3 ms·

Wow, did I strike a nerve? I'm not making excuses or equivocating. I'm simply pointing out that this is not some random tantrum on the Chinese side. The USA, an

by sho 7y ago

Wow, did I strike a nerve? I'm not making excuses or equivocating. I'm simply pointing out that this is not some random tantrum on the Chinese side. The USA, and Canada, knew exactly what they were doing when they decided to "make an example of" Ms. Meng, and the Chinese are retaliating by making an example of some westerners - who, by the way, are all charged with crimes as well, unless you are claiming they were framed? Meng's charges are 100% about the Iran sanctions. This "fraud" was allegedly misrepresenting the destination of funds - allegedly to conceal a relationship with a company previously accused of trading with Iran. Meng was explicitly arrested by request from the USA. I invite you to put aside your outrage, step back, and think about how the other side might view things. This "law" that Meng has broken - in her home country - is viewed as an illegitimate attempt by the USA to impose its will on the rest of the world. Illegitimate law, illegitimate investigation - and if you think enforcement of this kind of law isn't arbitrary, think again. The US knew what it was doing, and China's decision to start strictly enforcing one or two of its own laws is the absolutely predictable outcome. One more thing. I'm not "making excuses". I'm no great fan of China and I'd never live there. But I'm tired of the narrative of "my own righteous, virtuous country can do no wrong" vs "the evil, scheming little brainwashed totalitarians". It's simply ignorant to think so. There are a great deal of intelligent, reasonable Chinese, and when they do things, they do them for a reason. Look for those reasons. If all you can come up with is "because they're evil" - go back to the drawing board.

arcticbull 7y ago
Not at all I'm just saying that you're not fairly representing this. > ...the Chinese are retaliating by making an example of some westerners - who, by the way, are all charged with crimes as well, unless you are claiming they were framed? It's hard to say with the PRC of course, only 1,039 of more than 1.2 million people [brought to trial] were found not guilty in court in the PRC in 2014 (three 9's of conviction rate) [1]. Either they've got some super-sleuths on staff at all the police stations or something's a little funky. > This "fraud" was allegedly misrepresenting the destination of funds - allegedly to conceal a relationship with a company previously accused of trading with Iran. Again, no, they're being charged with fraud. They'd have had to commit fraud to be extradited. Not sanctions avoidance. What the fraud was in connection to is kind of irrelevant. The reason they committed fraud is irrelevant, fraud is fraud. You can't misstate the destination of funds whether you're in America or Canada which is why the case is being made. If they'd written Destination: IRAN we wouldn't be having this conversation. And further, the judge is taking to account the political nature of the situation. Of course why they're looking into it now is political. Hyperbolic example but if they'd ordered someone killed to conceal the destination of funds would you be air quoting "murder"? Probably not. > One more thing. I'm not "making excuses". >> I do agree that as a Canadian - probably not the best time. Mining minerals is a bit of an exaggeration though. He'll be detained for a couple of weeks, then deported with a 10-year ban. My point is you're making a bad-faith argument or at least a false equivalency. You hand-waved this away as though they're going to spend some vacation time on the mainland, but in reality, they could just as face execution. Not for anything they did, but for political reasons. It's not an exaggeration, if anything, it was an understatement of risk. > But I'm tired of the narrative of "my own righteous, virtuous country can do no wrong" vs "the evil, scheming little brainwashed totalitarians". I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm criticizing the false equivalency you made of taking someone through a rule-of-law process and treating them fairly in adjudicating whether a crime was committed, vs. execution in political retaliation. Just because there's a reason they're killing Canadians doesn't mean that it's okay or should be ignored, or that there's no risk. I have a lot of respect for the government of the PRC, but that hardly means I'm fine with this. For the record, I'm by no means a fan of the recent developments with Iran, I think going back on the Iran nuclear deal is a huge blunder. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12193202/Chinese-courts-convict-more-than-99.9-per-cent-of-defendants.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/121932...
- sho 7y ago
  > I'm criticizing the false equivalency you made of taking someone through a rule-of-law process and treating them fairly in adjudicating whether a crime was committed, vs. execution in political retaliation Dude if you can't see that the Meng process was 100% political chess moves then I am not sure what more I can say. Yes it's "rule of law" - "laws" passed specifically to facilitate this chess game. By the USA. You keep on accusing me of all sorts of apologetics and false equivalency and bad faith but that is just not true. I guess I can only give my personal word on that. I am a dispassionate outside observer for all of this shit and have no dog in this race. Your point about the high conviction rate in China is naive. This is an asian thing. Police in China (and elsewhere in Asia) talk out cases before making an arrest, trying to solve problems extrajudicially. It's not comparable to the West. When they do charge someone, it's because they are absolutely certain - Japan's is also 99%. That does not mean the system is corrupt. It is a different approach. > they could just as face execution Let us make a bet, you and I, as to whether Mr Airsoft is executed. $1000 says no. You in?
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > Dude if you can't see that the Meng process was 100% political chess moves then I am not sure what more I can say. I already said the process was initiated for political reasons. > Yes it's "rule of law" - "laws" passed specifically to facilitate this chess game. By the USA. Incorrect, it's Canadian law passed by Canada. It's a bilateral extradition treaty, of which they have 30 with countries including Cuba, but of course it's an open conversation [1]. The rules are simple. Countries can request extradition on the grounds that a crime was committed, so long as it is a crime in both countries. Canada won't extradite you to America for marijuana possession, for instance, because it's not a crime in Canada. Meng could have been high off her face and the Americans wouldn't have been able to extradite her on those grounds, even if the US had evidence of marijuana possession within the US. They couldn't extradite her for sanctions violations either. Fraud is a crime in both countries, so they can -- but only if they convince a Canadian judge that there's reasonable evidence to suggest it happened and that they're doing so honestly, and within a short period of time. > Your point about the high conviction rate in China is naive. This is an asian thing. Police in China (and elsewhere in Asia) talk out cases before making an arrest, trying to solve problems extrajudicially. They may do that but China is not a rule of law country (as indicated by your comment on extrajudicial punishments). People are detained and charged with crimes for political reasons not matters of fact. Even the NPC admitted the system isn't particularly fair or functional [2]. If you think all 99.93% of people convicted by Chinese courts were guilty I've got a bridge to sell you. Naturally the US State Department concurs, but of course, they would. "Such problems were on full display in 2011 when a Henan Province farmer named Zhao Zuohai was released from prison after serving 11 years because the woman he was convicted of murdering was actually very much alive and living at home." Sounds like the conversation went well! But of course anecdotes don't mean much, I just thought it was funny and relevant. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extradition-act-review-diab-1.4493187 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extradition-act-review-diab... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/11/china-scored-99-9-percent-conviction-rate-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/1...

by sho 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago

Not at all I'm just saying that you're not fairly representing this. > ...the Chinese are retaliating by making an example of some westerners - who, by the way, are all charged with crimes as well, unless you are claiming they were framed? It's hard to say with the PRC of course, only 1,039 of more than 1.2 million people [brought to trial] were found not guilty in court in the PRC in 2014 (three 9's of conviction rate) [1]. Either they've got some super-sleuths on staff at all the police stations or something's a little funky. > This "fraud" was allegedly misrepresenting the destination of funds - allegedly to conceal a relationship with a company previously accused of trading with Iran. Again, no, they're being charged with fraud. They'd have had to commit fraud to be extradited. Not sanctions avoidance. What the fraud was in connection to is kind of irrelevant. The reason they committed fraud is irrelevant, fraud is fraud. You can't misstate the destination of funds whether you're in America or Canada which is why the case is being made. If they'd written Destination: IRAN we wouldn't be having this conversation. And further, the judge is taking to account the political nature of the situation. Of course why they're looking into it now is political. Hyperbolic example but if they'd ordered someone killed to conceal the destination of funds would you be air quoting "murder"? Probably not. > One more thing. I'm not "making excuses". >> I do agree that as a Canadian - probably not the best time. Mining minerals is a bit of an exaggeration though. He'll be detained for a couple of weeks, then deported with a 10-year ban. My point is you're making a bad-faith argument or at least a false equivalency. You hand-waved this away as though they're going to spend some vacation time on the mainland, but in reality, they could just as face execution. Not for anything they did, but for political reasons. It's not an exaggeration, if anything, it was an understatement of risk. > But I'm tired of the narrative of "my own righteous, virtuous country can do no wrong" vs "the evil, scheming little brainwashed totalitarians". I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm criticizing the false equivalency you made of taking someone through a rule-of-law process and treating them fairly in adjudicating whether a crime was committed, vs. execution in political retaliation. Just because there's a reason they're killing Canadians doesn't mean that it's okay or should be ignored, or that there's no risk. I have a lot of respect for the government of the PRC, but that hardly means I'm fine with this. For the record, I'm by no means a fan of the recent developments with Iran, I think going back on the Iran nuclear deal is a huge blunder. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12193202/Chinese-courts-convict-more-than-99.9-per-cent-of-defendants.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/121932...

sho 7y ago
> I'm criticizing the false equivalency you made of taking someone through a rule-of-law process and treating them fairly in adjudicating whether a crime was committed, vs. execution in political retaliation Dude if you can't see that the Meng process was 100% political chess moves then I am not sure what more I can say. Yes it's "rule of law" - "laws" passed specifically to facilitate this chess game. By the USA. You keep on accusing me of all sorts of apologetics and false equivalency and bad faith but that is just not true. I guess I can only give my personal word on that. I am a dispassionate outside observer for all of this shit and have no dog in this race. Your point about the high conviction rate in China is naive. This is an asian thing. Police in China (and elsewhere in Asia) talk out cases before making an arrest, trying to solve problems extrajudicially. It's not comparable to the West. When they do charge someone, it's because they are absolutely certain - Japan's is also 99%. That does not mean the system is corrupt. It is a different approach. > they could just as face execution Let us make a bet, you and I, as to whether Mr Airsoft is executed. $1000 says no. You in?
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > Dude if you can't see that the Meng process was 100% political chess moves then I am not sure what more I can say. I already said the process was initiated for political reasons. > Yes it's "rule of law" - "laws" passed specifically to facilitate this chess game. By the USA. Incorrect, it's Canadian law passed by Canada. It's a bilateral extradition treaty, of which they have 30 with countries including Cuba, but of course it's an open conversation [1]. The rules are simple. Countries can request extradition on the grounds that a crime was committed, so long as it is a crime in both countries. Canada won't extradite you to America for marijuana possession, for instance, because it's not a crime in Canada. Meng could have been high off her face and the Americans wouldn't have been able to extradite her on those grounds, even if the US had evidence of marijuana possession within the US. They couldn't extradite her for sanctions violations either. Fraud is a crime in both countries, so they can -- but only if they convince a Canadian judge that there's reasonable evidence to suggest it happened and that they're doing so honestly, and within a short period of time. > Your point about the high conviction rate in China is naive. This is an asian thing. Police in China (and elsewhere in Asia) talk out cases before making an arrest, trying to solve problems extrajudicially. They may do that but China is not a rule of law country (as indicated by your comment on extrajudicial punishments). People are detained and charged with crimes for political reasons not matters of fact. Even the NPC admitted the system isn't particularly fair or functional [2]. If you think all 99.93% of people convicted by Chinese courts were guilty I've got a bridge to sell you. Naturally the US State Department concurs, but of course, they would. "Such problems were on full display in 2011 when a Henan Province farmer named Zhao Zuohai was released from prison after serving 11 years because the woman he was convicted of murdering was actually very much alive and living at home." Sounds like the conversation went well! But of course anecdotes don't mean much, I just thought it was funny and relevant. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extradition-act-review-diab-1.4493187 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extradition-act-review-diab... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/11/china-scored-99-9-percent-conviction-rate-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/1...