Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
China Businesses The Military United States Technology

Senate Will Try To Reverse ZTE Deal Via a Must-Pass Defense Bill (politico.com) 139

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Senate leaders agreed Monday to include language in the annual defense spending bill that would reverse the Trump administration's decision to save Chinese telecommunications company ZTE after it was caught violating the terms of a 2017 penalty agreement by making illegal sales to Iran and North Korea. The language will be part of an amendment in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, a $716 billion defense policy bill, H.R. 5515 (115).

If the Senate amendment becomes law, it would automatically reinstate the seven-year prohibition until Trump has certified to Congress that ZTE has met certain conditions. It also would ban all U.S. government agencies from purchasing or leasing telecommunications equipment and/or services from ZTE, a second Chinese telecommunications firm, Huawei, or any subsidiaries or affiliates of those two companies. The amendment language "prohibits the federal government from doing business with ZTE or Huawei or other Chinese telecom companies" and puts the company back on the sanctions list and "holds ZTE accountable for violating their previous commitment," Cotton said.
The senators supporting the amendment include Democratic minority leader Chuck Schumer and two Republican Senators -- Sen Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). "I and obviously every other senator believes the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for their behavior," Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told reporters after Ross briefed senators on the department's latest ZTE action. "They're a repeat bad actor that should be put out of business. For eight years, ZTE was able to run wild and be able to become the fourth-largest telecom company in the world." If the Senate amendment becomes law, "I would expect there wouldn't be a ZTE," Cotton added.

Senate Will Try To Reverse ZTE Deal Via a Must-Pass Defense Bill

Comments Filter:
  • Treason (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Donald Trump is letting a Chinese company sell hacked phones used as surveillance department for the Chinese government.

    The only explanation is that this is part of Trump's surrender to North Korea and China.

    • Re:Treason (Score:4, Informative)

      by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @06:40PM (#56774258)

      Donald Trump is letting a Chinese company sell hacked phones used as surveillance department for the Chinese government.

      The only explanation is that this is part of Trump's surrender to North Korea and China.

      Is this a troll as some mod thinks (possibly Russian) or is it the simple truth? Everybody remembers that Drump got paid off promptly in the form of $500 million [nationalreview.com] real estate "investment" right?

  • by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @05:36PM (#56773950) Homepage Journal
    Why allow Wells Fargo to live?
    • Let's start by punishing the bad actors that we can. Build up a body of precedent. Then use that to go after other bad actors.

    • It is amazing to me that Wells Fargo stock still keeps going up, even after the fines, the stock price is almost back to the midpoint.

    • Because millions of people keep their money there.
    • How about Facebook? They also were caught breaking the law, signed a consent decree with the government, and then went right on doing exactly what's they'd promised not to do.

      There are times when a corporate death penalty might make sense. But only if it's applied uniformly. It can't be just for foreign companies, not American ones.

  • America cant have this cake and eat it too. The nation insisted on a two-party system that discriminated against independents to guarantee the unilateral ability of the ruling class to dictate the terms of 'freedom' and 'democracy' both at home and abroad. Now, its saddled with an illiterate profiteer as its head of state, and hes doing a rather poor job of keeping the curtain closed on who actually runs america. In other words, America cannot paradoxically insist on trade partners they also consider ene

    • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @07:51PM (#56774556)

      America cant have this cake and eat it too.

      Yet, Trump, his administration and supporters believe they can (and deserve it).

      ... saddled with an illiterate profiteer as its head of state, and hes doing a rather poor job of keeping the curtain closed on who actually runs America.

      Trump said he would "drain the swamp." He *never* said he wouldn't fill it back up again.

  • ZTE is going down! Where will the Dollar Store source their phones from now?

  • Can't wait to hear reactions from Trump minions. I'm sure Peter Navarro [thehill.com] will have some choice words about warm real-estate for the Senators (good thing they aren't also Canadian - whew) for going against Trump. ( Although, the imagery of Senators stabbing Trump in the back sounds a little familiar [wikipedia.org] ... How Similar are Trump and Caesar? [benjaminstudebaker.com] )

  • Possible problem (Score:4, Interesting)

    by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @08:14PM (#56774650) Homepage Journal
    I'm not opposed to this in principle, but isn't it technically a bill of attainer, which, for very good reasons, is unconstitutional?
    • Re:Possible problem (Score:4, Informative)

      by GrumpySteen ( 1250194 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @09:20PM (#56774844)

      No. ZTE was already caught and determined to be guilty of making illegal sales to North Korea. Trump prevented the sanctions from being imposed, but that didn't make ZTE innocent. Congress is just trying to impose the punishment that was already decided.

      • I'm not opposed to this in principle, but isn't it technically a bill of attainer

        No.

        The classic definition for a bill of attainder is "A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial" (e.g., here [techlawjournal.com]).

        Did ZTE receive a trial on this and we somehow all missed it? Specific citations welcome.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Read the denial order ( https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/zte_denial_order.pdf) .

          ZTE _admitted_ that they sold the equipment, and lied during investigation. And there are _documents_ confirming that. If came to court, what would be the grounds to dismiss the penalty imposed? Or a trial is needed pro forma?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Attainer: not the word you wanted.

    • It avoids unconstitutional attainder since the punishment is a side-effect of the main goal of compliance. If and when ZTE meets the conditions they will not be sanctioned.

      It also depends on how ZTE and Huawei are targeted: are they just specifically named or are they defined as a class?

    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      I don't agree in this case, but I like your vigilance. Any bill that grants a pardon to an individual or company seems like it also should qualify as a Bill of Attainder. Here's why: Congress could get around the Bill of Attainder clause by passing a law that makes everyone a criminal, then passing a law exempting specific individuals. It would be the equivalent of a Bill of Attainder but circumventing the constitution.

      IMHO, the telecom neutrality bill was similar to this tactic. In this case, the gover

      • by nasch ( 598556 )

        A bill declaring everyone a criminal would also be unconstitutional since there would have been no due process to find people guilty of a crime.

  • the only reasonable conclusion is that Donald is planning talks with Tehran.

    Same mojo - tear up the Obama agreement and get into a rage over nucular then sign a document a year later.

  • He hates China then he loves China then he hates Kim J. U. then he loves Kim then he's against gun background checks then he's for it then he's against it again...

  • by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Wednesday June 13, 2018 @08:28AM (#56776380)
    It just means that Trump has to certify that they are meeting the conditions of having the sanctions lifted. Like paying that billion dollar fine. The part about the Federal government not buying their products is good. I don't know why it hasn't been a rule for a long time and applied to just about everything. The government (at any level) shouldn't be buying anything from China. Nor should anything Chinese be part of our infrastructure. That's a pretty obvious security issue.
    • Nor should anything Chinese be part of our infrastructure.

      Tell that to California's High Speed Rail project.

      • Okay, but I don't know if the tracks will say anything back.

        But seriously, I don't know what you're referring to. Is California buying Chinese trains?

        • I stand corrected. I Looked back into it and it appears I had out of date info - while China was considered the favorite for quite a few years, DB (Germany) ultimately won the contract. A Chinese company had also formed a partnership to build part of the LA to Vegas high speed rail but cancelled the partnership due to the requirement that the trains be built here.

          • I did remember a story where California would, as a consequence of not thinking things through, be mandating people buy something from China but I couldn't remember what it was. It clicked when I read your comment - solar panels.
  • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday June 13, 2018 @08:35AM (#56776402)

    What's this odd amendment crap? The Executive branch has the inherent authority to decide who to prosecute or whether to prosecute or not, But the Congress does not.

    An "amendment" to a bill, Or a law Naming a specific person or company such as ZTE and stating that person or company are guilty of a crime or misdeed and/or applying a punishment to a specific company or individual is called a Bill of Attainder, And it is an Unconstitutional action for Congress to try and pass an instrument such as this (US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.").

    Congress is specifically denied the ability to pass a law naming an Individual or Corporation (such as ZTE) and imposing a punishment ---- this authority is reserved to the courts and to the executive; Congress is specifically denied the authority to find anyone guilty of anything -- that's for other branches of government to handle. So I sure hope this gets challenged appropriately.

    • Wrong. They were already found guilty. This is about preventing them from continuing to do damage

      • by mysidia ( 191772 )

        Wrong. They were already found guilty. This is about preventing them from continuing to do damage

        Not wrong. Any law singling out a person (including a company) and assigning them for punishment by name ---
        even if they are a foreigner who only does business in the US is by definition a Bill of Attainder, which is unconstitutional.

        Also..... ZTE have not been given a trial and found guilty to any crime; there was some evidence of a violation, And
        according to the Department of Commerce, they had fou

To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus

Working...