Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday December 08 2018, @11:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the surprise dept.

Huawei Arrest Tests China's Leaders as Fear and Anger Grip Elite

The arrest of one of China's leading tech executives by the Canadian police for extradition to the United States has unleashed a combustible torrent of outrage and alarm among affluent and influential Chinese, posing a delicate political test for President Xi Jinping and his grip on the loyalty of the nation's elite.

The outpouring of conflicting sentiments — some Chinese have demanded a boycott of American products while others have expressed anxiety about their investments in the United States — underscores the unusual, politically charged nature of the Trump administration's latest move to counter China's drive for technological superiority.

In a hearing on Friday in Vancouver, Canadian prosecutors said the executive, Meng Wanzhou of the Chinese telecom giant Huawei, faced accusations of participating in a scheme to trick financial institutions into making transactions that violated United States sanctions against Iran.

Unlike a new round of tariffs or more tough rhetoric from American officials, the detention of Ms. Meng, the company's chief financial officer, appears to have driven home the intensifying rivalry between the United States and China in a visceral way for the Chinese establishment — and may force Mr. Xi to adopt a tougher stance against Washington, analysts said. In part, that is because Ms. Meng, 46, is so embedded in that establishment herself.

Previously: Canada Arrests Huawei's Global Chief Financial Officer in Vancouver

Related: New Law Bans U.S. Government from Buying Equipment from Chinese Telecom Giants ZTE and Huawei
Australia Bans China's Huawei (and maybe ZTE) from 5G Mobile Network Project
Washington Asks Allies to Drop Huawei


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @07:34AM (7 children)

    by Blymie (4020) on Monday December 10 2018, @07:34AM (#772266)

    Great! You've identified an area where (primarily Americans) should do better. After all, Canadian banks weren't directly involved.

    You're also confusing "compiling evidence and creating an arrest warrant" with "following through with that arrest once evidence is presented" and "extraditing".

    These are different things. Do you have proof that there is sufficient evidence for a Canadian court to arrest and charge a specific US banker with a crime that is illegal in Canada?

    If so, you realise that court cases can be brought in civil court, and that the burden of proof is MUCH lower there. 50.1% is what often wins a civil court case, where as 99.9% might best describe a criminal court win.

    Meaning? If there was loads of evidence, why haven't people in Canada sued these same bankers, and won? Because it's very easy to register judgements in a foreign court, and collect.

    Well, no evidence!

    I think part of your confusion is -- people managing to evade the law, by trickery, collusion, and destruction of evidence -- without the ability to prove it, compared to "we have PROOF!" and people doing nothing.

    It's a constant battle to take down crooks, get evidence on crooks.

    But to not arrest when a court has the evidence? THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING! :P

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 10 2018, @07:54AM (6 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 10 2018, @07:54AM (#772270) Journal

    What the banksters did was illegal in US (misrepresentation of the risk for those derivatives)
    Nothing happened to them in their own country, you want me to accept as realistic the probability they would be extradited?

    And no, Americans don't have monopoly in preferential dealings with 'elite corruption', as the Forex scandal [wikipedia.org] shows.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @08:31AM (5 children)

      by Blymie (4020) on Monday December 10 2018, @08:31AM (#772280)

      You're not even paying attention to what I'm saying.

      Your contention is that there was evidence, and that state prosecutors / federal prosecutors / various others *ignored* that evidence... and said "Our buddies will go free!".

      Mine is that there was not sufficient evidence, because those involved were good at covering their tracks. And that what they did often skirted legal acts, often inside the boundaries of laws loosened in prior decades.

      From where I sit, I see you confusing "arresting because we have evidence" with "having evidence". These are two entirely different discussions. Completely and entirely different, and entirely and completely non-related in any way.

      Collective evidence is not easy at the best of times. Crooks of all types get to go free. Houses are broken into by people, for example, ALL of the time -- and often charges are not laid, arrests are not made, even when people KNOW who broke into said house and robbed it. Why?

      LACK OF EVIDENCE.

      This is, in fact, part of what a free society must entail. Courts must not jail those, if the evidence isn't very compelling. Society can not be free, if the state monitors everything, and can use that monitored evidence in a court room. In fact, the very concept that "people can get away with things", is demonstrative of a 'chink' in the armour of a free society. And I would suggest, a necessary one.

      This has nothing to do with what I stated -- that when evidence is present? The mark of a healthy, democratic society is that your political and financial powers do not prevent you from arrest, trial, etc.

      I'll say it again... you are confusing 'sufficient evidence to charge' with 'once charged, arresting'. People are stating that Canada should just let her go. Or should have no arrested, when provided with an obligation to do so under democratically enacted laws, treaties, and so forth.

      Do you not see the difference here? Can you not?

      Lastly -- you've provided a link to a wikipedia article, stating a variety of fines for corporations? In other words, you're trying to prove your point, that corps / people get off free, by showing them being punished in some fashion?!

      I'm not sure I get the argument.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 10 2018, @12:08PM (4 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 10 2018, @12:08PM (#772327) Journal

        Mine is that there was not sufficient evidence, because those involved were good at covering their tracks.

        In the context of your

        The true mark of a democratic and non-elitist society is that you aren't above the law.

        My answer: if you really believe that we are living in a non-elitist society, I don't have a bridge but I'll sell you one anyway.

        You really believe that the entire world finance grind to a halt (and needed bailouts to be supported through taxes by the plebs) and the ones who caused it covered their tracks so perfectly that nobody can be proven guilty?
        From where I stand, Hanlon's razor and all that, I think is more probable those who were in charge of the investigation had their hearts in using thick brush to whitewash the banksters (as part of the elite) rather than doing justice.

        What's my take on the case at hand? The ones who pushed for the arrest warrant don't have justice and law in their mind, only a burning desire to piss on Trump's "deals" (see the Khashoggi case too). I might be right, I might be wrong about their motive, just but don't sell it to me as "Fiat justitia, pereat mundus", I'm not buying it.

        Lastly -- you've provided a link to a wikipedia article, stating a variety of fines for corporations? In other words, you're trying to prove your point, that corps / people get off free, by showing them being punished in some fashion?!

        Ah, so it's Ok for the western corporation to pay fines but let the guys sleep well**, but when it comes to the Chinese we need to arrest their people.
        Great sense of law and justice, indeed, no sign of elitism anywhere. The guys were just too smart and covered their asses, the brilliant investigators couldn't find anything provable, right?

        **
        From the linked

        At the center of the investigation are the transcripts of electronic chatrooms in which senior currency traders discussed with their competitors at other banks the types and volume of the trades they planned to place. The electronic chatrooms had names such as "The Cartel", "The Bandits’ Club", "One Team, One Dream" and "The Mafia"... Among The Cartel's members were Richard Usher, a former Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) senior trader who went to JPMorgan as head of spot foreign exchange trading in 2010, Rohan Ramchandani, Citigroup’s head of European spot trading, Matt Gardiner, who joined Standard Chartered after working at UBS and Barclays, and Chris Ashton, head of voice spot trading at Barclays.
        ...
        On 19 December 2014 the first and only known arrest was made in relation to the scandal. The arrest of a former RBS trader...

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @04:24PM (3 children)

          by Blymie (4020) on Monday December 10 2018, @04:24PM (#772403)

          You're really good at taking words, and twisting them -- but a logical argument that does not make.

          Simply because I defined what I believe, does not mean there are not inadequacies to be addressed.

          Yes, I defined a true mark of a democratic and non-elitist society. However, you're claiming a failure to reach that mark, and therefore saying -- what? That since there is a failure, all attempts to reach that mark should be stopped?

          If your stance is upheld, then if anyone -- ever, at any time gets away with murder, then all attempts to prosecute murder should stop, are foolish, wrong, and improper.

          That is precisely what you are contending.

          Further, again you're not thinking clearly here. If people paid fines, they were found guilty of something, fined, sentenced, and so on. In other words -- the problem isn't the legal system, but the legislative bodies not having strict enough laws.

          Lastly, you're comparing someone breaching international sanctions, with an entirely different crime.

          I don't really understand what you're trying to argue.

          It seems to me, like you're trying to find some obscure law somewhere, or someone that was 'let go', and then said "SEE!!! SEE!!!! Someone got off free! Someone got away with it! Clearly, that means that 'special' people should be let go!!!"

          It's like you're arguing on the side of... well, evil or something.

          "Let that criminal go! Other criminals got away with it, it's OK!" or something bizarre.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 10 2018, @10:15PM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 10 2018, @10:15PM (#772594) Journal

            You're really good at taking words, and twisting them -- but a logical argument that does not make.

            Didn't intend to make one. You see, democracy doesn't function well (or at all) with secrecy. And guess what? Secrecy and distortions are prevalent in the today's post-truth world; other than 'show me everything you have or I won't trust you', there's no rational position I can take

            My post is exactly that: a statement of disbelief.

            However, you're claiming a failure to reach that mark, Andrew therefore saying -- what?

            And therefore the ones that pretend to administer justice in US cannot be trusted.
            Starting with 'the fruit of the poisonous tree's and ending with 'better X guilty go unpunished then an innocent surfer', the principles of justice are based on fairness. Show a discriminatory application of it and, in all fairness (pun intended), you cannot be trusted (to apply the same rules for all)

            Lastly, you're comparing someone breaching international sanctions, with an entirely different crime.

            International court of justice orders US to lift new Iran sanctions [theguardian.com].
            Europe, China and Russia want to stick with the deal, so they 'join forces with a new mechanism to dodge Iran sanctions" [cnbc.com].

            From their point of view, no crime has been committed.
            Providing telecom equipment is absolutely orthogonal to 'nuclear threats' this, personal point of view, I don't see a crime being committed either.

            I don't really understand what you're trying to argue.

            I argue that the arrest is fishy, and rotten fishy come to that.
            If the US 'justice' want to regain credibility, it should start cleaning their own act and start with their own yard before asking the arrest of foreign citizens. How about starting with dismatling FISA 'court', wouldn't transparent justice be an improvement?

            It seems to me, like you're trying to find some obscure law somewhere

            Bzzzt... Wrong. I argue from what the common-sense of Joe Average would consider fair.
            'cause lately, what comes from US over Pacific and a whole red arid continent sounds totally alien. Like there's a space-time rift somewhere and US lives in a weird parallel universe.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @11:59PM (1 child)

              by Blymie (4020) on Monday December 10 2018, @11:59PM (#772649)

              1) You've stated you aren't intending to make logical arguments -- therefore you are just spewing worthless blather

              2) This isn't about the US, it's about a Canadian arrest. I believe you have no idea how extradition works.

              3) Your response to my sanctions statement, doesn't explain why you're comparing entirely different things, it just diverts and spews more blather

              4) The arrest isn't fishy.. it was performed inline with a international (US/Canadian) reciprocal treaty covering extradition. Countries all over the world have these treaties, and what is happening is 100% logical, sensible, and correct from a Canadian perspective.

              We're done with this thread.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @12:23AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @12:23AM (#772661)

                1) You've stated you aren't intending to make logical arguments -- therefore you are just spewing worthless blather

                De gustibus.

                This isn't about the US, it's about a Canadian arrest. I believe you have no idea how extradition works.

                On an American DoJ (OIA)'s request.

                4) The arrest isn't fishy.. it was performed inline with a international (US/Canadian) reciprocal treaty covering extradition. Countries all over the world have these treaties, and what is happening is 100% logical, sensible, and correct from a Canadian perspective.

                And the relevance is...?

                We're done with this thread.

                Phew.