Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?

Gatekeeper said:

And just when did Trump use your valued law based institution to slap tariff on China and it's European allies?

Click to expand...

Gatekeeper said:

Wow! You do cherry picked you answers.

Click to expand...

Gatekeeper said:

I've mentioned that security is the same for all countries, and how all countries conduct espionage. And that almost (notice the use of the word "almost") all countries would've laws that request information to be handed over to their respective agencies!
And you cherry picked this with one line question about your country Australia.

Click to expand...

Gatekeeper said:

This question just goes to show how arrogant, ignorant, stupid or combination of all three from people in the "free world"!

Click to expand...

Gatekeeper said:

It's arrogant because it assumed that the questioner belived that their country always treat their citezen with respect (because they are a "democracy and free" after all) would not even contemplate having such law that requires information to be given over to the security services.

Click to expand...

Gatekeeper said:

It's ignorant that the questioner wasn't even aware that their country DO have such law enforcement requirements !
It's stupid that the questioner felt it necessary to ask me to proof such a law exist!

Click to expand...

Gatekeeper said:

As I've said before in this forum, I'm a lecturer. And one of the things I teach is system theory. System theory suggest systems are open or closed.

An open system will go on to adapt and thrives whereas closed system will be unable to adapt and will be terminal.

We are here to discuss and learn off each other. And we can only do that if we have an opened mind! So please open yours instead of living in a fantasy dream utopia that's in your head.

Click to expand...

Gatekeeper said:

Wow! You do cherry picked you answers.
I've mentioned that security is the same for all countries, and how all countries conduct espionage. And that almost (notice the use of the word "almost") all countries would've laws that request information to be handed over to their respective agencies!
And you cherry picked this with one line question about your country Australia.

This question just goes to show how arrogant, ignorant, stupid or combination of all three from people in the "free world"!

It's arrogant because it assumed that the questioner belived that their country always treat their citezen with respect (because they are a "democracy and free" after all) would not even contemplate having such law that requires information to be given over to the security services.

It's ignorant that the questioner wasn't even aware that their country DO have such law enforcement requirements !

It's stupid that the questioner felt it necessary to ask me to proof such a law exist!

As I've said before in this forum, I'm a lecturer. And one of the things I teach is system theory. System theory suggest systems are open or closed.

An open system will go on to adapt and thrives whereas closed system will be unable to adapt and will be terminal.

We are here to discuss and learn off each other. And we can only do that if we have an opened mind! So please open yours instead of living in a fantasy dream utopia that's in your head.

Click to expand...

AssassinsMace said:

National security is the go-to excuse to not follow the rules. They've shown no evidence. So they just don't want to follow the rules. If there was no national security reason, the actions they've taken would be in violation of the WTO or any other organization's rules. The US used the national security excuse for slapping tariffs on steel and aluminum from allies. The US accuses China of flooding the world with Chinese steel and it's being used in other countries steel exported to the US. Out of all the top exporting allied countries of steel to the US only South Korea buys the most at just 6% of their steel from China. Canada I believe is the top exporter of steel to the US and is not even in the top 10 countries China exports steel to. So where's all this steel that's flooding the world. It certainly isn't going to US allies for the US to think there's a national security risk. It's all just an excuse to slap tariffs on US allies' steel to protect US steel industries. The US is using national security as excuse to break the rules they expect everyone else to follow when it serves their interests first.

Click to expand...

getready said:

Is not the first time they do that. Won't be the last.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

now noticed the tweet

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

: Canada's Department of Justice announced on Friday that they would allow the extradition hearing of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

executive Meng Wangzhou to the United States to proceed

Click to expand...

The Chinese Embassy in Ottawa Friday expressed its dissatisfaction with and opposition to the issuance of Authority to Proceed by the Canadian Justice Ministry on the case of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou.

"The Chinese side is utterly dissatisfied with and firmly opposes the issuance of Authority to Proceed by the Department of Justice Canada on the case of Meng Wanzhou," said a spokesperson of the Chinese embassy.

"This is not a merely judicial case, but a political persecution against a Chinese high-tech enterprise. The subsequent developments have proved this. The so-called 'rule of law' and 'judicial independence' asserted by Canada can not cover up the mistakes made by the Canadian side on the case of Meng Wanzhou," said the spokesperson.

"Judging from the obvious political interference presented on this case, if Canada really abides by the principle of rule of law and judiciary independence, the Canadian side should refuse the extradition request of the United States and immediately release Ms. Meng Wanzhou in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Extradition Act of Canada," the spokesperson said.

"The final result of the Canadian court to handle this case will be a touchstone for testing whether Canada adheres to the judicial independence or not. We will wait and see," the spokesperson added.

Click to expand...

• China ‘strongly opposes Canada’s insistence to proceed’, calls for Meng to be released ‘immediately’
• Analysts expect Beijing to step up pressure on Ottawa and raise case in trade negotiations with Washington

China has expressed its anger and disappointment at Canada’s decision to proceed with the extradition of Huawei executive Sabrina Meng Wanzhou, and called for her immediate release.

Analysts said they expected Beijing to step up pressure on Ottawa and raise the case in trade negotiations with Washington. But they said the extradition process would be complicated and could take months if Meng’s lawyers decided to appeal.

The foreign ministry in Beijing and the Chinese embassy in Ottawa both issued strongly worded statements after Canada’s announcement on Friday.

“China strongly opposes Canada’s insistence to proceed with the so-called extradition of Ms Meng Wanzhou, and it has made a solemn representation,” the ministry said in a statement released on Saturday morning.

“It is a serious political incident. We again urge the US to rescind its request for the extradition of Ms Meng and call for Canada to release her immediately.”

Ottawa’s decision came despite mounting pressure from China, which has included the detention of several Canadian citizens and a foreign ministry spokesman questioning the credibility of the North American nation’s government on Friday.

The statement by Canada’s Justice Department said officials had conducted a “thorough and diligent review of the evidence” and determined it was sufficient to present the case to a judge for extradition.

The Chinese embassy likened Ottawa’s actions to “political persecution”.

“The case of Meng Wanzhou is not a pure judicial case, but political persecution towards a Chinese tech company,” it said. “The final ruling of the Canadian court will be a litmus test for Canadian judicial independence and we will wait and see.”

The latest development is also expected to complicate the efforts of Chinese and US officials seeking to resolve their trade conflict.

Wu Xinbo, director of the Centre for American Studies at Fudan University, said China would continue to exert pressure on Canada, and it would also be hoping for US President Donald Trump to intervene.

“China and the US may discuss Meng’s case in the next trade negotiations, and there could be a resolution after President Xi [Jinping] meets President Trump,” Wu said, referring to an expected meeting of the two leaders in late March. “The president of the United States definitely has the power and space to manoeuvre so that this can be resolved.”

Wang Yong, director of the Centre for International Political Economy at Peking University, agreed.

He said the more China linked the case to its trade talks with the US, the higher the chance Meng could be released sooner, though he added that the extradition process would be complicated and full of uncertainties.

But Meng faced a difficult legal battle, according to Ryan Mitchell, an assistant professor who specialises in international law at Chinese University of Hong Kong.

“Because the extradition hearing is not intended to try the facts of her case, Meng will not be able to present evidence to prove her innocence. She can, however, appeal the decision to extradite, and this could prolong the process somewhat,” he said.

“If Meng’s team decides to pursue all avenues of appeal, it is certainly possible that the process could take months or longer.”

Joanna Harrington, a law professor at the University of Alberta, said the extradition court would likely begin hearing from lawyers from both sides on the scheduling for the extradition hearing next week.

After the hearing, the extradition court would then decide if the case should be moved to the next phase for the justice minister to make a decision on whether to issue an order to extradite Meng.

“The court’s role is modest under the legislation. The job of the extradition judge is to determine if there is enough evidence to justify moving along to the next phase,” she said.

“The role for the minister of justice is more weighty. It is the minister, not the courts, that makes the final decision as to whether or not to issue an order of surrender.”

But Harrington said the process could be lengthy.

“It is hard to predict how long the proceedings will take, but it is not unusual for extradition cases to take time, absent the situation of the individual giving their consent to extradition.”

Meng’s lawyers have argued that Meng was targeted for a “political offence” and also that the crimes that she is accused of do not exist in Canadian law.

“If either of those two points could be proven, Meng could potentially prevail,” Mitchell said. “President Trump’s statements politicising the case may complicate matters, but it is doubtful they will decide the outcome at this stage,” he said.

Trump said last week that discussions on dropping criminal charges against Huawei would be held soon, prompting speculation he would use the case as a bargaining chip in the trade negotiations.

“We’re going to be discussing all of that during the course of the next couple of weeks,” he said at the time. “We’ll be talking to the US attorneys. We’ll be talking to the attorney general. We’ll be making that decision.”

The head of Meng’s defence team, David Martin, also issued a statement on Friday expressing his regret at Ottawa’s decision.

“We are disappointed that the minister of justice has decided to issue an authority to proceed in the face of the political nature of the US charges and where the president of the United States has repeatedly stated that he would interfere in Ms Meng’s case if he thought it would assist the US negotiations with China over a trade deal,” it said.

The South China Morning Post reported last month that Xie Maosong, a senior adviser to the Chinese Communist Party, predicted the Huawei charges would become part of the trade talks and that Meng would be released in the coming months.

Meng is due back in court on Wednesday. Justice William Ehrcke of the Supreme Court of British Columbia previously released her on US$7.5 million bail.

Meng and Huawei were charged by the US Justice Department in January with deceiving international banks about a subsidiary’s operations in Iran in violation of US sanctions, along with related financial crimes.

Ren Zhengfei, Huawei’s founder, told CBS News in a rare interview on February 20 that his daughter’s arrest was “politically motivated”.

Click to expand...

getready said:

That guy probably is lawyer and is trained in his use of words.

Click to expand...

getready said:

He has been trolling the forum before with his verbosity. I would not engage him if I were you. Just a waste of time.

Click to expand...