3 ms·

I have never before heard of Canadian Patriot, but from the first sentence of the editor's note, I am led to strongly doubt its impartiality: Canadian Patriot

I have never before heard of Canadian Patriot, but from the first sentence of the editor's note, I am led to strongly doubt its impartiality: Canadian Patriot Review Editor’s note: On September 24, 2021, an agreement was reached to free Meng Wanzhou who had been illegally held captive in Canada since December 2018 . . . There was nothing illegal about Meng Wanzhou's arrest. The U.S. made a request under a long extant extradition treaty. As for being "held captive," she was released on bail and lived in a home that she owned in Vancouver: very different to the conditions of the "two Michaels." In the end, the extradition hearing was never completed as the arrest warrant was eventually dropped by the U.S.. It was, by no means, a foregone conclusion what the outcome of the hearing would have been. Whatever you think of U.S. motives in all of this, the process was legal.

skeeter2020 5y ago
I agree; anyone who thinks the two situations are comparable between "out on bail and living in a Vancouver mansion" vs. "held in Chinese prison with no access to diplomatic resources" has been successfully co-opted by the China-led campaign.
dirtyid 5y ago
The process for detaining the Michaels was legal as well. Every nation has authority to round up spies. Here's Kovrig's friend playing coy about his intelligence past. >Edith Terry: Michael Kovrig is a friend, and I am very conscious of the privations he has endured. And while his background is complex and possibly included intelligence gathering for the Canadian government during his diplomatic career, he was very open about his research interests and contacts. [0] At end of day, billionaire who commited alleged fraud gets treated like billionaires while Spies who commited alleged espionage get treated like spies. This shouldn't be shocking, it's how the game is played. Canada excuting US foreign policy (China Initiative) because US found a paper loophole to kidnap Meng legally doesn't change the fact Canada kidnapped Meng in terms of diplomatic norms in the same way "enhanced interrogation" is still torture. Nevermind that Canada had legally right to drop extradition if case is sufficiently politicized as well. But laws are subservient to politics. [0] https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china
- mikem170 5y ago
  Also I'm sure that crimes committed by billionaires are selectively prosecuted. This one one seems particularly political, given her crime was trading with Iran against U.S. law. Funny that she is not a U.S. citizen, though. I wonder how would the U.S. feel if China arrested a U.S billionaire in a third-party country because they broke a Chinese law. File this under "might makes right", I guess.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    Yeah typically companies get prosecuted for evading Iranian sanctions, rarely individuals, and rarely politically significant individuals. The additional layer of context is DoD started the China Initiative month before which explicitly called for extradition of Chinese nationals for tech espionage. As far as I'm aware, it's the first time US drafted policy to specifically target one country over something general like industrial espionage. So it would be like China getting a third party to arrest a US national under a nacent PRC's Extradite American Act. Then said third party pretend US should totally be OK with them executing PRC foreign policy because it was "legal". The main stream Canadia interpretation of Meng/Michaels drama has been utterly detached from geopolitical reality.
- goodcanadian 5y ago
  Yes, I almost added an addendum pointing out that China probably had the legal right to detain the Michaels under Chinese law (China is not always great at following its own written laws). In this whole business, let's just say that I have far more confidence in the fairness of the Canadian justice system than I do in the Chinese one. I also agree that the U.S. most likely took advantage of the Canadian legal system to push a political agenda. That does not mean that the Canadian justice system did anything wrong. An extradition request was received, and so the process has to be followed in order to give a fair outcome under Canadian law. It is possible that extradition would have been refused and Meng Wanzhou would have been released. A big part of the reason that it dragged on for so long is that it was not an obvious straightforward case like most extradition hearings (though coronavirus certainly didn't help). As for the claim that the Michaels actually were spies, well, I will keep an open mind, but I have not seen any credible evidence of that. EDIT: Nevermind that Canada had legally right to drop extradition if case is sufficiently politicized as well. But laws are subservient to politics. You are seriously misunderstanding the Canadian legal system and the rule of law if you believe this. Laws generally are not subservient to politics except to the extent that Parliament can change the law. The law applies to everyone, politicians included. Yes, extradition can be refused if the motive for the request is determined to be political, BUT the court case must play out in order to determine this. Yes, the foreign minister can block any extradition if they believe there is a good reason to do so, but this would be a highly unusual thing to do as politicians avoid interfering in the legal system. It would be a very controversial thing to do.

skeeter2020 5y ago

I agree; anyone who thinks the two situations are comparable between "out on bail and living in a Vancouver mansion" vs. "held in Chinese prison with no access to diplomatic resources" has been successfully co-opted by the China-led campaign.

dirtyid 5y ago

The process for detaining the Michaels was legal as well. Every nation has authority to round up spies. Here's Kovrig's friend playing coy about his intelligence past. >Edith Terry: Michael Kovrig is a friend, and I am very conscious of the privations he has endured. And while his background is complex and possibly included intelligence gathering for the Canadian government during his diplomatic career, he was very open about his research interests and contacts. [0] At end of day, billionaire who commited alleged fraud gets treated like billionaires while Spies who commited alleged espionage get treated like spies. This shouldn't be shocking, it's how the game is played. Canada excuting US foreign policy (China Initiative) because US found a paper loophole to kidnap Meng legally doesn't change the fact Canada kidnapped Meng in terms of diplomatic norms in the same way "enhanced interrogation" is still torture. Nevermind that Canada had legally right to drop extradition if case is sufficiently politicized as well. But laws are subservient to politics. [0] https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china

mikem170 5y ago
Also I'm sure that crimes committed by billionaires are selectively prosecuted. This one one seems particularly political, given her crime was trading with Iran against U.S. law. Funny that she is not a U.S. citizen, though. I wonder how would the U.S. feel if China arrested a U.S billionaire in a third-party country because they broke a Chinese law. File this under "might makes right", I guess.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  Yeah typically companies get prosecuted for evading Iranian sanctions, rarely individuals, and rarely politically significant individuals. The additional layer of context is DoD started the China Initiative month before which explicitly called for extradition of Chinese nationals for tech espionage. As far as I'm aware, it's the first time US drafted policy to specifically target one country over something general like industrial espionage. So it would be like China getting a third party to arrest a US national under a nacent PRC's Extradite American Act. Then said third party pretend US should totally be OK with them executing PRC foreign policy because it was "legal". The main stream Canadia interpretation of Meng/Michaels drama has been utterly detached from geopolitical reality.
goodcanadian 5y ago
Yes, I almost added an addendum pointing out that China probably had the legal right to detain the Michaels under Chinese law (China is not always great at following its own written laws). In this whole business, let's just say that I have far more confidence in the fairness of the Canadian justice system than I do in the Chinese one. I also agree that the U.S. most likely took advantage of the Canadian legal system to push a political agenda. That does not mean that the Canadian justice system did anything wrong. An extradition request was received, and so the process has to be followed in order to give a fair outcome under Canadian law. It is possible that extradition would have been refused and Meng Wanzhou would have been released. A big part of the reason that it dragged on for so long is that it was not an obvious straightforward case like most extradition hearings (though coronavirus certainly didn't help). As for the claim that the Michaels actually were spies, well, I will keep an open mind, but I have not seen any credible evidence of that. EDIT: Nevermind that Canada had legally right to drop extradition if case is sufficiently politicized as well. But laws are subservient to politics. You are seriously misunderstanding the Canadian legal system and the rule of law if you believe this. Laws generally are not subservient to politics except to the extent that Parliament can change the law. The law applies to everyone, politicians included. Yes, extradition can be refused if the motive for the request is determined to be political, BUT the court case must play out in order to determine this. Yes, the foreign minister can block any extradition if they believe there is a good reason to do so, but this would be a highly unusual thing to do as politicians avoid interfering in the legal system. It would be a very controversial thing to do.