Slashdot Mirror
China Calls For Release of Arrested Huawei CFO Detained In Canada (nbcnews.com)
China is demanding the release of a senior executive at Huawei after she was detained in Canada on extradition charges to the U.S. Wanzhou Meng, who is also the deputy chair of Huawei's board and the daughter of company founder Ren Zhengfei, is suspected of violating U.S. trade sanctions against Iran. NBC News reports: The arrest of Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer and daughter of the company's founder Ren Zhengfei, spooked investors with U.S. stocks tumbling on fears of a flare-up in Chinese-U.S. tensions. She was arrested in Vancouver, British Columbia, on Dec. 1. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said officials have been contacted both in the U.S. and Canada to demand Meng's release. Geng Shuang, a spokesman for the ministry, said her detention needed to be explained, and both countries had to "effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of the person concerned." A spokesperson for Huawei said in a statement that it "complies with all applicable laws and regulations where it operates, including applicable export control and sanction laws and regulations."
1. Can't compete with Huawei 5G.
2. Can't get real advantage as claimed by Donald's tweets
3. Made up and exaggerated accusation as before the Iraq War.
4. Held the daughter of a VIP as hostage for negotiation.
Sounds like a plot from terrorist country like Iran.
I wish they would prosecute board members of US companies for financial crimes and monopolistic practices.
Might have something to do with this;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46352336
Chinese officials have defended their decision to bar three US citizens from leaving the country, saying they are suspected of "economic crimes". Victor and Cynthia Liu, children of a fugitive businessman, and their mother, Sandra Han, have been detained since June, the New York Times reported. The US Department of State confirmed to the BBC that they are in "close contact" with the adult Liu children. Their father, Liu Changming, is wanted in a $1.4bn (£1bn) fraud case in China.
FYI - Victor, 19, was born in the U.S. The Chinese are holding a US citizen hostage and then have the nerve to complain?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
America First position
Most uncultured xenophobes do. It's the "I got mine so fuck everyone else attitude".
If if if what? No. Chew soap, I did that. You didn't build that.
- Barry O
US Constitution Article II, Section 2 states plainly that the President has pardon power for any offense with the sole exception being cases of impeachment.
Since at least Andrew Jackson in 1865, Presidents have use pardon prior to indictment to spare the country the turmoil of a controversial indictment and trial (in the case of a Confederate officer, for Jackson). The Supreme Court has upheld this repeatedly.
Imagine you seen a sign saying "no parking on Sundays 9AM-11AM". By law that implies that parking is allowed any other time. (exceptio probat regulam, in casibus non exceptis).
The Constitution is even more clear. It specifically says "all cases except impeachment". If it meant "all cases except impeachment and when AC doesn't like it", it would say that. It explicitly states the sole case in which the President does not have pardon power.
The defendant isn't being impeached, so clearly the President absolutely has an unquestionable Constitutional right to pardon her. Whether or not he SHOULD is an entirely different question. His legal power to do so is very clearly stated in the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.
How many times, over how many centuries, does the Supreme Court have to keep ruling on this before you recognize the stare decisis?
You say "arguably" - that was argued in 1865, and SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution means what it says. Most famously in the last fifty years, Ford pardoned Nixon, so the country could move forward from that mess - without an indictment or arrest.
> when an actual arrest has been made, it becomes increasingly difficult for a President ...
> acting before would likely create a Constitutional crisis of some sort.
So your argument is that "power to pardon any ..." means not before it goes to court, and not after?
The question *could* have caused a Constitutional crisis - in the 1800s, but it didn't. SCOTUS decided the question, as is their role, and that was that. A hundred years later most people thought the President SHOULDN'T pardon Nixon, but nobody made a serious claim that he COULDN'T.