4 ms·

> 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 nucle

> 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.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    There are no UN sanctions on Iran anymore. Stop with your misinformation. Trump is the one that started the extradition. Biden is the one that ended it. Stop pushing misinformation. And by the way, every single US ally she visited except for Canada refused to extradite her because this is very obviously outside of US sovereignty. The only reason the extradition wasn't refused (yet) in Canada is because, unlike in other countries, there is no mechanism for the executive branch to throw it out. So it has to go through the entire process as long as the US makes a request. In this case if you read between the lines above, you can see that the judges were very skeptical of the US claims, whether we would have accepted to extradite her to begin with is far from being up in the air. The US exploited our unique legal system in Canada to force us to arrest her under false pretences. Beyond that, US law simply doesn't apply outside of the US. Sovereignty is an exclusive war, the US deciding to impose it's law on foreign countries by force is only tolerated because the US is too powerful and it uses it scarely and officiously - a formal declaration by the US to that extent would not be tolerated by any country in the world - wars have been fought over much less.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Correction : the extradition act was ammended in 1999 to allow the prime minister to stop extradition, but only after the extradite is already brought to trial.

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.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  There are no UN sanctions on Iran anymore. Stop with your misinformation. Trump is the one that started the extradition. Biden is the one that ended it. Stop pushing misinformation. And by the way, every single US ally she visited except for Canada refused to extradite her because this is very obviously outside of US sovereignty. The only reason the extradition wasn't refused (yet) in Canada is because, unlike in other countries, there is no mechanism for the executive branch to throw it out. So it has to go through the entire process as long as the US makes a request. In this case if you read between the lines above, you can see that the judges were very skeptical of the US claims, whether we would have accepted to extradite her to begin with is far from being up in the air. The US exploited our unique legal system in Canada to force us to arrest her under false pretences. Beyond that, US law simply doesn't apply outside of the US. Sovereignty is an exclusive war, the US deciding to impose it's law on foreign countries by force is only tolerated because the US is too powerful and it uses it scarely and officiously - a formal declaration by the US to that extent would not be tolerated by any country in the world - wars have been fought over much less.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Correction : the extradition act was ammended in 1999 to allow the prime minister to stop extradition, but only after the extradite is already brought to trial.