5 ms·

Canada has an extradition agreement with the US. The Canadian government has a duty to uphold its end, which means arrest the individual when the US requests it

Canada has an extradition agreement with the US. The Canadian government has a duty to uphold its end, which means arrest the individual when the US requests it and investigate the merits of the case. The Justice Department would do the same, though I'm sad to say, as a Canadian, that our prosecutors in Canada seem less interested in high-level white collar crime. (Yes, less interested than their American counterparts, believe it or not.)

kannanvijayan 8y ago
I agree with this perspective, with the addendum that the US president's statements might end up working against the prosecutors requesting extradition. It raises the real possibility that Meng's trial in the US would be subject to political or economic considerations as opposed to the legal facts surrounding the foundation of the extradition request - an argument I would expect her lawyers to seize upon. Before the statement by Trump, I was expecting the extradition request being granted. After the statement by Trump, I am more expecting it to be rejected. It is an unfortunate circumstance that Canada's implementation of its laws (specifically extradition laws) has run afoul of China's sensitivities and resulted in what seems to be retaliatory behavoiur. However it would be quite devastating if those considerations factored into our implementation of our laws. Canada should do this by the book, and it seems it will.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Meng's trial in the US would be subject to political or economic considerations Unlike in China, Canadian and American courts are fiercely independent of the executive.
  - paraditedc 8y ago
    I've seen this brought up quite a lot, but to me, a Chinese national, it's confusing how judiciary branch is independent. Didn't Trump nominate the supreme court justice? And isn't the nomination confirmed by congress? What about the constant conservative vs democrat number battle in the supreme court? Also, didn't Trump himself say that he can intervene in Ms. Meng's case? Edit: Great. Thanks for the downvotes as answers. Now I have a better understanding of how things work in the US.
    - wisdomoftheages 8y ago
      The executive nominates judges, but they hold tenure for life and after confirmation operate with complete independence as a separate branch of government with their own budget etc. The Supreme Court is also irrelevant to this because they do not initiate investigations, they do not oversee prosecutors, and they do not administer the justice system. They only hear cases about Constitutional issues - not criminal issues, so unless there's a constitutional dispute a case has no chance of reaching them. Judges in general do not oversee or initiate prosecutions, U.S. attorneys do. They're also appointed by the executive, but they operate independently and while, subject to Congressional oversight, he can fire some of them (but not the permanent civil servants who are the bulk of the staff), he cannot directly order them to do anything. In any case, an investigation of this complexity almost certainly started under Obama, just because they tend to take many years to reach the stage where charges are filed. Trump frequently claims to have powers that he does not have. He has said many times that he is going to do something only to find that he cannot actually do it, and so it hasn't been done.
    - wybiral 8y ago
      Trump says a lot of things but the system is actually more balanced than the power-play media show makes it seem.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Didn't Trump nominate the supreme court justice? Independent, not sovereign [1]. The branches can check each other, but a judge over whom the President has pretty much zero power will decide if Ms. Meng is guilty or not. For example, one of Trump's nominees recently voted to keep existing case law regarding Planned Parenthood in place [2]. This disappointed conservatives. But there isn't anything the President can do except complain about it. > didn't Trump himself say that he can intervene in Ms. Meng's case? Trump says lots of things. His Justice Department can decide whether or not to bring the case. That's prosecutorial discretion, and it's devastatingly powerful. But in the end, if Ms. Meng is to be convicted, an independent judge presiding over a jury must agree with their case. (It's not all rosy. The U.S. federal conviction rate is over 90% [3]. Better than China's 99.9%, but nothing to phone home about.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence [2] https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/12/12/why-did-justice-kavanaugh-take-a-pass-on-two-planned-parenthood-cases https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/12/12/wh... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States [4] https://qz.com/246696/chinas-criminal-conviction-rate-is-99-9/ https://qz.com/246696/chinas-criminal-conviction-rate-is-99-... Side note: You asked an honest question. It's ridiculous you're getting downvoted.
gcb0 8y ago
the world doesn't work like that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik power and situation dictates how laws, specially from international treaties, are upheld.
- ahmedalsudani 8y ago
  [Downvotes for my parent are unwarranted.] It would be naive to believe politics/geopolitics plays no role in the justice system; it would be equally naive to believe rule of law is a sham. I am an immigrant from a place where the legal code is largely a set of tools and pretexts for the powerful. I can assure you that the rule of law is more than just a phrase thrown around by our politicians.
  - tinza123 8y ago
    Not according to Trump tho.
RidingPegasus 8y ago
The US has a long history of refusing extradition requests by allies despite overwhelming evidence. It's become a one way street. The UK has blocked extradition to the US before even though the guilt is assured[0], the alleged crimes here are nothing in comparison. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#British_government_blocks_extradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#British_governme...
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > the alleged crimes here are nothing in comparison Willfully violating sanctions is a serious crime.
  - lechiffre10 8y ago
    Sanctions imposed by the U.S that hold no merit according to WTO or International law aren't even legal and are in fact considered an act of war. The only crime committed here is by the U.S.
    - briandon 8y ago
      Meng's arrest is for actions she allegedly took to help Iran evade sanctions years ago, during the period in which U.N. sanctions on Iran were in force. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-07/huawei-s-unofficial-skycom-allegedly-used-to-break-sanctions https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-07/huawei-s-...
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      The US sanctions limiting export of US tech to Iran have nothing to do with the WTO or 'International Law'. Meng has apparently comitted a serious crime according to US law by exporting US-made tech to Iran. If this is proven to be true, she's clearly violating the law, and surely knowingly so.
  - RidingPegasus 8y ago
    UN sanctions were lifted on 16 January 2016. The US unilaterally decided in May this year they want to pull out of that agreement. The EU is still pushing ahead to have their largest companies trading with Iran despite American protestations. We both know nothing will happen to Daimler or Societe General execs.

kannanvijayan 8y ago

I agree with this perspective, with the addendum that the US president's statements might end up working against the prosecutors requesting extradition. It raises the real possibility that Meng's trial in the US would be subject to political or economic considerations as opposed to the legal facts surrounding the foundation of the extradition request - an argument I would expect her lawyers to seize upon. Before the statement by Trump, I was expecting the extradition request being granted. After the statement by Trump, I am more expecting it to be rejected. It is an unfortunate circumstance that Canada's implementation of its laws (specifically extradition laws) has run afoul of China's sensitivities and resulted in what seems to be retaliatory behavoiur. However it would be quite devastating if those considerations factored into our implementation of our laws. Canada should do this by the book, and it seems it will.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Meng's trial in the US would be subject to political or economic considerations Unlike in China, Canadian and American courts are fiercely independent of the executive.
- paraditedc 8y ago
  I've seen this brought up quite a lot, but to me, a Chinese national, it's confusing how judiciary branch is independent. Didn't Trump nominate the supreme court justice? And isn't the nomination confirmed by congress? What about the constant conservative vs democrat number battle in the supreme court? Also, didn't Trump himself say that he can intervene in Ms. Meng's case? Edit: Great. Thanks for the downvotes as answers. Now I have a better understanding of how things work in the US.
  - wisdomoftheages 8y ago
    The executive nominates judges, but they hold tenure for life and after confirmation operate with complete independence as a separate branch of government with their own budget etc. The Supreme Court is also irrelevant to this because they do not initiate investigations, they do not oversee prosecutors, and they do not administer the justice system. They only hear cases about Constitutional issues - not criminal issues, so unless there's a constitutional dispute a case has no chance of reaching them. Judges in general do not oversee or initiate prosecutions, U.S. attorneys do. They're also appointed by the executive, but they operate independently and while, subject to Congressional oversight, he can fire some of them (but not the permanent civil servants who are the bulk of the staff), he cannot directly order them to do anything. In any case, an investigation of this complexity almost certainly started under Obama, just because they tend to take many years to reach the stage where charges are filed. Trump frequently claims to have powers that he does not have. He has said many times that he is going to do something only to find that he cannot actually do it, and so it hasn't been done.
  - wybiral 8y ago
    Trump says a lot of things but the system is actually more balanced than the power-play media show makes it seem.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Didn't Trump nominate the supreme court justice? Independent, not sovereign [1]. The branches can check each other, but a judge over whom the President has pretty much zero power will decide if Ms. Meng is guilty or not. For example, one of Trump's nominees recently voted to keep existing case law regarding Planned Parenthood in place [2]. This disappointed conservatives. But there isn't anything the President can do except complain about it. > didn't Trump himself say that he can intervene in Ms. Meng's case? Trump says lots of things. His Justice Department can decide whether or not to bring the case. That's prosecutorial discretion, and it's devastatingly powerful. But in the end, if Ms. Meng is to be convicted, an independent judge presiding over a jury must agree with their case. (It's not all rosy. The U.S. federal conviction rate is over 90% [3]. Better than China's 99.9%, but nothing to phone home about.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence [2] https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/12/12/why-did-justice-kavanaugh-take-a-pass-on-two-planned-parenthood-cases https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/12/12/wh... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States [4] https://qz.com/246696/chinas-criminal-conviction-rate-is-99-9/ https://qz.com/246696/chinas-criminal-conviction-rate-is-99-... Side note: You asked an honest question. It's ridiculous you're getting downvoted.

gcb0 8y ago

the world doesn't work like that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik power and situation dictates how laws, specially from international treaties, are upheld.

ahmedalsudani 8y ago
[Downvotes for my parent are unwarranted.] It would be naive to believe politics/geopolitics plays no role in the justice system; it would be equally naive to believe rule of law is a sham. I am an immigrant from a place where the legal code is largely a set of tools and pretexts for the powerful. I can assure you that the rule of law is more than just a phrase thrown around by our politicians.
- tinza123 8y ago
  Not according to Trump tho.

RidingPegasus 8y ago

The US has a long history of refusing extradition requests by allies despite overwhelming evidence. It's become a one way street. The UK has blocked extradition to the US before even though the guilt is assured[0], the alleged crimes here are nothing in comparison. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#British_government_blocks_extradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#British_governme...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> the alleged crimes here are nothing in comparison Willfully violating sanctions is a serious crime.
- lechiffre10 8y ago
  Sanctions imposed by the U.S that hold no merit according to WTO or International law aren't even legal and are in fact considered an act of war. The only crime committed here is by the U.S.
  - briandon 8y ago
    Meng's arrest is for actions she allegedly took to help Iran evade sanctions years ago, during the period in which U.N. sanctions on Iran were in force. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-07/huawei-s-unofficial-skycom-allegedly-used-to-break-sanctions https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-07/huawei-s-...
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    The US sanctions limiting export of US tech to Iran have nothing to do with the WTO or 'International Law'. Meng has apparently comitted a serious crime according to US law by exporting US-made tech to Iran. If this is proven to be true, she's clearly violating the law, and surely knowingly so.
- RidingPegasus 8y ago
  UN sanctions were lifted on 16 January 2016. The US unilaterally decided in May this year they want to pull out of that agreement. The EU is still pushing ahead to have their largest companies trading with Iran despite American protestations. We both know nothing will happen to Daimler or Societe General execs.