Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
The Michaels will definetely not go home any time soon. Minimum time would be 1 years, and maximum could be 2 years (I think by then, Canada will have another election).
Ofc all that depends on the assumption that there was a deal behind the scenes. If such a deal happened China will return them, if not.. it depends on how much China wants to punish Canada and also remind the world the consequences of crossing China
Equation
Lieutenant General
Fox News is working over time on this in order to bash Biden.
You mean, Meng is backed by a country's comprehensive national power big enough to threaten the hegemon to back down..
Thats all there is to this. If Meng was from any other country than China, then she would be rotting in some god-forsaken prison in the US.
Remember, if you dont want to be a bullied, then you should become the strongest to bully anyone if they cross you
A professional explanation by
A DPA is not the same as a plea bargain or a sentence of probation. Under a plea bargain or a sentence of probation, a defendant is convicted of a crime. Compliance with the terms of the plea bargain or terms of probation is overseen by the court. A DPA, by contrast, is largely imposed and monitored outside the judicial system. A defendant who submits to a DPA is not . The charges are dismissed if the company complies with its obligations under the DPA.
Anything in the agreement is based on good-will.
To put it simply, here is an analogue.
US: You are guilty of wrong doing.
Meng: I am not.
US: Ok, I will let you go this time, but don't let me caught you for a second time.
Meng: I will not (let you caught me next time).
The US heard Meng saying: I will not (do it again).
A DPA is not the same as a plea bargain or a sentence of probation. Under a plea bargain or a sentence of probation, a defendant is convicted of a crime. Compliance with the terms of the plea bargain or terms of probation is overseen by the court. A DPA, by contrast, is largely imposed and monitored outside the judicial system. A defendant who submits to a DPA is not . The charges are dismissed if the company complies with its obligations under the DPA.
Anything in the agreement is based on good-will.
To put it simply, here is an analogue.
US: You are guilty of wrong doing.
Meng: I am not.
US: Ok, I will let you go this time, but don't let me caught you for a second time.
Meng: I will not (let you caught me next time).
The US heard Meng saying: I will not (do it again).
Just to follow up:
So confirming my first thought
Typically China will usually deport guilty people right away rather than hold them in jail and then deport them (often happens in the US and Canada), so it's not different from what they do normally.
China ought not return those two Spies since that's what they were and are: Spies. And to have them freed after 1 year or 2 year is tantamount to anyone with a functioning brain that those Spies arrests and convictions were done as tit for tat with Meng which also means that Meng was and by association, Huawei was indeed guilty of doing illegal activities related to espionage. Huaweis reputation is already in tatters in the minds of the western countries as being used as backdoor for Chinese spying.
China ought to make sure those two Michaels spent the time in jail on whatever was the amount of legal punishment handed down by China's legal system.
Honestly I dont like the talk about subverting or out of the blue, changing sentence for a person because of diplomacy.
China and Xi especially, has worked very hard to dramatically improve the judicial system in China and try to reduce political interference on their work. This has achieved results and the rule of law principle is now startingt to take shape.
I would rather have a proper judicial process play out and then just expell them (which is also acceptable in a rule of law country).
Ofc with such a huge internationally important case, some measures might be taken, and there might be temptation to interfere but this could damage the rule of law principle.
Mr. Xi has worked very hard for building a law based society to suddenly give up on it because of some slight diplomatic gains.
Let the Michaels stay in China until their trials and appeals process is completed, and then expell depending on if a deal was made
China and Xi especially, has worked very hard to dramatically improve the judicial system in China and try to reduce political interference on their work. This has achieved results and the rule of law principle is now startingt to take shape.
I would rather have a proper judicial process play out and then just expell them (which is also acceptable in a rule of law country).
Ofc with such a huge internationally important case, some measures might be taken, and there might be temptation to interfere but this could damage the rule of law principle.
Mr. Xi has worked very hard for building a law based society to suddenly give up on it because of some slight diplomatic gains.
Let the Michaels stay in China until their trials and appeals process is completed, and then expell depending on if a deal was made