscated seven of who knows how many passports she holds, so I'm sure she'll just hang around for the extradition hearings.
Funny thing is, I'm proud of my Chinese heritage, culture, and history. But could care fuck all about the people. God, the current generation of Chinese people are just awful.
In fact, I'm so Anti-Communist that I'm on the Chinese blacklist. If I didn't have immunity during visits to China I'd probably be arrested and throw into a prison somewhere.
Couldn't pay me enough to go back anyway.
Unfortunately, Trump's comments to the effect that he would use Meng as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations puts Canada in the position of appearing to be holding a hostage on behalf of the US administration.
It seems to me that her lawyers now have a good argument, straight from the mouth of the president of the United States, that the request for her arrest came for political rather than legal reasons. That would be a good argument against extraditing her.
I think I read that the Americans have ninety days to bring forward their evidence against her. That gives Trump ninety days to try to use her situation as a bargaining ploy in trade negotiations with the Chinese, while Canada is stuck holding her. We're in a really awkward position. Whereas I originally thought that we should comply fully with the American request, I am now thinking, based on Trump's comments, that if our authorities can find a legal pretext to let her go, they should do so. We don't want to be hostage-takers for the benefit of the US administration.
Canada should use her as a barganing chip with Trump, Hey ease up on the Tariffs on Canadian Products or we will deport her to China!
Trump fucks up again. Incredibly stupid thing to say.
A good argument could be made that a fair trial would be impossible in the USA after that.
Trump's comment makes it look possible that her arrest was politically motivated, whether it was or not.
Trump actually gave Canada an out. Canada could and should throw the case out and let her go.
Win-win for Canada and China, and everyone can blame Trump directly.
Saw an Obama motorcade in DC a few years ago. Four cop cars blocking intersections, we almost got hit by a Secret Service Suburban, then a cavalcade of black vehicles of every kind. Our friend had to go down some back alleys and parking lots to get around it.
Six months later we are on Sussex coming out of Milestone's and Trudeau's motorcade comes around the corner off Wellington as we cross the intersection.
THEY WAITED FOR THE LIGHT TO CHANGE!!!
Wow...acting like normal civilised people, instead of running everyone else off the road.
Unmarked cop car, limo (actually a sedan), minivan, Suburban.
Holy fuck what difference in mentality.
1. In July 2015, P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany), European Union, and Iran signed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal.
2. The deal lifted trade sanctions on Iran in return for Iran's agreement to a comprehensive plan of action to curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions.
3. In May 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S from the Iran Deal.
4. In response to the unilateral U.S. withdrawal, the leaders of Britain, France and Germany announced in a joint statement that the United Nations Security Council resolution endorsing the nuclear deal remained the "binding international legal framework for the resolution of the dispute".
5. Evidently, it's the U.S that backed away from the deal signed on by its important allies and endorsed by the UNSC. Fair enough the deal was not a treaty but an agreement by Barack Obama through an executive decision. But so was Trump's decision to withdraw -- an executive decision. Note, Trump's unilateral executive decision had no backing from the UNSC or P5+1 or EU as did Obama's decision.
6. Before you all jump on China and Huawei on alleged violation of trade sanction, reinstated unilaterally by Trump, you have to ask yourself this - Is China, or for that matter Canada or India or Japan or Lesotho or Bhutan, obligated to treat the unilateral executive decision of a U.S president as international law?
7. If your answer is no, then you will have to agree that China or a Chinese company is not required to obey the commands of a U.S president.
8. Based on Trump's remarks about him getting involved to use the Huawei executive to get a better trade deal, the whole thing appears to be nothing but a dirty political game played by the U.S. and shamefully abetted by Canada.
9. Canada should release the Huawei executive and provide her with the passage back to China. That is the right thing to do. Canada must stand up to a belligerent U.S. president.
2. The deal lifted trade sanctions on Iran in return for Iran's agreement to a comprehensive plan of action to curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions.
3. In May 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S from the Iran Deal.
4. In response to the unilateral U.S. withdrawal, the leaders of Britain, France and Germany announced in a joint statement that the United Nations Security Council resolution endorsing the nuclear deal remained the "binding international legal framework for the resolution of the dispute".
5. Evidently, it's the U.S that backed away from the deal signed on by its important allies and endorsed by the UNSC. Fair enough the deal was not a treaty but an agreement by Barack Obama through an executive decision. But so was Trump's decision to withdraw -- an executive decision. Note, Trump's unilateral executive decision had no backing from the UNSC or P5+1 or EU as did Obama's decision.
6. Before you all jump on China and Huawei on alleged violation of trade sanction, reinstated unilaterally by Trump, you have to ask yourself this - Is China, or for that matter Canada or India or Japan or Lesotho or Bhutan, obligated to treat the unilateral executive decision of a U.S president as international law?
7. If your answer is no, then you will have to agree that China or a Chinese company is not required to obey the commands of a U.S president.
8. Based on Trump's remarks about him getting involved to use the Huawei executive to get a better trade deal, the whole thing appears to be nothing but a dirty political game played by the U.S. and shamefully abetted by Canada.
9. Canada should release the Huawei executive and provide her with the passage back to China. That is the right thing to do. Canada must stand up to a belligerent U.S. president.
Two problems with this argument:
First, Canada is not at liberty to make a judgment. Extradition treaties are pretty straightforward. There's a warrant issued and her punishment if found guilty would not be excessive by Canadian law (i.e. not capital punishment) so we obey the treaty. We don't get the option of trying the accusations first. The warrant is the decision maker.
Second, she wasn't just scooped up as an international citizen for violating laws in country she wasn't in. Her charges stem from "luring" US banks (via an in-person presentation) into being an accomplice to sanction violations, through solicitation of their funds which in turn benefited Skycom and thus Iran. In the presentation she misrepresented Skycom causing the US banks to unwittingly aid Iran in violation of their own government. That's what the arrest is about.
I'm no fan of Trump or his policies or even his games with the Iranian deal, but given the laws as they are, there's not a lot of choice in how to proceed.
