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.
Trump isn't actually in control of this. It would be illegal and improper for him to intervene, in fact he wasn't even notified by DOJ that the action was pending. It's unclear he even has actual pardoning power for this,
but certainly not before the charges have even been brought, that's just a misapprehension about how DOJ works even as it is an Exec branch Dept.
It sounds like there's a counter-espionage aspect of this case as well, further reducing any chance of even a fucking moron like the aforementioned involving himself inappropriately... but then, you never know do you.
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!
Wait a minute, I want to reply to this but I have to stop shaking with laughter first.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That is a pretty dumb comment, even for you. They are shipping US origin products to Iran. There is a US sanction against Iran. Hope you understand, but I doubt you will.
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.
Here's a question SCOTUS has NOT yet ruled on.
Can a President pardon *himself*?
Most legal scholars say "yes, but Burdick v. United States would almost guarantee impeachment".
Under Burdick, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. If a President were to pardon himself, he would be admitting guilt. Based on this admission (and the ugliness of pardoning oneself), impeachment would follow.
Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
If we could just get Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump to travel to Bejing we could instantly solve two major problems in the US
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
China is an authoritarian state and that means that have lots and lots of police officers.
Actually, America has way more police per capita than China. America is over policed.
Also, the local police in China have little to do with political repression. That is done by a separate organization.
If you visit China, you will notice a lot of heavily armed guards, carrying assault rifles and dressed in camouflage uniforms. But they are not police or soldiers. They are private security guards, and since private citizens are not allowed to own firearms, the "assault rifles" are actually non-functioning plastic replicas.