4 ms·

Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. If she knowingly tried to export to Iran k

by dlhw 8y ago

Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. If she knowingly tried to export to Iran knowing it was forbidden by law, then she got what was coming to her. > What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. Sanctions are powerful tools that benefit the country applying them in the same way that you benefit by not handing over ammunition to your enemies.

olalonde 8y ago
> Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. I'd argue this is not as self evident as you imply for such "worldwide" laws. It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries.
- dlhw 8y ago
  > It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries. That's a fair point. However if Huawei has a physical presence as a business in the US (which it does) then it should certainly be subject to obeying US laws. The one responsible for violating that law should be held responsible for breaking the law, whether they are a foreigner or not, in the same way that a tourist traveling to another country is still subject to that country's laws.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
sien 8y ago
She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law. Extra-territorial application of law is a nightmare. How would the US react if a US businessman was arrested for trading with Israel in Turkey?
- dlhw 8y ago
  > She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law. If a tourist travels to another country and breaks that country's laws, they will be subject to the consequences of breaking those laws. So why should a foreigner that willingly conspires to use Huawei's US business to break the US laws be free from punishment? The fact that they are a foreigner is irrelevant.
  - unfunco 8y ago
    She was arrested in Vancouver.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dlhw 8y ago
      It's not completely unusual that criminals get arrested in allied countries through mutual cooperation, then get extradited for trial. This is happens with other countries as well besides the US. As to whether or not that's right, I personally think it's reasonable. Most all countries seek to enforce their laws regardless of location, especially when they deem a serious crime was committed against them.
      - toyg 8y ago
        No, most countries don’t try to enforce their laws like that. If she has “committed” these acts while in China, obeying Chinese law, there is simply no crime. This is not “robbed a bank in country X and then fled to Y”, which is what international law-enforcement cooperation was built for. This is like “copied Windows in a country where piracy is legal”. It’s a massive overreach by US and Canada, but then again, they are not new to this (see Kim Dotcom et al).
        Kalium 8y ago
        If you commit a major crime against Chinese law, and then visit China, they are within their rights to arrest you for it. Similarly, if you commit a major crime against Canadian law and visit Canada, they can arrest you for it. And if you also committed a crime against US law, the US can petition for you to be extradited after the Canadians arrest you. I fear I don't understand where the overreach is. I've clearly missed an important and nuanced detail. Can you help me?
DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
sanctions always benefit the oppressor (read the dictator). While sanctions (in theory) make it harder for a regime to earn money - in practice it leads to more poverty and hardship among the poor people (who don't care about politics). Sanctions usually lead to more anti-foreign sentiments and a boost to the radical power-bases within the sanctioned country. Walking a country (society) back from the effects of sanctions is incredibly tricky and requires more than just undoing the sanction.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Ask the Apartheid states how sanctions benefited them. Always is a bit of a strong word. I think "justification" internally matters for the internal role. If the people view the actions and its consequences as unjust nothing changes to benefit opinion wise. However even if (they think) it is totally unfair that they are being sanctioned want to just because they burnt a few evil witches/abolished slavery they are still weakened internationally.
notyourday 8y ago
> Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. Like those charged under the Russian laws living in Europe? Do you see how problematic this idea is?

by dlhw 8y ago

olalonde 8y ago

> Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. I'd argue this is not as self evident as you imply for such "worldwide" laws. It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries.

dlhw 8y ago
> It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries. That's a fair point. However if Huawei has a physical presence as a business in the US (which it does) then it should certainly be subject to obeying US laws. The one responsible for violating that law should be held responsible for breaking the law, whether they are a foreigner or not, in the same way that a tourist traveling to another country is still subject to that country's laws.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

sien 8y ago

She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law. Extra-territorial application of law is a nightmare. How would the US react if a US businessman was arrested for trading with Israel in Turkey?

dlhw 8y ago
> She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law. If a tourist travels to another country and breaks that country's laws, they will be subject to the consequences of breaking those laws. So why should a foreigner that willingly conspires to use Huawei's US business to break the US laws be free from punishment? The fact that they are a foreigner is irrelevant.
- unfunco 8y ago
  She was arrested in Vancouver.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dlhw 8y ago
    It's not completely unusual that criminals get arrested in allied countries through mutual cooperation, then get extradited for trial. This is happens with other countries as well besides the US. As to whether or not that's right, I personally think it's reasonable. Most all countries seek to enforce their laws regardless of location, especially when they deem a serious crime was committed against them.
    - toyg 8y ago
      No, most countries don’t try to enforce their laws like that. If she has “committed” these acts while in China, obeying Chinese law, there is simply no crime. This is not “robbed a bank in country X and then fled to Y”, which is what international law-enforcement cooperation was built for. This is like “copied Windows in a country where piracy is legal”. It’s a massive overreach by US and Canada, but then again, they are not new to this (see Kim Dotcom et al).
      - Kalium 8y ago
        If you commit a major crime against Chinese law, and then visit China, they are within their rights to arrest you for it. Similarly, if you commit a major crime against Canadian law and visit Canada, they can arrest you for it. And if you also committed a crime against US law, the US can petition for you to be extradited after the Canadians arrest you. I fear I don't understand where the overreach is. I've clearly missed an important and nuanced detail. Can you help me?

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago

sanctions always benefit the oppressor (read the dictator). While sanctions (in theory) make it harder for a regime to earn money - in practice it leads to more poverty and hardship among the poor people (who don't care about politics). Sanctions usually lead to more anti-foreign sentiments and a boost to the radical power-bases within the sanctioned country. Walking a country (society) back from the effects of sanctions is incredibly tricky and requires more than just undoing the sanction.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Ask the Apartheid states how sanctions benefited them. Always is a bit of a strong word. I think "justification" internally matters for the internal role. If the people view the actions and its consequences as unjust nothing changes to benefit opinion wise. However even if (they think) it is totally unfair that they are being sanctioned want to just because they burnt a few evil witches/abolished slavery they are still weakened internationally.

notyourday 8y ago

> Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. Like those charged under the Russian laws living in Europe? Do you see how problematic this idea is?