US Will Seek Extradition of Huawei CFO From Canada (reuters.com) 156
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Justice Department said on Tuesday it will pursue the extradition of the chief financial officer of China's Huawei, arrested in Canada in December. The United States has accused Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou of misrepresenting the company's links to a firm that tried to sell equipment to Iran despite U.S. sanctions. The arrest soured relations between Canada and China, with China subsequently detaining two Canadian citizens and sentencing a third to death. The United States must file a formal request for extradition by Jan. 30. Once a formal request is received, a Canadian court has 30 days to determine whether there is enough evidence to support extradition and the Canadian minister of justice must issue a formal order. Canada has not asked the United States to abandon its bid to have Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou extradited, Canada's Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said in an interview with Bloomberg TV. "We will continue to pursue the extradition of defendant Ms. Meng Wanzhou, and will meet all deadlines set by the U.S./Canada Extradition Treaty," Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi said in a statement. "We greatly appreciate Canada's continuing support of our mutual efforts to enforce the rule of law."
Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a separate report from the BBC: The chairman of Chinese tech giant Huawei has warned his company could shift away from the U.S. and the U.K. if it continues to face restrictions. Huawei has been under scrutiny by Western governments, which fear its products could be used for spying. Speaking at the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Mr Liang Hua said his firm might transfer technology to countries "where we are welcomed." Huawei makes smartphones but is also a world leader in telecoms infrastructure, in particular the next generation of mobile phone networks, known as 5G.
Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a separate report from the BBC: The chairman of Chinese tech giant Huawei has warned his company could shift away from the U.S. and the U.K. if it continues to face restrictions. Huawei has been under scrutiny by Western governments, which fear its products could be used for spying. Speaking at the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Mr Liang Hua said his firm might transfer technology to countries "where we are welcomed." Huawei makes smartphones but is also a world leader in telecoms infrastructure, in particular the next generation of mobile phone networks, known as 5G.
Re:Torture and kidnappings (Score:4, Informative)
Huawei is owned by the Chinese government and is credibly accused of spying. If they don't want to do business with the US and thus are able to ignore our laws, that's one thing. To walk through US jurisdiction knowing you're wanted?
Leads to your ass getting arrested, extradited to face charges, charged, tried in a court with legal representation and rights, and then either let go on the merits or imprisoned on the merits. It's nothing like China's kangaroo courts.
You should spend a few years in a Chinese prison on bogus charges so you have some actual perspective between the two systems, moron.
Re: (Score:1)
Huawei isn't owned by the Chinese government any more than Boeing or Lockheed is owned by the US government. Lol at walking through US jurisdiction. Canada is now US jurisdiction? WTH?
Who the hell is upvoting this junk.
Re: (Score:1)
"Who the hell is upvoting this junk."
Most likely people who get paid doing this for a living.
NO geography in school (Score:2)
I just saw my teenagers High school syllabus. There is no Geography subject!!!! And this is one of the best school districts in the country. No wonder Americans think Canada is part of US ;)
Fake News (Score:2, Insightful)
Huawei is not owned by the Chinese govt. Its owner served in the military so did a bunch of founders of American companies including McDonalds, IBM and AT&T.
Huawei has got research grants from the Chinese equivalent of NSF so has Facebook, Google , Cisco and Apple.
Further there have been no cases of Huawei equipment being used to spy whereas we know for a fact that CISCO backdoors have been used to spy on Angela Merkel.
Given these facts it is pretty clear that the opposition to Huawei equipment is not b
Re: (Score:2)
Makes little to no difference in the argument. No country, I repeat,. NO COUNTRY, should allow another country to control their digital infrastructure, all of it should be locally made. In terms of seeking to physically and sexually abuse the daughter of the head of Hauwei as some sort of sick game, there will be a real price to pay. You do not get to be the head of a major Chinese corporation without being tied to the Chinese government. Likely the abuse will be met with a lethal response targeted at US ex
Re: (Score:2)
Proof? (Score:1)
Rants by AC are just that rants.
apologist faggot logs in to lie, it's still a lie (Score:1)
When a ChiCom apologist faggot logs in to lie, it's still just a lie. Face it, the party owns Huawei. There's no denying it any more than denying Meng will face trial for Huawei's frauds. You're not changing anything, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Vancouver is not US jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the Great Wall is generally thought to have been a smashing success. That's the main reason it was kept in shape and extended for hundreds of years.
While it did not prevent every Mongol attack, it dramatically reduced mobility of nomad forces, while providing trade, logistics and troop movements to the Chinese. It was also never actually defeated. Nobody every conquered the wall, and it was used defensively up until 1933 (!) against the Japanese.
If you understand the wall for what it was intended
Re: Torture and kidnappings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean the battle of Shanhai Pass, there was no siege battle at the wall. But of course you knew that.
Re: Torture and kidnappings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The construction of the Great Wall began in the 7th century BC.
So you're basically saying that something that was used as a defensive structure for more than 2500 years is no good because you found one example where a commander surrendered and let the enemy through?
Congratulations, you've discovered a type of argument that Trump would shy away from.
Re: (Score:2)
you've discovered a type of argument
Normally after a discovery we would name it after the one who discovered it. In that spirit we could call it, nonsensical... ... ...
I am sorry I will let myself out.
Re: (Score:2)
To walk through US jurisdiction knowing you're wanted?
Wow... A foreign sovereign nation is a US jurisdiction. Your comment really takes the cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Huawei is owned by the Chinese government and is credibly accused of spying. If they don't want to do business with the US and thus are able to ignore our laws, that's one thing. To walk through US jurisdiction knowing you're wanted?
Canada is US jurisdiction now?
Huawei isn't owned by the Chinese government. There are some links, mostly with top execs being members of the Party. Obviously that's terrible, US tech moguls are never involved with the government. The NSA had to hack them itself!
Re:Torture and kidnappings (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're on the "give away rule of law because of blackmail" team?
Yeah, don't expect anybody to listen for very long.
Re: (Score:1)
What rule of law?
The fucking CONSTITUTION, dipshit. The President can push whatever levers of government are available to him! Just because YOU don't like what he's doing doesn't mean he's operating outside the law. Or would you care to name an actual crime? Because YOU know better than Mueller, right?!
Re: (Score:2)
There was me thinking that the US constitution allowed the president to pardon people. So Trump is right in saying he can use her as a pawn, because it is pretty clear she is guilty, which via the mechanism of a pardon gives Trump the leverage needed to use her as a pawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Can Trump use her as a pawn? Of course. As you say, the presidential pardon power clearly gives him that ability. Should Trump use her as a pawn? Should Trump proclaim to the world that American justice is openly for sale for the right price? Well, that's another matter.
Re: (Score:2)
which is why he keeps getting slapped down by the courts.
I am not sure this highlights what you think it highlights. Since the 60's the judicial branch has been overstepping their authority. Universal Injunctions are a really bad judicial practice. It doesn't make sense that one judge in one district can cripple the ability of the Federal government to perform its duty. It puts a partisan twist on the court and now judges are looked at through partisan lenses. Legal technicalities shouldn't be the concern of most people.
Since Trump there has been a surge in their
Re: (Score:2)
What rule of law?
Open a newspaper for once in your life, it is called an extradition treaty.
You don't worry about big scary China's mean threats, you just fucking follow the rules you agreed to follow with your allies, and if the Chinese don't like it, expect the future to have a smaller amount of cheap trinkets from China than the past couple decades had.
If you don't even follow your treaties with your closest allies, you won't have close allies, you'll just be a vassal of whoever's threats you cringed at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She hasn't broken any Canadian laws. The very fact that Canada is holding her for extradition when Canadian law clearly states that extradition is only for crimes which are crimes in both countries, is a human right violation.
Re: (Score:3)
So far the US hasn't given the Canadian legal system a detailed reason why, along with evidence, they want us to extradite Meng Wanzhou. The first part of the process is to prevent the person from leaving the country, which has been done.
We are waiting for the US to file the proper documentation with the specific charges and evidence so that our judicial system can make the decision if she can be extradited according to our treaty and if she is that she won't face any punishment that deprives her of her hum
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, they have. You either are uninformed or lying. They haven't broken down the entire case, but the fraud charges are directly related to Huawei's control of a corporate shell company under Meng's tenure as CFO. It's not political.
It's fraud, a crime, and she's being tried. Basic shit. Dry your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't care about the fallout this is having on Canada.
Basically, never fuck with China. Do not enforce any law or treaty with another country that may disrespect China in any way shape or form. China is above the law. China is above any international relationship or treaty. If you do China will escalate by arresting and executing your citizens.
Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither does China but it will take hostages the terrorists are willing to trade for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Woosh!!!! It went over your head. I was hinting that Canada's actions are terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
We had a treaty obligation to make the arrest. You can be sure that everyone involved and all of the politicians didn't want this to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
No you didnt!!! Al extradition cases have political discretion and prosecutorial discretion. This had to be cleared by the Canadian govt. in advance. Canada just miscalculated. They were taking this hostage to bargain on the China-Canada FTA.
Rule of Law is broken (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that China is taking hostages is pretty strong proof that Rule of Law in Canada is broken and Canada needs to be reminded that Political hostage taking works both ways. Meng is not even accused of breaking any Canadian law and extradition is for crimes which are crimes in both countries. The sanctions she is accused of violating are illegal as they are against the JCPOA a UN treaty and neither Canada nor China has agreed to those sanctions so holding Meng is a purely political decision. The arrest
Re: (Score:2)
Step 3) China forcs down the plane carrying the diplomats. This is not som 3rd rate power (like cough cough Canada) you are dealing with.
Re: (Score:2)
This is all about Huawei's growth and increasing market share, nothing else.
You think Huawei refusing to play ball with Five Eyes has nothing to do with it? Please.
Tentacles==Manga Much? (Score:2)
It must be so ronery to be trolling from your moms basement.
Re: (Score:1)
If the judge has strong evidence Ms. Meng is guilty, wouldn't that override Trump's odd statements? Probable guilt level should be the key factor, not what political leaders say.
Re: (Score:2)
All she is accused of is telling HSBC that her company no longer does business with Iran and have HSBC process their payments. The US has a stranglehold on international bank transfers and this kind of subterfuge is necessitated to bypass the illegal Iran sanctions which are against the JCPOA (a UN treaty). China could just as well prosecute the HSBC officials for enforcing these illegal sanctions.
If a privateer was blocking the Lawrence waterway and a merchant captain lied to get past it with a legitimate
Re: (Score:2)
I think the judge would have to do more explain why he thinks she won't get a fair trial in rational terms. Trumps rants aren't relevant because he doesn't control the prosecution or the judicial system she will be tried in. There are laws, procedures and treaties involved as well as the risk of precedent -- it's not a cocktail party where you can simply say "but omg, Trump, it's so unfair". If she can claim the judicial system won't give her a fair trial, couldn't most any extradition defendant in Canad
Re: (Score:2)
"but omg, Trump, it's so unfair".
Sadly, this has been argued in court to injoin vactions of the Federal government.
"Well, it's legal for a president to do that but it's illegal for this president to do it.
I wish I were kidding.
US laws on foreign soil (Score:1)
Yet again the US is applying it's laws to conduct happening on foreign soil. By this principle Saudi Arabia could extradite me. Further politicians could get laws passed in other countries that would be unconstitutional here. How long before a US citizen is extradited to Germany for selling Nazi antiquities.
I don't see how any other free nation would endorse an extradition like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet again the US is applying it's laws to conduct happening on foreign soil.
No they aren't. She isn't charged with her company violating the US's sanctions against Iran -- she's charged with lying to a potential investor while on US soil by misrepresenting her companies business with Iran.
That's fraud, and it was committed while she was in the US. You don't get a free pass from prosecution just because you leave the country after committing a crime there. And this wasn't a surprise to her -- she was apprehended in Vancouver while on her way to Mexico, having booked travel to spe
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah she may have technically lied to say that her company was no longer doing business with Iran. However business leaders lie all the time- AT&T , Microsoft and CISCO have been found to be lying about not providing backdoors to the NSA. None of their CEOs are being charged with fraud. Fact of the matter is that the lie is forced by an illegal sanctions regime. Its like prosecuting the guy who smuggles people out of North Korea with Human Trafficking. Technically correct but totally bullshit. This is a
Re: (Score:2)
However business leaders lie all the time
Let's assume that everything you say is true (it's not as others have pointed out your ignorance). How does this in anyway absolve her of criminality?
The actions taken by Canada and the US are legal under a mutual treaty against an accused. If the evidence presented to the Canadian courts do not satisfy the judge then she will be released.
What are you actually saying here? That because others might have broken a law we should have lawlessness? Is that how it works in China? Sounds like a recipe for corrupti
Re: (Score:2)
What I am saying is there is no such thing as Rule of Law. Its a myth. There is prosecutorial discretion and who the powers in charge want get charged get prosecuted and those they dont are given a pass or do you really think 13% of the population commits 50% of the crimes in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
You are insane defending two completely contradictory positions. The government has limited resources and as such must apply those resources effectively. A prosecutor not following up on a weak case, understanding deterrence value, and not part of an overall government priority means "no rule of law" to you?
What is not acceptable in your definition of "rule of law"? Seriously. I have no idea what standard of law you are trying to bully for. Is it wrong to faithfullly enforce laws or not? Is it ok to ignore
Re: (Score:2)
Once you have admitted that selective prosecution happens based upon "government priority" it is not uncalled for to ask the US govt to not make it a priority to help CISCO shareholders and stop hiding behind "We cant do anything. Its Rule of law".
Re: (Score:2)
Name a government that doesn't do that in any regard?
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody does it but only the West claims not to do it and does it. Hypocrisy thy name is Western Media
Re: (Score:2)
I am just looking for you ideal candidate for rule of law. No one claims the west is perfect but it's a lot better than others/most. You conflate western legal system and philosophy with "western media". WTF is that?
You seem to imply that the government making, say opioids, a priority of enforcement because it is a high profile issue that affect many people in the community means that every decision by law enforcement is politically motivated. You also don't seem to understand the idea of "faithfully execut
Re: (Score:2)
You sure do sound like Trump there..
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is far smarter than the left gives him credit for. He provokes people through nonsense statements so that the opposition is distracted while he keeps plugging on. At the same time he has protected himself by appointing a Christian Taliban as his Vice President. Nobody is going to replace Trump for noone not even Nancy want Ayatollah Pence in charge. For one he would refuse to meet Nancy without his wife present.
Hey, this is great... (Score:2)
The US wants to bust an exec from a company for violating US law.
I love that. So, next time there's another incident like where Wells Fargo had people creating millions of fake accounts, and charging fees to the people who had no idea what it was, we can JAIL THE CEOs, right? Or another oil spill, we get to JAIL THE CEOs?
This will go over well, once "real" people (i.e., CEOs) think about the impact....
Re: (Score:1)
No, we never liked you, please go away and shut up until you need somebody to save your dumb ass from invasion, then we'll come back and show you what color freedom bleeds.
Re: (Score:2)
I think US owed the French for 1783 and 1812. They repaid in 1914 and 1942.
Also in Vietnam the US screwed up the mess left by the French even worse than the French did.
So neither does France expect US to come to its aid and nor does it have great confidence is USA's ability to do so without screwing things up.
There is a reason French troops are not inside the unified NATO command and why France keeps asking Germany to lets setup an independent European Army.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry but the US came into WW1 in 1917. Late just like they were for WW2.
Re: (Score:2)
How can the US have been "late" for WWII? Are you suggesting somebody was already defeating the Germans, and my grandparents just showed up to stand around?
Without the Americans, Europeans would have been speaking either German or Russian, not their native tongues.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't just surrender, they made a tactical decision to go underground and wait for foreign allies to show up before fighting, in order to save Paris from being destroyed. And it worked.
It was a good call, the Americans were better prepared, constitutionally, to fight and win. For the same reasons that during WWI France and Germany built a bunch of opposing trenches and killed each other by the millions, but the Americans showed up and fought with a different attitude and finished the war quickly. Pari
Re: (Score:2)
Good gravy man have you read any history of the US?
The US basically was on the Nazi side and a Nazi country themselves until nearly the very end
No. Roosevelt wasn't a fan of the Nazi's hence his support for the UK and the Soviet Union through supply and trade before the US entrance in the war. The US had stronger cultural and historical ties to the UK than Germany and the policy of the government reflected that.
The American people are a diverse group and part of that group includes German migrants who were sympathetic toward their Fatherland. Through WW1 to WW2 there was a stigma attached to German
Re: (Score:2)
In the 20th century, that colour was Soviet red and yellow. The USSR did the vast majority of the bleeding, at the direct exhortation of the UK and USA. Per capita you could make an argument for Poland, the Baltic countries and some of the rest of eastern Europe to join the club.
Yes, it's ironic that the USSR is responsible for the preservation of the free world from the only serious threat it faced in living memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia's flag is red, white, and blue. Or if you want an easy way to remember it in the field, "mostly cloudy over a sea of blood." (white-blue-red)
Don't listen to so much propaganda; Freedom bleeds red. Scots Wah Hae, you could always ask them if you get confused about Uncle Sam.
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet flag is red with a yellow hammer and sickle. Russia was part of the political entity The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics when the vast majority of the bleeding happened. A majority of bleeders (both by absolute number and, by a lesser margin, per capita) were ethnic Russian.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to say something next time you comment.
Re: (Score:1)