3 ms·

Did you even read the article or did you just knee-jerk type your insightful thoughts: > In December 2012 and January 2013, various news organizations, includi

by _hilro 5y ago

Did you even read the article or did you just knee-jerk type your insightful thoughts: > In December 2012 and January 2013, various news organizations, including Reuters, reported that Skycom offered to sell “embargoed” equipment from a U.S. computer equipment manufacturer in Iran in potential violation of U.S. export controls law, and that Huawei had close ties with Skycom And the outcome was pretty muted with a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (i.e. a nothing happens agreement): > Under the terms of the DPA, Meng has agreed to the accuracy of a four-page statement of facts that details the knowingly false statements she made to Financial Institution 1. Meng also has agreed not to commit other federal, state or local crimes. If Meng breaches the agreement, she will be subject to prosecution of all the charges against her in the third superseding indictment filed in this case edit: to make it more obvious, it wasn't just close ties, Huawei wholly owned Skycom via a subsidary and then tried to hide that ownership by "selling" it's shares to another company (which also was a Huawei subsidary)

sudosysgen 5y ago
From the Guardian: >Her lawyers argued that internal HSBC emails and memos showed she had been upfront with senior HSBC staff about Huawei’s relationship with the subsidiary accused of sanctions-busting, Skycom. Indeed, at a hearing in August, the judge in the case said that the case against Meng seemed very unusual. No one lost money, the allegations were several years old, and the intended victim, a global bank, knew the truth even as it was allegedly being lied to. Heather Holmes, associate chief justice, asked: “Isn’t it unusual that one will see a fraud case with no actual harm many years later? And one in which the alleged victim, a large institution, appears to have had numerous people within the institution who had all the facts that are now said to be misrepresented?” I don't really care about the rest. Selling US computers to Iran is not illegal where Skycom was operating. It's a travesty that the US gets to prevent people from selling things to Iran even if they are operating outside of the US. Even if Skycom was wholly owned by Huawei, the US should not get to impose their power on actions that happen solely outside of US territory. But beyond that, the entire case is clearly a political ploy by the Trump and the US administration following to extract concessions from China. Using extraterritorial "offences" to prosecute someone for purely political reasons stretches the credibility of the US legal system past it's breaking point, and morality is not even a question anymore. To be blunt, nothing of what you said even contradicts who you reply to. It amounts to taking the US government at their full word not only in facts but in spirit too.
- adriancr 5y ago
  > It's a travesty that the US gets to prevent people from selling things to Iran even if they are operating outside of the US No its not while Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is sanctioned for it. > Even if Skycom was wholly owned by Huawei, the US should not get to impose their power on actions that happen solely outside of US territory. US imposed sanctions, company owned by huawei broke them, what should happen here? > Using extraterritorial "offences" to prosecute someone for purely political reasons They broke embargo and tried to hide it, what do you expect... To just let them continue to aid Iran?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    >No its not while Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is sanctioned for it. Only the US government still believes this. Which happens to have interests strongly opposing Iran's. >US imposed sanctions, company owned by huawei broke them, what should happen here? You can get a judgement against the company or even Huawei if you figure out a legal strategy. Why would you go after an employee on false pretenses? Come on, we both know what's happening there. > They broke embargo and tried to hide it, what do you expect... To just let them continue to aid Iran? Is your argument really that people in Iran shouldn't be allowed to have computers, and that it's fine to lie and imprison people for things they did well outside of your jurisdiction over false pretenses for it? Because right now your argument is basically that the US should be allowed to make law that is valid worldwide and to imprison anyone in the world for it. Besides, you totally ignored the entire issue with Trump indicating that he would be willing to release her in exchange for concessions. Keep in mind he's the guy under who she was arrested.
    - adriancr 5y ago
      > Only the US government still believes this. Which happens to have interests strongly opposing Iran's. Umm... since 2005, EU, UN, and U.S. sanctions have targeted Iran for violating treaties under which it promised not to pursue nuclear weapons. The centrifuges destroyed by Stuxnet were not for nuclear weapons?, how about all the assassinated nuclear scientists?, they're working on peaceful nuclear? > You can get a judgement against the company or even Huawei if you figure out a legal strategy. Why would you go after an employee on false pretenses? Come on, we both know what's happening there. Legal strategy is she is wanted for trial in the United States, she is fighting extradition instead of going to face trial. It is a valid strategy. > Is your argument really that people in Iran shouldn't be allowed to have computers They are under embargo for nuclear weapons program. I really don't want them to have nuclear weapons either. If this means the iranian people don't have computers they only have their leaders and themselves to blame. Changing them would solve the issue. > Besides, you totally ignored the entire issue with Trump indicating that he would be willing to release her in exchange for concessions. Keep in mind he's the guy under who she was arrested. Trump said a lot of worse things if you take them at face value, he's not in office anymore, she on the other hand is still wanted for extradition. The lesson here is don't break another country's laws and then expect to visit it or its allies without answering to a court of law.

by _hilro 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago

From the Guardian: >Her lawyers argued that internal HSBC emails and memos showed she had been upfront with senior HSBC staff about Huawei’s relationship with the subsidiary accused of sanctions-busting, Skycom. Indeed, at a hearing in August, the judge in the case said that the case against Meng seemed very unusual. No one lost money, the allegations were several years old, and the intended victim, a global bank, knew the truth even as it was allegedly being lied to. Heather Holmes, associate chief justice, asked: “Isn’t it unusual that one will see a fraud case with no actual harm many years later? And one in which the alleged victim, a large institution, appears to have had numerous people within the institution who had all the facts that are now said to be misrepresented?” I don't really care about the rest. Selling US computers to Iran is not illegal where Skycom was operating. It's a travesty that the US gets to prevent people from selling things to Iran even if they are operating outside of the US. Even if Skycom was wholly owned by Huawei, the US should not get to impose their power on actions that happen solely outside of US territory. But beyond that, the entire case is clearly a political ploy by the Trump and the US administration following to extract concessions from China. Using extraterritorial "offences" to prosecute someone for purely political reasons stretches the credibility of the US legal system past it's breaking point, and morality is not even a question anymore. To be blunt, nothing of what you said even contradicts who you reply to. It amounts to taking the US government at their full word not only in facts but in spirit too.

adriancr 5y ago
> It's a travesty that the US gets to prevent people from selling things to Iran even if they are operating outside of the US No its not while Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is sanctioned for it. > Even if Skycom was wholly owned by Huawei, the US should not get to impose their power on actions that happen solely outside of US territory. US imposed sanctions, company owned by huawei broke them, what should happen here? > Using extraterritorial "offences" to prosecute someone for purely political reasons They broke embargo and tried to hide it, what do you expect... To just let them continue to aid Iran?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  >No its not while Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is sanctioned for it. Only the US government still believes this. Which happens to have interests strongly opposing Iran's. >US imposed sanctions, company owned by huawei broke them, what should happen here? You can get a judgement against the company or even Huawei if you figure out a legal strategy. Why would you go after an employee on false pretenses? Come on, we both know what's happening there. > They broke embargo and tried to hide it, what do you expect... To just let them continue to aid Iran? Is your argument really that people in Iran shouldn't be allowed to have computers, and that it's fine to lie and imprison people for things they did well outside of your jurisdiction over false pretenses for it? Because right now your argument is basically that the US should be allowed to make law that is valid worldwide and to imprison anyone in the world for it. Besides, you totally ignored the entire issue with Trump indicating that he would be willing to release her in exchange for concessions. Keep in mind he's the guy under who she was arrested.
  - adriancr 5y ago
    > Only the US government still believes this. Which happens to have interests strongly opposing Iran's. Umm... since 2005, EU, UN, and U.S. sanctions have targeted Iran for violating treaties under which it promised not to pursue nuclear weapons. The centrifuges destroyed by Stuxnet were not for nuclear weapons?, how about all the assassinated nuclear scientists?, they're working on peaceful nuclear? > You can get a judgement against the company or even Huawei if you figure out a legal strategy. Why would you go after an employee on false pretenses? Come on, we both know what's happening there. Legal strategy is she is wanted for trial in the United States, she is fighting extradition instead of going to face trial. It is a valid strategy. > Is your argument really that people in Iran shouldn't be allowed to have computers They are under embargo for nuclear weapons program. I really don't want them to have nuclear weapons either. If this means the iranian people don't have computers they only have their leaders and themselves to blame. Changing them would solve the issue. > Besides, you totally ignored the entire issue with Trump indicating that he would be willing to release her in exchange for concessions. Keep in mind he's the guy under who she was arrested. Trump said a lot of worse things if you take them at face value, he's not in office anymore, she on the other hand is still wanted for extradition. The lesson here is don't break another country's laws and then expect to visit it or its allies without answering to a court of law.