Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6198
Reputation: 295
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:46 pm    Post subject: The Huawei Arrest & what it means Reply with quote

Quote:
Canadian businesses face retaliatory risk after Huawei arrest: analysts
By Mike Blanchfield — Dec 6 2018

OTTAWA — Canada's arrest of Huawei Technologies' chief financial officer in Vancouver is fuelling concern that Canadian business people in China are at risk of being arrested in retaliation.

That view is being advanced by international security analysts and former diplomats, following the arrest on Saturday of Meng Wanzhou.

Canada's Justice Department says the United States is seeking Meng's extradition, but is not providing further details about the case because of a court-ordered publication ban on her pending bail hearing.

Chinese officials are loudly calling for Meng's release and want Canada to reveal the reason for her arrest.

"The Chinese are likely to play tit for tat on this one and we should be ready for it," said Fen Hampson, the director of the global security program at the Centre for Governance Innovation in southern Ontario.

David Mulroney, a former Canadian ambassador to China, says that while he doesn't want to overstate the possibility of a Canadian being jailed, China will be looking for ways to strike back.

"China will be furious and look for means of punishing us, in part as an example for others. That could include tit for tat moves against Canadians," he said.

Chinese Foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters Thursday that the Chinese government also wants Canadian officials to reveal the reasoning.

He also said Meng's legal rights must be ensured, adding that neither Canadian nor American officials had so far responded to China's concerns.

The comments come after China's embassy in Ottawa issued a statement Wednesday calling Meng's arrest a serious violation of human rights.

"(Canada) arrested a Chinese citizen (who did not violate) any Canadian or American law," the statement said.

"We will closely follow the development of the issue and take all measures to resolutely protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens."

Canadian Justice Department spokesman Ian McLeod said the U.S. is seeking Meng's extradition, but couldn't provide further details about the case because of the publication ban in effect at Meng's request.

Meng was changing flights in Canada when she was detained "on behalf of the United States of America" to face "unspecified charges" in New York, Huawei said in a statement.

"The company has been provided very little information regarding the charges and is not aware of any wrongdoing by Ms. Meng," the statement said. "The company believes the Canadian and U.S. legal systems will ultimately reach a just conclusion."

In April, China appealed to Washington to avoid damaging business confidence following a Wall Street Journal report that U.S. authorities were allegedly investigating whether Huawei violated sanctions on Iran amid spiralling technology tensions.

That same month, Washington barred Huawei rival ZTE Corp. from exporting U.S. technology in a separate case over exports to Iran and North Korea.

In its statement Wednesday, Huawei said the company complies with all laws and regulations in the countries where it operates, including applicable export control, sanction laws and regulations of the United Nations, the United States and the European Union.

Huawei, the biggest global supplier of network gear used by phone and internet companies, has been the target of deepening U.S. security concerns. Under U.S. President Donald Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, Washington has pressured European countries and other allies to limit the use of its technology.

The U.S. sees Huawei and smaller Chinese tech suppliers as possible fronts for Chinese spying and as commercial competitors. The Trump administration says they benefit from improper subsidies and market barriers.
https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/12/06/china-demands-canada-release-huawei-executive-arrested-in-vancouver-2/#.XAlm0GhKjIW



What actual charge are we holding this woman on? All of this is being done in secret. Are they going to actually hold an extradition hearing on this case?

This from CNBC:

Quote:
Arrest of Huawei CFO shows 'the gloves are now fully off,' says Eurasia Group

The arrest of Huawei's global chief financial officer in Canada, reportedly related to the violation of U.S. sanctions, (emphasis added) will affect trade negotiations between Washington and Beijing, according to risk consultancy Eurasia Group.
Canada's Department of Justice said on Wednesday the country arrested Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver, where she is facing extradition to the U.S.
U.S. authorities have been probing Huawei, one of the world's largest makers of telecommunications network equipment, since at least 2016 for allegedly shipping U.S.-origin products to Iran and other countries in violation of U.S. export and sanctions laws, sources told Reuters in April
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/06/huawei-cfo-arrested-gloves-are-now-fully-off-says-eurasia-group.html


The Canadian media is skipping lightly around the reason for the arrest, even though that is the most important part of the story -- what was she doing? What law did she break?

The Canadian courts have imposed a publishing ban. The suspicion is roused -- are they protecting the government from legal responsibility for a clear violation of the law? Would that make the court an accomplice?

Meanwhile, the American media are open about it. Nobody seems to even pretend that this is anything more than hostage-taking. If this woman is being arrested and delivered into the hands of an enemy as part of commercial transactions in third world countries, it means the Chinese are right about her arrest.

What charge are they holding her on? How are they going to extradite her if she has committed no crime? Canada only extradites people who have done what would be a crime in Canada. From the look of it, none of this is legal. It's thuggery being done by our courts for the Americans.

This shows you how sleazy our legal system has become, that they will lay down and let this happen. Where's the journalism?

If we are going to suck up to the Americans, wouldn't you prefer to do it around the negotiating table rather than breaking our own laws and violating our own legal procedures? The worst part -- the suspicion that it's all in order to atone for Crystia Freeland's catastrophic blunders!

Are the Courts really going to provide cover by issuing a publication ban in perpetuity? It says a lot!


Last edited by Bugs on Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1288
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it funny you immediately go Infowars on things when the info you seek is right in front of your eyes.
Quote:
What actual charge are we holding this woman on? All of this is being done in secret. Are they going to actually hold an extradition hearing on this case?

Apart from the publication ban, the arrest is over sanctions in Iran which it appears this woman (or company) violated and as such the US asked us to detain.
Quote:
Now the media are skipping over the reason for the arrest, while the American media are open about it.

Utter bullshit.

Sad effort really.
Quote:
Canada only extradites people who have done what would be a crime in Canada

Correct, and presumably the charge she will face is a crime here too.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6198
Reputation: 295
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know TC is naive about the law ... but this is a new low.

The only way Canadian authorities could have made this better is if they arrested her at 3 am ... and took her to the station through a perp walk of cameras ... to Vancouver's Lubianca ...

Do you mind me asking ... why would they arrest the CFO of one of China's flagship companies ... the daughter of the owner, who is 'influential' amongst the Chinese mandarins? Did they think the Chinese wouldn't notice?

What would the forces of law and order be depriving this woman of her liberty? Trading with Iran isn't a crime in Canada, and besides, she wasn't doing it here. So why was she taken into custody? A favour to Trump? Isn't it a little late to be sucking up on that front?

Even worse, why would the courts be complicit in this? Makes you wonder if they'll countenance waterboarding witnesses next. They are turning us into a banana republic.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1288
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I know TC is naive about the law ... but this is a new low.

LOL!

And once again, my work details that I know about the law. And in numerous conversations we have had you have been thoroughly schooled by me. So save me your snippy bullshit. You just cant compete.
Thanks.
Quote:


Do you mind me asking ... why would they arrest the CFO of one of China's flagship companies ... the daughter of the owner, who is 'influential' amongst the Chinese mandarins? Did they think the Chinese wouldn't notice?

Simple really.

The US authorities ask the CDN authorities, provide the documents, get them read over and see if the same crime would be punishable here, and voila...... issue an arrest warrant.
Quote:

Trading with Iran isn't a crime in Canada, and besides, she wasn't doing it here. So why was she taken into custody?
What?
Of course there are CDN sanctions on trade with Iran. So, presumably at this point she and her company violated the US version of them.
Quote:

A favour to Trump?

That idiot wouldnt even know about this. He has far more serious things to worry about, like Jr and his daughter he wants to bone , getting arrested and jailed ! LOL!
Quote:

Even worse, why would the courts be complicit in this?


LOL!.....what was that about someone not knowing the law? Oh my.

Who else but the courts can do this ?

Oh bugs....
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6198
Reputation: 295
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More details. Apparently she was arrested while changing planes, not at customs. She is being held on a "provisional arrest warrant" -- which sounds dicey How can someone be "provisionally arrested"? It's like being "provisionally pregnant".

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/exec-with-major-chinese-company-arrested-and-sought-for-extradition

Think of it as someone having their freedom taken away from them -- that better describes the situation. Why, then, has this happened to them?

TC is a lot more sophisticated in the law than I am, apparently -- or so he claims. Then perhaps he can tell me of other times when an individual corporate office holder was incarcerated for violating trade sanctions. That would at least be a precedent, and you know how they think -- professionally, when bad decisions are enshrined into legal institutions, it means a lot of work for lawyers.

All the Canadian authorities are respecting the ancient power of the crown -- power without responsibility! So the legal nerds won't say anything, and you already know that there is no journalism in this country -- just cheerleading. So we have to read about it in foreign newspapers.

Apparently it is likely to throw the trade truce off.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6198
Reputation: 295
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

China Prepares Retaliation To Huawei CFO Arrest
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/07/2018 - 08:12

As Beijing's outrage over the arrest of Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng simmers ahead of her Friday arraignment in a Canadian court, Bloomberg has shed some light on how news of her arrest has resonated with different factions in the Chinese leadership.

The upshot is that while officials in charge of managing China's trade negotiations believe China shouldn't allow Wanzhou's arrest to impact trade negotiations, hardline national security officials believe the arrest is an embarrassment to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who reportedly had 'no idea' that the daughter of a Chinese business icon and Communist Party member had been arrested in Canada - and that China should use trade talks as leverage to demand that she be released.

Western media outlets have reported that, while White House officials and National Security Advisor John Bolton knew about Wanzhou's arrest before Saturday's meeting between Trump and Xi, the president somehow had no idea.


Now, BBG is reporting that Xi similarly had no idea that one of his country's most prominent executives had been taken into custody hours before he sat down with Trump. This asymmetry is viewed as deeply embarrassing to China's leader, and many believe that simply letting trade negotiations to move forward as plan would be an unconscionable capitulation - particularly if (as many analysts believe) the Trump Administration intends to use her arrest as leverage.

Still others believe that Wanzhou's arrest is a "gift" for Xi, because it gives cover for the Chinese to dig in their heels and accuse the US of using the trade war as a pretext to stymie China's ascent as a global superpower. In light of Wanzhou's arrest, such a stance would likely garner more sympathy from the rest of the world.

Quote:
As China contemplates how to respond, at least there is one silver lining: It helps China appear sincere to the world in wanting to resolve the trade war. He can say he is trying to resolve the issue but the US has an entrenched strategy to cut off China’s rise as a global power - a theme that state-run media picked up on Friday.

"The Huawei arrest gives China’s leaders a huge gift,' said Barry Naughton, a professor at the University of California in San Diego who studies China. "It makes super plausible the narrative they’ve been trying to promote all along: 'The U.S. just can’t stand our rise, they can’t stand to lose their dominance, they can’t treat anybody like an equal.'"


But one salient fact has been agreed on by all sides: Wanzhou's arrest doesn't bode well for a trade detente.

Quote:
Officials concerned about the economy warned a collapse in trade talks would hurt China more than the Huawei arrest. Trump has threatened to raise tariffs to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods if a deal isn’t reached in 90 days. In the worst case of a 25 percent duty on all Chinese goods, 2019 economic growth could slump about 1.5 percentage points to 5 percent, down from 6.6 forecast for this year, according to Bloomberg Economics.

"The detention of Huawei’s CFO is not an accidental incident and will cast a shadow over the trade talks, but both sides will work hard to avert that bad influence," said Wei Jianguo, former vice minister of commerce and now a vice chairman of the China Center for International Economic Exchanges. "The negotiation between Chinese and U.S. working groups is going smoothly, and actually much better than people outside expected."


Because even if President Xi does opt to continue negotiating as per Saturday's deal, he will now need to extract even more concessions in order not to look powerless. And although Chinese officials have said they won't retaliate by arresting US executives - well - we wouldn't blame any US executives in China for grabbing their passports and chartering a flight to anywhere but China as quickly as humanly possible.

Quote:
"Ms. Meng’s arrest threatens to make China’s leadership look powerless in securing the release of not only a citizen, but a senior executive and daughter of one of China’s business icons," said Michael Hirson, Asia director at Eurasia Group and a former U.S. Treasury Department official. "Nationalist sentiment will thus make it harder for Beijing to offer major concessions to Trump."

Publicly, at least, China is keeping the issues separate. On Thursday, commerce ministry spokesman Gao Feng told reporters that China is implementing agreements reached with the U.S. on agriculture, autos and energy. “In the next 90 days we will work in accordance with the clear timetable and road map” to negotiate in areas of mutual benefit, he said.

Then on Friday, foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang dismissed concerns that China would retaliate against U.S. companies.

"China always protects the legal rights and interests of foreigners in China, but they should also abide by all Chinese laws and regulations," Geng said.


In what's perhaps the clearest indication of China's outrage over the arrest, government-run media railed against Meng's arrest in editorials published on Friday.

"Obviously Washington is resorting to a despicable rogue’s approach as it cannot stop Huawei’s 5G advance in the market," the Communist Mouthpiece Global Times said in an editorial.

The upshot: If the US tries to use Whenzhou's arrest as leverage, they could wind up killing a promising deal.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-07/chinese-officials-huawei-cfos-arrest-was-deeply-embarrassing-president-xi
================================================
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1288
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
More details. Apparently she was arrested while changing planes, not at customs. She is being held on a "provisional arrest warrant" -- which sounds dicey How can someone be "provisionally arrested"? It's like being "provisionally pregnant".

Provisionally pregnant? LOL.... er no.

She is on CDN soil, no one cares if she is changing planes or at Customs.

As to how.... they walk up to her and put handcuffs on her. Tell her why and voila !

But the process would have started long prior and our officials would have been alerted by the International Assistance Group (who were advised by Internal Affairs USA), provided a provisional arrest warrant since she may be a flight risk and they can arrest her.
Quote:

Think of it as someone having their freedom taken away from them -- that better describes the situation. Why, then, has this happened to them?

Yea...so? Everyone arrested has their freedom taken from them temporarily.

No big deal .
Quote:

Then perhaps he can tell me of other times when an individual corporate office holder was incarcerated for violating trade sanctions.

Well....would you like to fine tune this request to include left handed persons who have vertigo and red hair with only blue eyes?

People can and do get arrested on these charges . The last one I can recall is a turkish trader who moved gold into Iran.
Quote:


All the Canadian authorities are respecting the ancient power of the crown -- power without responsibility! So the legal nerds won't say anything, and you already know that there is no journalism in this country -- just cheerleading. So we have to read about it in foreign newspapers.


How stupid. Not only are there reams of articles...GOSH Billy....EVEN Canadian news are writing about it, so is the rest of the world.

Canada has signed on to extradition treaties the world over. Once they get the request from the IAG , they review it for similar laws here and .....you get arrested.
Quote:

Apparently it is likely to throw the trade truce off.

Nope. Trump didnt know about this.

Like many things, he is too stupid to comprehend. And now Fox news is saying the same thing.

Whatever are you going to do now that even they think he is a moron?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6198
Reputation: 295
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I understand it right, the walks up and puts cuffs on her and they tell her why ...

If "why" is ... because the Americans wanted us to... that's pretty lame. And probably illegal too ... except when Justin does it, it isn't illegal?

What is the reason she is being detained? It's a simple, kind of "habeus corpus-y" kind of question. One thing for sure -- they aren't going to let anyone who votes know. It seems aa if it is an embarrassment to our embarrassing judiciary so they're keeping it a secret lest their own lawless be put on display. So they're pretending it's all kosher!

I guess if they can do this to Meng, they can do it to any of us! There's a thought.

==================================================

I'm sorry, and I may be alone here, but I think it is a big deal when somebody is deprived of their liberty. It has to be justified by evidence.

In this case, the woman is being held for being the chief accountant of a Chinese firm selling goods into Iran ... while in Canada ... for an undisclosed offence. Her position may be pure nepotism. She's the boss's daughter. It seems more like hostage-taking to me, more like something Iran might do.

This is progressive Canada!
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1288
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
If I understand it right, the walks up and puts cuffs on her and they tell her why ...

If "why" is ... because the Americans wanted us to... that's pretty lame. And probably illegal too ... except when Justin does it, it isn't illegal?

Not illegal at all.

Pretty easy to understand really. What part(s) has you in conniptions ?

By the way, we do it too.

What we will not do is extradite someone who may face the death penalty. They 'other side' must guarantee that penalty is not enforced before we agree to extradite.
Quote:

What is the reason she is being detained?

Um...you were advised yesterday it was for violating sanctions w Iran.
Quote:
One thing for sure -- they aren't going to let anyone who votes know.

I vote and I know !

So much for that malarkey.

They must announce the charge unless doing so compromises US security.

Quote:
It seems aa if it is an embarrassment to our embarrassing judiciary so they're keeping it a secret lest their own lawless be put on display. So they're pretending it's all kosher!

No no, not at all.

All that is merely your puerile hatred of anything to do with the law, unless its Muslims or women and then you get all stiffy with excitement.
Quote:

I guess if they can do this to Meng, they can do it to any of us! There's a thought.


Well duh.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6198
Reputation: 295
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Focus ... it isn't about having extradition treaties with other nations. Those people have committed and been charged with crimes in their previous countries, and those offences (or ones very much like them) are crimes in Canada.

We don't normally harass visitors that are principles in corporations doing business with countries the Americans have embargoed. I can't think of a case where officers of a company have been subject to American vengeance for the actions of their employers. For the actions of their governments, maybe ... but not for the actions of individual corporations. This is new.

Focus on this case, where a Chinese woman is grabbed in a secret arrest, and is being held for the Americans -- not for a crime committed in Canada, or in China, or in the USA. In fact, where did the crime of exporting computer equipment to Iran come into effect? (And, by the way, don't embarrass yourself and the board by acting as if this happens all the time, It doesn't.)
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1288
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Focus ... it isn't about having extradition treaties with other nations.

Sure it is. Otherwise how does this happen?
Quote:

Those people have committed and been charged with crimes in their previous countries, and those offences (or ones very much like them) are crimes in Canada.

Okay. So whats your issue ?

She (supposedly ) violated sanctions the US has with Iran . Her company bought items in the US and used them in trade with Iran. Huawei is not supposed to.
So...she got arrested.
Quote:

We don't normally harass visitors that are principles in corporations doing business with countries the Americans have embargoed. I can't think of a case where officers of a company have been subject to American vengeance for the actions of their employers. For the actions of their governments, maybe ... but not for the actions of individual corporations. This is new.

New to you.

Not to anyone else who follows this stuff.

Hows Sherrit International and Cuba sound to you?

Canadian company, execs will not/can not go into the US or face being arrested. If they do any business with Americans they WILL be arrested. Not sure if that still holds.

Quote:

Focus on this case, where a Chinese woman is grabbed in a secret arrest, and is being held for the Americans

Oh please.

She is not merely a Chinese woman.
We know about the arrest , ergo not secret. Why the bullshit ?
Quote:

-- not for a crime committed in Canada, or in China, or in the USA.

False.

Here's a suggestion, learn about the facts of this case before spouting stupidity will ya? Thanks

For the record....she was not to buy product X and let Iran get their hands on it. She didnt follow thus she got busted.
Quote:
In fact, where did the crime of exporting computer equipment to Iran come into effect?

Through sanctions the US has against Iran. It was US eqpmt and she was not to do that.
Oops...here are some cuffs.
Quote:
(And, by the way, don't embarrass yourself and the board by acting as if this happens all the time, It doesn't.)


And, by the way, dont look like a complete and utter idiot when in fact things like this have and do occur and are not secrets.

LOL!

Geebus dude, you have sooooo much wrong about this yet feel smug enough to denigrate.

How amusing.

What else do you need to schooled on today ?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6198
Reputation: 295
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So ... in your version of reality, this is entirely normal?

I know you live in a miasma of confusion and self-pity ... and have huge demands made on your empathetic qualities, to the point where they are worn out ... but I prefer to stick to facts What exactly did Canada do that involved Sherrit International? Or do you mean we have lapsed to the extent that we engage in the same kind of gangsterism, posing as legally constituted authority, as the Cuban do?

Cuz that would mean we really are a banana republic. Which is how I feel about it.

All the columnists seem to agree -- Canada or Canadians will pay for this. Perhaps Justin can pay personally, and save us innocents from the consequences of his stupidity.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1288
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
So ... in your version of reality, this is entirely normal?

Normal, yes.

Popular? Frequent? Nope.
Quote:

I know you live in a miasma of confusion and self-pity ... and have huge demands made on your empathetic qualities, to the point where they are worn out ... but I prefer to stick to facts

Made up facts are just that. Made up. And really....your knowledge on this is woefully short.
But anyhow...
Quote:
What exactly did Canada do that involved Sherrit International?

Sherrit is a Canadian company.

They have done business in Cuba contrary to US Helms Burton Laws. So if Sherrit involves a US company they violate the terms of Helms Burton. Sherrit execs stay out of the US for this reason.(not sure if they still do)
Quote:

Or do you mean we have lapsed to the extent that we engage in the same kind of gangsterism, posing as legally constituted authority, as the Cuban do?

Nope.

We signed on with many countries including our neighbours to the south and when they make a legal request persuant to the governing body we act on it .
Quote:

Cuz that would mean we really are a banana republic. Which is how I feel about it.

LOL! Good lord what a dumb comment. We are far from a banana republic.
Quote:

All the columnists seem to agree -- Canada or Canadians will pay for this. Perhaps Justin can pay personally, and save us innocents from the consequences of his stupidity.

We may pay for this. That remains to be seen.

But the Chinese dont understand this stuff. They like to operate their own way.

We however must abide by the rules. If, and we did, get the info from IAG to arrest, then we have to arrest.

Justin can do nothing about that . Even Harper would have had to . OMG..Harper!
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1288
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me just add... Conrad Black was close to being extradited for his fraud trial.

And yes, "So ... in your version of reality, this is entirely normal?" & " and the board by acting as if this happens all the time, It doesn't"...it does happen all the time.

If all the time means 755 times in the past ten years. So yeah...all the time.

Below didnt come thru very well.
Reqad from left to right-- Year ,# of requests, arrests, # sent away
Quote:

Requests, Surrenders, Arrests, 2008-18 (Source: Department of Justice)

Search...
Fiscal yearTotal extradition requests received by CanadaArrestsTotal number of persons surrendered from Canada pursuant to the Extradition Act
2008-09 137 95 81
2009-10 162 92 77
2010-11 186 124 65
2011-12 178 136 79
2012-13 101 65 76
2013-14 90 55 70
2014-15 89 58 58
2015-16 78 44 47
2016-17 79 36 68
2017-18 110 50 60


Seems high, but we have numerous signatories to extradition so perhaps not.

Remember, we do not adjudicate the case, merely ensure that all is legal for the process.


Now, perhaps we will pay a price from China.

Thats ok.

We would face a far bigger price if we didnt from the US . Your loyalties seem to bounce around.

But overall, we had no choice but to arrest her .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6198
Reputation: 295
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there were differences between criminal code violations and travelling while being Chinese -- well, the daughter of a Chinese industrialist engaged in business with Iran. We are looking for extradition requests for non-criminal matters. The fitures you provide are only the gross figures. They could all be requests for criminal extraditions (the only kind there are, no?).

You have really upped your game. The Sherritt case is interesting because if the USA had an official trade embargo on Cuba, it isn't evident. Cuba was free to trade with Europe and the South American mainland, for example. But still, it is roughly parallel.

This from a NY Times article on the subject ...'
Quote:
"I have some real concerns about the extraterritorial application of American law," Mr. Rubin said in a telephone interview today from Texas, where he was reviewing border controls. "But you have to balance that with our interests in bringing pressure to bear on countries like Cuba and Iran. Over the next few days we're going to have to make some decisions."

Traditionally, the United States has been opposed to proposals that punish foreign companies as a way of pressing their governments to change national policy with what is called a secondary boycott. Washington vociferously argued against similar measures in the 1970's, when Arab nations boycotted companies that did business with Israel.
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/11/world/us-enforcing-cuba-curbs-punishes-canadian-company.html


It clearly is the US throwing its weight around, justified only by short-of-war measure to create pressure. It's far from routine -- and in the Sherritt case, they simply warned the executives of their liability. They didn't stop them from trading their metals on the world market. In any case, even in that case, American officials seem to be admitting that this is the US acting lawlessly but justifying it by circumstances.

By the way, I also researched 'extradition' and found it is always found in association with crime, trials, concern about habeus corpus, etc. In other words, it's used for criminal cases.

Having the RCMP participate in a bit of lawless hostage-taking -- taking someone off their plane and into custody for no legal reason? The same coppers that tasered that poor Polish guy until he sizzled like fried bacon probably were the arresting officers.

I hope somebody gets some coverage of the extradition hearing out from behind the curtain of secrecy they have put over their shameful acts. This is political hostage-taking. For all we know, the woman was in Vancouver to avoid being on American soil. And paid agents of the Canadian state acted as her kidnapper ... it's banana republic stuff. TC probably thinks it's OK because ... Oh, because it's 2018!

Beware when you go into an airport -- you lose whatever you thought your rights were as soon as you enter.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


The Huawei Arrest & what it means

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB