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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Brumby said:
Isn't it obvious that everything is standard meaning of the word in English. ...
Click to expand...
it's OK Brumby my post Today at 9:51 AM was just technical I mean the SDF changed during the time you'd taken a break, now it's better to be very specific, or ignore, LOL personally I take the latter option most of the time ESPECIALLY if I think the other guy may try to play me

thought I should tell you this
 
N

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
Brumby said:
In other words you concede that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Efficiency and effecti9vess is a different conversation.
Click to expand...

Absolute power CAN corrupt. That is why no one in China has absolute power, not even Xi Jinping. Your knowledge of China cannot be much above the level of comic books if you think anyone in the country has absolute power.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Brumby said:
You guys are exercising double standard. If you refer to my lengthy post above, I did not start this so called "off topic" conversation. I was responding to hkbc in post #411. You guys go off topic all the time to suit your narrative of country bashing but then claim off topic when it suits you. This thread alone is full of stuff that is hardly Huawei specific. Be careful when you throw stones especially from a glass tower. Should I remind you in future every time you go off topic that you are in contravention of the "Equation" standard?



In other words you concede that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Efficiency and effecti9vess is a different conversation. I was referring to risk of abuse and consequently oppression when there are no checks and balances; no due process; no transparency and no accountability.
For example the contrast between the detention of Men WanZhou and Michael Kovrig respectively in the two different jurisdiction.. Should we discuss the due process, the transparency in either case; access to counsel or lack off as a contrast; the murky charges in one vs the other? The charges against Michael Kovrig has nothing to do with efficiency nor effectiveness and everything to do with abuse and oppression.
Click to expand...


The original problem was started when Brat began talking about freedom while everyone else was talking about resources and wealth gap. He was quickly shut down for being off topic and wrong but you chose to continue his mistake.

I concede nothing. I said that a government without checks and balances has greater potential to become corrupt but ultimately it depends on the actual people ruling. In this case, I would say that despite the checks and balances in the American system and the lack thereof in the Chinese system, American politics is much more corrupt and abusive at this point than Chinese politics.

Due process has a different meaning from country to country. Meng Wanzhou was kidnapped for supposed "crimes" that are not illegal in Canada and not done on Canadian soil. Michael Kovrig was arrested for alleged crimes that he committed in China against China. The latter makes perfect sense and is standard practice while the former is an international outrage and a perfect example of how a system that was designed to fend off corruption can become corrupt nonetheless.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Equation said:
Due process has a different meaning from country to country. Meng Wanzhou was kidnapped for supposed "crimes" that are not illegal in Canada and not done on Canadian soil. Michael Kovrig was arrested for alleged crimes that he committed in China against China. The latter makes perfect sense and is standard practice while the former is an international outrage and a perfect example of how a system that was designed to fend off corruption can become corrupt nonetheless.
Click to expand...

In addition,

The latest "legal accusation" has moved to "fraud" that is "cheating an US bank by not revealing the final recipient of the contracted money" or something like that.

This is the new "excuse" for abduction of Meng Wanzhou. this is to justify that US court has the jurisdiction over her "crime" against an US entity.

However, nobody has revealed where and when this contract was signed and who was the other party in the contract. Probably they can not, because revealing it will blow the whole "excuse" as extraterritorial (therefor against international law).

In any commercial contract, there are three fields to be signed by any party. 1. the location. 2. the date 3. the name of the signatory.
1 determines which court has the jurisdiction. For example, New York court does not have jurisdiction over a contract signed in Texas, let alone any US court over a contract in another country.
2 determines what version of the law applies. Laws can be amended, new law does not have effect on older case, so the date must be specific.
3 determines who is responsible.

China has always maintained that US has absolutely no jurisdiction over Ms. Meng, US has never revealed who was that US entity and where was the contract signed. These two indicate that US and Canada know very well they have no legal case against Ms. Meng.

The likely truth probably is that the contract was signed in Hong Kong because the Meng's company (back then signing the contract) was in Hong Kong. That gives Hong Kong court jurisdiction FIRST in line. Hong Kong does not recognize US sanction against Iran, nor does it necessarily recognize the "obligation to reveal" imposed by US law. In the face of Hong Kong law, Meng did nothing wrong. Most importantly, US can not strongarm Hong Kong to twist the case, nor can US demand her extradition to the US.
 
D

Dolcevita

Major
Nutrient said:
Absolute power CAN corrupt. That is why no one in China has absolute power, not even Xi Jinping. Your knowledge of China cannot be much above the level of comic books if you think anyone in the country has absolute power.
Click to expand...

Yes. American power corrupts and this is evident in US overreach in Ms. Meng's case. China needs to check this abuse of power and protect her human rights. Canada, being a beneficiary of American power and corruption, apparently is too weak or acting as a co-conspirator. Same with Australia whose PM brags being America's sheriff in Asia.
 
Last edited:
C

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
taxiya said:
In addition,

The latest "legal accusation" has moved to "fraud" that is "cheating an US bank by not revealing the final recipient of the contracted money" or something like that.

This is the new "excuse" for abduction of Meng Wanzhou. this is to justify that US court has the jurisdiction over her "crime" against an US entity.

However, nobody has revealed where and when this contract was signed and who was the other party in the contract. Probably they can not, because revealing it will blow the whole "excuse" as extraterritorial (therefor against international law).

In any commercial contract, there are three fields to be signed by any party. 1. the location. 2. the date 3. the name of the signatory.
1 determines which court has the jurisdiction. For example, New York court does not have jurisdiction over a contract signed in Texas, let alone any US court over a contract in another country.
2 determines what version of the law applies. Laws can be amended, new law does not have effect on older case, so the date must be specific.
3 determines who is responsible.

China has always maintained that US has absolutely no jurisdiction over Ms. Meng, US has never revealed who was that US entity and where was the contract signed. These two indicate that US and Canada know very well they have no legal case against Ms. Meng.

The likely truth probably is that the contract was signed in Hong Kong because the Meng's company (back then signing the contract) was in Hong Kong. That gives Hong Kong court jurisdiction FIRST in line. Hong Kong does not recognize US sanction against Iran, nor does it necessarily recognize the "obligation to reveal" imposed by US law. In the face of Hong Kong law, Meng did nothing wrong. Most importantly, US can not strongarm Hong Kong to twist the case, nor can US demand her extradition to the US.
Click to expand...

It's lawfare at its finest.
 
B

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
plawolf said:
At its worst actually, since such obvious kangaroo courtary only serves to undermine the west’s much vaunted ‘rule of law’.
Click to expand...

The concept began with the Chinese juridical system (particularly after anti corruption campaign) as a reminder that China is a country where rich, poor, powerful, powerless will all be put to trial and receive equal punishment if they violate laws.

As far as I know, such a concept does not exist in most western countries, where money and connections largely determine punishment. For example a poor person caught with drugs will receive prison time while a celeb would be told to go to rehab.

Canada’s appropriation of the phrase is an attempt to turn China’s own words against it, but it falls flat given that Canada’s actions are itself exactly the thing China’s rule of law prevents - different standards for different people.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Biscuits said:
The concept began with the Chinese juridical system (particularly after anti corruption campaign) as a reminder that China is a country where rich, poor, powerful, powerless will all be put to trial and receive equal punishment if they violate laws.

As far as I know, such a concept does not exist in most western countries, where money and connections largely determine punishment. For example a poor person caught with drugs will receive prison time while a celeb would be told to go to rehab.

Canada’s appropriation of the phrase is an attempt to turn China’s own words against it, but it falls flat given that Canada’s actions are itself exactly the thing China’s rule of law prevents - different standards for different people.
Click to expand...

Like how a billionaire owner of an NFL team like Mr. Robert Kraft got caught for soliciting sex at a Florida message parlor and many Patriots doesn't think it's that bad of a deal. Meanwhile Colin Kaepernick got grilled by the conservatives and black haters (hiding behind the facade of patriotism) for his kneeling during the national anthem song as a sign to protest and get people to be more aware of the injustices being done to many African Americans by police brutality (that was his intention all along).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top