4 ms·

Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? I don't think taking vengeance on random civilians is justified, but it was

Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? I don't think taking vengeance on random civilians is justified, but it was a response to us doing the same thing to one of theirs. It's only bad when they do it?

richbell 3y ago
> Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? The claim behind that at least appeared to have merit, so she — ostensibly — wasn't just detained because someone didn't like her. She also enjoyed the full benefit of the western legal system and lived lavishly, meanwhile the two Michaels were basically political prisoners. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exclusive-idUSKBN20P1VA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exc...
- woooooo 3y ago
  Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. They have no obligations to follow American foreign policy. If you're saying, ultimately, "because we can", then fine but that's not great moral ground.
  - richbell 3y ago
    > Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. They have no obligations to follow American foreign policy. Huawei operates outside of China, therefore it's reasonable to expect them to comply with laws and sections from other countries. At the very least, if you're going to violate US sanctions, I wouldn't live in or travel to the US or an affiliated country. > If you're saying, ultimately, "because we can", then fine but that's not great moral ground. I am not making any such claim, nor am I American. I'm just pointing out that "person arrested for being involved in explicitly breaking sanctions" and "two random citizens held hostage on vague charges" aren't comparable.
    - woooooo 3y ago
      We already forbid export of chips and other technology to them. I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here.
      - richbell 3y ago
        > I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here. I'm not sure I understand your point about "moral high ground". Is the implication that US sanctions or arresting people for violating sanctions is immoral?
        woooooo 3y ago
        I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. And, yes, arresting non-citizens for insufficient loyalty to our state is immoral unless there's a war on, in which case you can shoot them. They never pledged loyalty and are not breaking any faith.
        richbell 3y ago
        > I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. This is being reductive and making a false equivalence. These scenarios are not comparable: 1. Arresting an executive of a company that intentionally evaded sanctions and provided supplies to a country that is hostile to the US. 2. Arresting two random Canadian citizens, who are of no importance, and holding them as political prisoners until another nation capitulated to your demands. > If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. See above. Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a difference?
        woooooo 3y ago
        Let's flip it and see how different they are. China sanctions France. Would you be supporting their right to detain arbitrary American businessmen for doing business with France? The same exact way you're supporting our detention of their nationals over Iran?
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    > Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. She's subject to US law, and the consequences thereof. > that's not great moral ground It's a question of law, not morality. The rule of law is applied pretty fairly in the US and backstopped by the democratic process, whereas it's applied arbitrarily by Chinese dictatorial leadership when it suits them. That's where the moral ground lies. What you're talking about is a false equivalence.
    - woooooo 3y ago
      Why is she subject to US export law? Chinese citizen on Canadian soil who was not personally exporting anything at that moment. Do you consider yourself subject to Chinese export law? I know, empire, we can do what we want, but like I said. Shaky moral ground.
      - richbell 3y ago
        > Why is she subject to US export law? Chinese citizen on Canadian soil who was not personally exporting anything at that moment. Because she is accountable as a C-suite executive of Huawei, and she was traveling in a country that is closely allied with the United States. It's funny that you're making this argument when the point of TFA is that China punishes and detains people for merely being associated with a company or group they don't like.
      - o1y32 3y ago
        Maybe spend a little time understanding how the law in question works and how it applied specifically to that case. Everything followed the procedure from what I can tell.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    was she in China at the time? no? then Chinese laws and Chinese-imposed sanctions (or lack thereof) don't apply, and Canada is under no obligations to follow Chinese foreign policy
canucker2016 3y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right. (I am bursting to edit my comment to make it more punny in light of the Asian connection of the comment material, but at least I am taking the high road here - but know this, I am chuckling to myself and don't play the race card, you can't trump me)
- woooooo 3y ago
  Absolutely true but it sounds like people think there's only one wrong here.
  - canucker2016 3y ago
    The US govt seemed to play by the international rule book - they claimed that Huawei knowingly did business with Iran. From memory, Huawei didn't want to respond and execs avoided going to the US. So the US asked Canada to detain the Huawei CFO when she had a layover in Canada. Canada didn't have much choice since it was a legal request based on some treaty. So while Huawei's expensive lawyers work to free the Huawei CFO, China suddenly picks three Canadians for extra special attention. The Canadians are dealing with jail while the Huawei CFO is in her Vancouver mansion with a monitored ankle bracelet - at least the Canadian media made it look like that. That's how it was viewed in Canada.

richbell 3y ago

> Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? The claim behind that at least appeared to have merit, so she — ostensibly — wasn't just detained because someone didn't like her. She also enjoyed the full benefit of the western legal system and lived lavishly, meanwhile the two Michaels were basically political prisoners. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exclusive-idUSKBN20P1VA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exc...

woooooo 3y ago
Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. They have no obligations to follow American foreign policy. If you're saying, ultimately, "because we can", then fine but that's not great moral ground.
- richbell 3y ago
  > Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. They have no obligations to follow American foreign policy. Huawei operates outside of China, therefore it's reasonable to expect them to comply with laws and sections from other countries. At the very least, if you're going to violate US sanctions, I wouldn't live in or travel to the US or an affiliated country. > If you're saying, ultimately, "because we can", then fine but that's not great moral ground. I am not making any such claim, nor am I American. I'm just pointing out that "person arrested for being involved in explicitly breaking sanctions" and "two random citizens held hostage on vague charges" aren't comparable.
  - woooooo 3y ago
    We already forbid export of chips and other technology to them. I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here.
    - richbell 3y ago
      > I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here. I'm not sure I understand your point about "moral high ground". Is the implication that US sanctions or arresting people for violating sanctions is immoral?
      - woooooo 3y ago
        I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. And, yes, arresting non-citizens for insufficient loyalty to our state is immoral unless there's a war on, in which case you can shoot them. They never pledged loyalty and are not breaking any faith.
        richbell 3y ago
        > I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. This is being reductive and making a false equivalence. These scenarios are not comparable: 1. Arresting an executive of a company that intentionally evaded sanctions and provided supplies to a country that is hostile to the US. 2. Arresting two random Canadian citizens, who are of no importance, and holding them as political prisoners until another nation capitulated to your demands. > If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. See above. Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a difference?
        woooooo 3y ago
        Let's flip it and see how different they are. China sanctions France. Would you be supporting their right to detain arbitrary American businessmen for doing business with France? The same exact way you're supporting our detention of their nationals over Iran?
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  > Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. She's subject to US law, and the consequences thereof. > that's not great moral ground It's a question of law, not morality. The rule of law is applied pretty fairly in the US and backstopped by the democratic process, whereas it's applied arbitrarily by Chinese dictatorial leadership when it suits them. That's where the moral ground lies. What you're talking about is a false equivalence.
  - woooooo 3y ago
    Why is she subject to US export law? Chinese citizen on Canadian soil who was not personally exporting anything at that moment. Do you consider yourself subject to Chinese export law? I know, empire, we can do what we want, but like I said. Shaky moral ground.
    - richbell 3y ago
      > Why is she subject to US export law? Chinese citizen on Canadian soil who was not personally exporting anything at that moment. Because she is accountable as a C-suite executive of Huawei, and she was traveling in a country that is closely allied with the United States. It's funny that you're making this argument when the point of TFA is that China punishes and detains people for merely being associated with a company or group they don't like.
    - o1y32 3y ago
      Maybe spend a little time understanding how the law in question works and how it applied specifically to that case. Everything followed the procedure from what I can tell.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  was she in China at the time? no? then Chinese laws and Chinese-imposed sanctions (or lack thereof) don't apply, and Canada is under no obligations to follow Chinese foreign policy

canucker2016 3y ago

Two wrongs don't make a right. (I am bursting to edit my comment to make it more punny in light of the Asian connection of the comment material, but at least I am taking the high road here - but know this, I am chuckling to myself and don't play the race card, you can't trump me)

woooooo 3y ago
Absolutely true but it sounds like people think there's only one wrong here.
- canucker2016 3y ago
  The US govt seemed to play by the international rule book - they claimed that Huawei knowingly did business with Iran. From memory, Huawei didn't want to respond and execs avoided going to the US. So the US asked Canada to detain the Huawei CFO when she had a layover in Canada. Canada didn't have much choice since it was a legal request based on some treaty. So while Huawei's expensive lawyers work to free the Huawei CFO, China suddenly picks three Canadians for extra special attention. The Canadians are dealing with jail while the Huawei CFO is in her Vancouver mansion with a monitored ankle bracelet - at least the Canadian media made it look like that. That's how it was viewed in Canada.