7 ms·

Seriously. It's this fiction that makes me believe that, despite it's flaws, America (along with other democratic countries) is a beacon compared to the rest of

Seriously. It's this fiction that makes me believe that, despite it's flaws, America (along with other democratic countries) is a beacon compared to the rest of the world. A country locking up a foreigner for breaking their laws is so different than a country locking up said foreigner out of retaliation, which is what I imagine China will end up doing.

estsauver 8y ago
Worth noting that the lines are a little bit blurred in America. I don't know if you grew up in the US/your nationality, but I've noticed a lot more things feel questionable to me about America since I've been an expat for a few years. This is one of the most interesting cases I've seen: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6?international=true&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-...
bilbo0s 8y ago
The problem is this, you're always violating some law. Even in the US, there are over 20,000 laws and regulations at the federal level alone. In China, there are even more. Any small foreign operator in China naive enough to assert with 100% confidence that they are not in violation of any of those codes is being dangerously foolish. So here's the thing, I actually agree with you. What China will do, they will do out of retaliation. However, I can pretty much guarantee that whoever the patsy is, that person will be in violation of some obscure code that no one in their right mind would have been paying attention to. They will definitely be in violation of some law. And they will condemn him/her to whatever ungodly prison camp for however many years. So China will also be simply arresting someone for violating their laws. That's the issue. Now my point is that if you are American, and a small operator without the clout to prevent this sort of thing from happening to you, it's best to try to get out in front of the problem. I know that I really don't want to be one of the poor stooges sitting in a Chinese prison for a decade because these people are trying to make tit-for-tat points. I'm not talking politics or philosophy. I'm just saying that China is not like the US, and I'm advising people to be careful if they are small and plan to operate in what appears to be a dangerous legal environment that will likely be getting more treacherous with time.
- rlucas 8y ago
  I'm curious why you mention "small operators" twice here. Huawei is a huge player in an inherently global business, complicated by the fact that selling telecoms network equipment necessitates dealing with quasi-state actors in most countries. Anyone playing at the C-level in such a company is definitely well advised around things like FCPA (and its non-US equivalents) and sanctions regimes. Small operators get the short end of the stick, sure, but Huawei's CFO is not a small operator (and the sad recipient of China's likely retaliation probably won't be, either).
- hishienjdbe 8y ago
  You're off by several orders of magnitude. Last I checked, we're seeing 600,000+ regulations that have the force of law published _every_ year.
- panarky 8y ago
  > you're always violating some law Exactly. Selective enforcement is indistinguishable from arbitrary arrest.
  - peteretep 8y ago
    Which is what makes America, with elected and political DA's, so much less of a beacon compared to normal democratic countries where that would be considered insane.
  - mlazos 8y ago
    I don’t agree with this, selective enforcement at least has a ceiling of what you can be arrested for. Arbitrary arrest does not have such a ceiling.
    - thatcat 8y ago
      As the size of a set of rules approaches infinity, it becomes indistinguishable from selective enforcement.
    - manfredo 8y ago
crazy_monkey 8y ago
Um, no. Sometimes you have to go tit-for-tat to rein in unreasonable countries who try to apply their laws beyond their reach to things that should be none of their business.
jaimex2 8y ago
It would be interesting to see what the current US president would do in response to that. They are not exactly dealing with a rational man.
lustysocietyorg 8y ago
> A country locking up a foreigner for breaking their laws It is absolutely crazy to think that US law should apply worldwide. The article does not even mention if Wanzhou Meng is US citizen who broke US law in the US. This case might be retaliation and fear mongering similar to the case of Julian Assange which is pure retaliation and fear mongering.
- gtirloni 8y ago
  If you want to do business with the US, there are certain conditions they'd like to enforce (e.g. don't resell their stuff to a list of countries). That's simple. The other reality is that certain countries have cooperation agreements where they feel their laws are compatible enough that they agree to extradite individuals that break those laws. Seems pretty standard business to me. If you know you're violating a high profile US law, dont travel to countries that are buddies with the US. Maybe she didn't know about the arrest request?
  - fspeech 8y ago
    Pretty sure she would not travel to Canada knowing that an arrest warrant is outstanding. Why is it kept secret? Is it that important to nab her? Could be a huge headache for Canada.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > It is absolutely crazy to think that US law should apply worldwide Don't steal a Canadian company's technology [1], market products in America [2], issue dollar-denominated debt [3] and then violate sanctions in dollar-denominated transactions, and the U.S. and Canada will probably leave you alone. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-nortel-exec-warns-against-working-with-huawei-1.1137006 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-nortel-exec-warns-ag... [2] https://www.huawei.com/us/ https://www.huawei.com/us/ [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/26/huawei-is-under-u-s-criminal-investigation-for-illegal-iran-sales-analysis/#62e32930420e https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/26/huawei-...
  - deleted 8y ago
08-15 8y ago
Yeah, and "thou shalt not make deals with brown people in Persia" is a totally different law from from "thou shalt not collaborate with an imperialist".
londons_explore 8y ago
The law broken was a US law which 'applies worldwide'. The actual supposed crime occurred in a trade between China and Iran. No other country could make a law like that and have any success in enforcing it abroad.
- zelon88 8y ago
  If you're Huawei and you want to continue selling your products in the USA you might want to consider following the law of the USA.
  - zaptheimpaler 8y ago
    If the US doesn't like the way Huawei does business, they are free to ban them from selling products in their country. Bringing criminal charges is still ridiculous.
    - zelon88 8y ago
      When you agree to a set of terms, and then violate that set of terms, you are on the hook. Why should Huawei get extra warning shots? They knew they would have to comply with US law and sanctions if they wanted to do business in the US. They chose to try and ignore those sanctions. Ignorantia juris non excusat. You are suggesting that we make let international companies import products under a pretense, and then we are supposed to politely remind them of their obligations every time they run off the rails? Huawei is one step away from being a branch of the Chinese intelligence service. We did the right thing.
      - zaptheimpaler 8y ago
        How the US claims to have criminal jurisdiction over a Chinese company selling to Iran is beyond me. I am suggesting the US ban them from doing business in the US (not "polite reminders") if they wish. i.e the consequence of breaking business sanctions should be prohibition from doing business. The reports from US commitee's investigating Huawei have never demonstrated any real evidence of the alleged spying or Huawei being a "branch of the Chinese intelligence". Seems like overblown paranoia and fear as China begins to dominate the worlds economy. Not to mention the US routinely spies on other countries as much as possible, inspects all foreign telecom traffic (including phone calls like Huawei allegedly does) going through the US as the NSA leaks demonstrated, but they seem to dislike it when the tables are turned. The only reason they get away with double-standards like that all over the place is because they have the biggest guns/economy. I call that bullying not justice. Its clearly a power-struggle not justice, you can't claim some moral high ground over not spying on others when you do the same thing. I feel they are free to protect their national interests - say by banning Huawei if they suspect spying but if they have no proof, they have no authority to start extraditing and threatening and possibly prosecuting people.
gowld 8y ago
USA will go to a foreign country and topple their government for violating US business interests (not laws). Being an American might be OK, but America isn't a beacon for citizens of other countries.
- yesforwhat 8y ago
  > USA will go to a foreign country and topple their government for violating US business interests (not laws). I, too remember the cold war. I don't see this happening today.
  - richardknop 8y ago
    I mean Syria, Libya, Iraq are some recent examples. There could also be a discussion about Ukraine and how much did US help to topple the government there but that is a more speculative example. The middle eastern examples are quite clear cut. I do agree US is doing this less than during the cold war.
    - yesforwhat 8y ago
      The US toppled Syria for violating US business interests, did I get that right? When did Assad get overthrown, and why? And how? Very confusing comment.
      - richardknop 8y ago
        Assad getting overthrown was related to the big geopolitical confrontation with Russia (cold war has never really ended fyi). It was a move against Putin, trying to cut off his ally, as well as secure new pipeline to Europe to damage Russia economically. Currently Germany, the largest EU economy, is dependent on Russian natural gas. Once you cut that dependency, Russia will get weaker and more isolated, which is in national interest of US I assume. US is also trying to make Germany less dependent on Russia so they can put on more pressure on Russian economy without damaging Germany's economy. Google is your friend, there were plans for the Iran–Iraq–Syria natural gas pipeline and Putin intervened to stop the project as it was against Russian national interest. Also don't forget about Russian military base in Syria, getting rid of that in the process would be an added bonus from US point of view. I did not specify business interests exclusively btw. It could be business interests or national interests (or combination of both, often when a country pursues regime change as a part of national interest, there are private companies that make profit). Governments do not get toppled only for economical benefit, often it's mainly because of geopolitics, see cold war, both US and Russia were toppling over governments and installing puppet regimes in various countries as part of their fight for dominance. Economic/business interests are secondary most of the time. Reasons for overthrowing Gaddafi were iffy at best also (I'd would actually like to turn the table and let you explain it to me, because I haven't heard any valid reason why we randomly started bombing Syria). I'm not familiar with any important economic interests there, although they produce some oil and export it mainly to Europe (but it's small potatoes). So I'd assume it was geopolitics again, maybe Gaddafi was friend of Putin also. Syria now is a complete mess with different local strongmen and terrorist groups competing for power, there's basically a constant state of anarchy and violence so I don't see how you can argue it was a good idea.
sh4z 8y ago
This comment reeks of arrogance. American beacon? as if the tables were turned arresting someone out of retaliation isn't what the US would do.
- yesforwhat 8y ago
  The US arrests and harasses innocent business people from China/Iran? Source?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- baby 8y ago
  American Bacon
lostlogin 8y ago
Don’t read up on extraordinary renditions then. It’s rather sobering. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/14/the-u-s-carried-out-extraordinary-rendition-flights-from-2001-2005-here-are-15-more-countries-that-helped/?utm_term=.efeccbcb0e15 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/1...
codedokode 8y ago
China can always pass a necessary law so that Western citizen will become guilty in full accordance with the law. And US can do the same. There is no difference.
- jlawson 8y ago
  The US can't do the same. Bills of attainder are constitutionally prohibited in America.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
baby 8y ago
> America is a beacon compared to the rest of the world lol
forkLding 8y ago
US toppled democratically-elected govts in other countries, one of which indirectly created the Islamic Iran of today, its not a idealistic beacon of hope, its just the current world hegemon with 800 military bases all over the world, the British empire of its time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état I've see US soldiers in the Middle East while I was there, generically they're just people but in a way theres something strange about a US military base in another country. I was born an expat during the Gulf War period and US is really seen as a big advanced petrodollar bully in the region and has really only brought even more death and chaos to Iraq than Saddam did ironically. Kofi Annan, past UN Secretary General, himself has said that the Iraq war was unjust but then again I'm just reminiscing about something the US and US citizens no longer cares about. Iraq is now just another failed state, and the deaths there don't matter.
sschueller 8y ago
Beacon?! The United States is currently operating an illegal drone war in other parts of the world. Imagine how you would feel if Russia was flying drones above the US and targeted bombing a certain extremist group of people. Are you sure the next wedding you attend none of your friends friends is a target (or a mistaken target)? Imagine how you life would be when death can come from the sky at any moment and there is nothing you can do about it.

estsauver 8y ago

Worth noting that the lines are a little bit blurred in America. I don't know if you grew up in the US/your nationality, but I've noticed a lot more things feel questionable to me about America since I've been an expat for a few years. This is one of the most interesting cases I've seen: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6?international=true&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-...

bilbo0s 8y ago

The problem is this, you're always violating some law. Even in the US, there are over 20,000 laws and regulations at the federal level alone. In China, there are even more. Any small foreign operator in China naive enough to assert with 100% confidence that they are not in violation of any of those codes is being dangerously foolish. So here's the thing, I actually agree with you. What China will do, they will do out of retaliation. However, I can pretty much guarantee that whoever the patsy is, that person will be in violation of some obscure code that no one in their right mind would have been paying attention to. They will definitely be in violation of some law. And they will condemn him/her to whatever ungodly prison camp for however many years. So China will also be simply arresting someone for violating their laws. That's the issue. Now my point is that if you are American, and a small operator without the clout to prevent this sort of thing from happening to you, it's best to try to get out in front of the problem. I know that I really don't want to be one of the poor stooges sitting in a Chinese prison for a decade because these people are trying to make tit-for-tat points. I'm not talking politics or philosophy. I'm just saying that China is not like the US, and I'm advising people to be careful if they are small and plan to operate in what appears to be a dangerous legal environment that will likely be getting more treacherous with time.

rlucas 8y ago
I'm curious why you mention "small operators" twice here. Huawei is a huge player in an inherently global business, complicated by the fact that selling telecoms network equipment necessitates dealing with quasi-state actors in most countries. Anyone playing at the C-level in such a company is definitely well advised around things like FCPA (and its non-US equivalents) and sanctions regimes. Small operators get the short end of the stick, sure, but Huawei's CFO is not a small operator (and the sad recipient of China's likely retaliation probably won't be, either).
hishienjdbe 8y ago
You're off by several orders of magnitude. Last I checked, we're seeing 600,000+ regulations that have the force of law published _every_ year.
panarky 8y ago
> you're always violating some law Exactly. Selective enforcement is indistinguishable from arbitrary arrest.
- peteretep 8y ago
  Which is what makes America, with elected and political DA's, so much less of a beacon compared to normal democratic countries where that would be considered insane.
- mlazos 8y ago
  I don’t agree with this, selective enforcement at least has a ceiling of what you can be arrested for. Arbitrary arrest does not have such a ceiling.
  - thatcat 8y ago
    As the size of a set of rules approaches infinity, it becomes indistinguishable from selective enforcement.
  - manfredo 8y ago

crazy_monkey 8y ago

Um, no. Sometimes you have to go tit-for-tat to rein in unreasonable countries who try to apply their laws beyond their reach to things that should be none of their business.

jaimex2 8y ago

It would be interesting to see what the current US president would do in response to that. They are not exactly dealing with a rational man.

lustysocietyorg 8y ago

> A country locking up a foreigner for breaking their laws It is absolutely crazy to think that US law should apply worldwide. The article does not even mention if Wanzhou Meng is US citizen who broke US law in the US. This case might be retaliation and fear mongering similar to the case of Julian Assange which is pure retaliation and fear mongering.

gtirloni 8y ago
If you want to do business with the US, there are certain conditions they'd like to enforce (e.g. don't resell their stuff to a list of countries). That's simple. The other reality is that certain countries have cooperation agreements where they feel their laws are compatible enough that they agree to extradite individuals that break those laws. Seems pretty standard business to me. If you know you're violating a high profile US law, dont travel to countries that are buddies with the US. Maybe she didn't know about the arrest request?
- fspeech 8y ago
  Pretty sure she would not travel to Canada knowing that an arrest warrant is outstanding. Why is it kept secret? Is it that important to nab her? Could be a huge headache for Canada.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> It is absolutely crazy to think that US law should apply worldwide Don't steal a Canadian company's technology [1], market products in America [2], issue dollar-denominated debt [3] and then violate sanctions in dollar-denominated transactions, and the U.S. and Canada will probably leave you alone. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-nortel-exec-warns-against-working-with-huawei-1.1137006 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-nortel-exec-warns-ag... [2] https://www.huawei.com/us/ https://www.huawei.com/us/ [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/26/huawei-is-under-u-s-criminal-investigation-for-illegal-iran-sales-analysis/#62e32930420e https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/26/huawei-...
- deleted 8y ago

08-15 8y ago

Yeah, and "thou shalt not make deals with brown people in Persia" is a totally different law from from "thou shalt not collaborate with an imperialist".

londons_explore 8y ago

The law broken was a US law which 'applies worldwide'. The actual supposed crime occurred in a trade between China and Iran. No other country could make a law like that and have any success in enforcing it abroad.

zelon88 8y ago
If you're Huawei and you want to continue selling your products in the USA you might want to consider following the law of the USA.
- zaptheimpaler 8y ago
  If the US doesn't like the way Huawei does business, they are free to ban them from selling products in their country. Bringing criminal charges is still ridiculous.
  - zelon88 8y ago
    When you agree to a set of terms, and then violate that set of terms, you are on the hook. Why should Huawei get extra warning shots? They knew they would have to comply with US law and sanctions if they wanted to do business in the US. They chose to try and ignore those sanctions. Ignorantia juris non excusat. You are suggesting that we make let international companies import products under a pretense, and then we are supposed to politely remind them of their obligations every time they run off the rails? Huawei is one step away from being a branch of the Chinese intelligence service. We did the right thing.
    - zaptheimpaler 8y ago
      How the US claims to have criminal jurisdiction over a Chinese company selling to Iran is beyond me. I am suggesting the US ban them from doing business in the US (not "polite reminders") if they wish. i.e the consequence of breaking business sanctions should be prohibition from doing business. The reports from US commitee's investigating Huawei have never demonstrated any real evidence of the alleged spying or Huawei being a "branch of the Chinese intelligence". Seems like overblown paranoia and fear as China begins to dominate the worlds economy. Not to mention the US routinely spies on other countries as much as possible, inspects all foreign telecom traffic (including phone calls like Huawei allegedly does) going through the US as the NSA leaks demonstrated, but they seem to dislike it when the tables are turned. The only reason they get away with double-standards like that all over the place is because they have the biggest guns/economy. I call that bullying not justice. Its clearly a power-struggle not justice, you can't claim some moral high ground over not spying on others when you do the same thing. I feel they are free to protect their national interests - say by banning Huawei if they suspect spying but if they have no proof, they have no authority to start extraditing and threatening and possibly prosecuting people.

gowld 8y ago

USA will go to a foreign country and topple their government for violating US business interests (not laws). Being an American might be OK, but America isn't a beacon for citizens of other countries.

yesforwhat 8y ago
> USA will go to a foreign country and topple their government for violating US business interests (not laws). I, too remember the cold war. I don't see this happening today.
- richardknop 8y ago
  I mean Syria, Libya, Iraq are some recent examples. There could also be a discussion about Ukraine and how much did US help to topple the government there but that is a more speculative example. The middle eastern examples are quite clear cut. I do agree US is doing this less than during the cold war.
  - yesforwhat 8y ago
    The US toppled Syria for violating US business interests, did I get that right? When did Assad get overthrown, and why? And how? Very confusing comment.
    - richardknop 8y ago
      Assad getting overthrown was related to the big geopolitical confrontation with Russia (cold war has never really ended fyi). It was a move against Putin, trying to cut off his ally, as well as secure new pipeline to Europe to damage Russia economically. Currently Germany, the largest EU economy, is dependent on Russian natural gas. Once you cut that dependency, Russia will get weaker and more isolated, which is in national interest of US I assume. US is also trying to make Germany less dependent on Russia so they can put on more pressure on Russian economy without damaging Germany's economy. Google is your friend, there were plans for the Iran–Iraq–Syria natural gas pipeline and Putin intervened to stop the project as it was against Russian national interest. Also don't forget about Russian military base in Syria, getting rid of that in the process would be an added bonus from US point of view. I did not specify business interests exclusively btw. It could be business interests or national interests (or combination of both, often when a country pursues regime change as a part of national interest, there are private companies that make profit). Governments do not get toppled only for economical benefit, often it's mainly because of geopolitics, see cold war, both US and Russia were toppling over governments and installing puppet regimes in various countries as part of their fight for dominance. Economic/business interests are secondary most of the time. Reasons for overthrowing Gaddafi were iffy at best also (I'd would actually like to turn the table and let you explain it to me, because I haven't heard any valid reason why we randomly started bombing Syria). I'm not familiar with any important economic interests there, although they produce some oil and export it mainly to Europe (but it's small potatoes). So I'd assume it was geopolitics again, maybe Gaddafi was friend of Putin also. Syria now is a complete mess with different local strongmen and terrorist groups competing for power, there's basically a constant state of anarchy and violence so I don't see how you can argue it was a good idea.

sh4z 8y ago

This comment reeks of arrogance. American beacon? as if the tables were turned arresting someone out of retaliation isn't what the US would do.

yesforwhat 8y ago
The US arrests and harasses innocent business people from China/Iran? Source?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
baby 8y ago
American Bacon

lostlogin 8y ago

Don’t read up on extraordinary renditions then. It’s rather sobering. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/14/the-u-s-carried-out-extraordinary-rendition-flights-from-2001-2005-here-are-15-more-countries-that-helped/?utm_term=.efeccbcb0e15 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/1...

codedokode 8y ago

China can always pass a necessary law so that Western citizen will become guilty in full accordance with the law. And US can do the same. There is no difference.

jlawson 8y ago
The US can't do the same. Bills of attainder are constitutionally prohibited in America.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

baby 8y ago

> America is a beacon compared to the rest of the world lol

forkLding 8y ago

US toppled democratically-elected govts in other countries, one of which indirectly created the Islamic Iran of today, its not a idealistic beacon of hope, its just the current world hegemon with 800 military bases all over the world, the British empire of its time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état I've see US soldiers in the Middle East while I was there, generically they're just people but in a way theres something strange about a US military base in another country. I was born an expat during the Gulf War period and US is really seen as a big advanced petrodollar bully in the region and has really only brought even more death and chaos to Iraq than Saddam did ironically. Kofi Annan, past UN Secretary General, himself has said that the Iraq war was unjust but then again I'm just reminiscing about something the US and US citizens no longer cares about. Iraq is now just another failed state, and the deaths there don't matter.

sschueller 8y ago

Beacon?! The United States is currently operating an illegal drone war in other parts of the world. Imagine how you would feel if Russia was flying drones above the US and targeted bombing a certain extremist group of people. Are you sure the next wedding you attend none of your friends friends is a target (or a mistaken target)? Imagine how you life would be when death can come from the sky at any moment and there is nothing you can do about it.