Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/12/05/huawei-board-member-arrested-i.html
…
3 Likes
Canada does not enforce US sanctions on Cuba. I wonder how this is different legally?
8 Likes
I didn’t know US sanctions were enforced at all.
5 Likes
Convenient for US 3-letter IA who do not have backdoors into Huawei cell phones. Time to pressure daddy.
2 Likes
No [way] Huawei !
4 Likes
Yeah. I was wondering how we have legal jurisdiction over something a foreign national did in a foreign country.
3 Likes
Are these the sanctions that Trump imposed after announcing withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal? The one that is still supported by the other signatories? Why would Canada enforce violations of those sanctions?
4 Likes
1 Like
Because apparently when you have offices in the US, engage in business in the US, you are subject to US export controls. And given that the post said
allegations that Huawei shipped American-made products to Iran
That would violate US export controls.
4 Likes
And then there’s this from today’s Guardian:
Not going so well for Huawei currently, eh?
Then I’m guessing that those are trade sanctions not lifted by the multi-country nuclear deal signed during the Obama administration, and then unilaterally re-imposed during the Trump regime?
It would be awfully awkward for Canada to extradite someone for violating trade sanctions lifted by an agreement that Canada is still a signatory to.
“She is sought for extradition by the United States, and a bail hearing has been set for Friday,” Justice Department spokesman Ian McLeod said in a statement to The Globe and Mail on Wednesday. “As there is a publication ban in effect, we cannot provide any further detail at this time. The ban was sought by Ms. Meng.”
Hm. But she requested it, so it’s probably not to cover up Canadian government embarrassment.
1 Like
There are a number of applicable legal maxims:
Quia Ego Sic Dico
Ab Hoc Possum Videre Domum Tuum
Potest-ne Mater Tua Suere, Amice
Vis-ne faciem capite repletam
3 Likes
yes but this is a person not a corporation. if they didn’t violate those rules while in the US why should they be subject to extradition? The US has a lot of laws you know, and they won’t always be using this logic to target those evvvviiillll orienttallls
It could have been disastrous if BT had commissioned Huawei to build BT’s fibre network.
Previously - BT commissioned Huawei to build BT’s fibre network.
Also previously - the UK government was warned about Huawei in the BT network - in 2012:
Wanzhou Meng, who is also the deputy chair of Huawei’s board and the daughter of company founder Ren Zhengfei
Can we pick a name order and stick to it?
So others don’t have to google*:
https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Latatian_Phrases
* And then slap their heads, saying to themselves “I should have understood that reference!”
1 Like
You leave my possum out of this.
2 Likes
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Canada’s minister of justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould, must grant approval for the extradition process to proceed.
If Wilson-Raybould approves, a Canadian court must then determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify Meng’s committal for extradition. If the court determines such evidence exists, Wilson-Raybould herself must make the decision to order Meng’s surrender to U.S. authorities.
Meng can then appeal the committal decision and seek a judicial review of the surrender order.
Corporations are people?
Or corporations do things at the behest of people in them. Also I don’t think we know when the suspected violations occurred, so there’s no reason to make an assumption.
Finally, I don’t think we want to establish a legal loophole that corporate leaders aren’t responsible for their company’s crimes just because they issued the order while in international airspace/20 miles over the border.
