Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Businesses Canada Cellphones Crime United States Technology

China Calls For Release of Arrested Huawei CFO Detained In Canada (nbcnews.com) 200

Posted by BeauHD from the family-feud dept.
China is demanding the release of a senior executive at Huawei after she was detained in Canada on extradition charges to the U.S. Wanzhou Meng, who is also the deputy chair of Huawei's board and the daughter of company founder Ren Zhengfei, is suspected of violating U.S. trade sanctions against Iran. NBC News reports: The arrest of Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer and daughter of the company's founder Ren Zhengfei, spooked investors with U.S. stocks tumbling on fears of a flare-up in Chinese-U.S. tensions. She was arrested in Vancouver, British Columbia, on Dec. 1. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said officials have been contacted both in the U.S. and Canada to demand Meng's release. Geng Shuang, a spokesman for the ministry, said her detention needed to be explained, and both countries had to "effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of the person concerned." A spokesperson for Huawei said in a statement that it "complies with all applicable laws and regulations where it operates, including applicable export control and sanction laws and regulations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Calls For Release of Arrested Huawei CFO Detained In Canada More

China Calls For Release of Arrested Huawei CFO Detained In Canada

Comments Filter:

  • Well they going to need to give trump something to make that happen.

    • Trump, lol. No. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Trump isn't actually in control of this. It would be illegal and improper for him to intervene, in fact he wasn't even notified by DOJ that the action was pending. It's unclear he even has actual pardoning power for this,
      but certainly not before the charges have even been brought, that's just a misapprehension about how DOJ works even as it is an Exec branch Dept.

      It sounds like there's a counter-espionage aspect of this case as well, further reducing any chance of even a fucking moron like the aforementio

      • Re:Trump, lol. No. (Score:4, Funny)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday December 06, 2018 @05:12PM (#57762502) Journal

        Trump isn't actually in control of this. It would be illegal and improper for him to intervene

        Wait a minute, I want to reply to this but I have to stop shaking with laughter first.

      • US Constitution Article II, Section 2 states plainly that the President has pardon power for any offense with the sole exception being cases of impeachment.

        Since at least Andrew Jackson in 1865, Presidents have use pardon prior to indictment to spare the country the turmoil of a controversial indictment and trial (in the case of a Confederate officer, for Jackson). The Supreme Court has upheld this repeatedly.

        Imagine you seen a sign saying "no parking on Sundays 9AM-11AM". By law that implies that parking

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Somebody Is Using My ( 985418 )

          It's not quite so open and shut. The President inarguably has the power to pardon. However, the President is arguably limited in his power to actually intervene in the investigation and prosecution of a crime. He is, after all, sworn to "“faithfully” execute the laws of the United States" (or, as it says in Article II, Section 3, "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."). If and when someone is found guilty of a crime, then the power of the Presidential pardon can come into effect. But

          • How many times does the Supreme Court have to rule (Score:5, Insightful)

            by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Thursday December 06, 2018 @08:44PM (#57763592) Journal

            How many times, over how many centuries, does the Supreme Court have to keep ruling on this before you recognize the stare decisis?

            You say "arguably" - that was argued in 1865, and SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution means what it says. Most famously in the last fifty years, Ford pardoned Nixon, so the country could move forward from that mess - without an indictment or arrest.

            > when an actual arrest has been made, it becomes increasingly difficult for a President ...
            > acting before would likely create a Constitutional crisis of some sort.

              So your argument is that "power to pardon any ..." means not before it goes to court, and not after?

            The question *could* have caused a Constitutional crisis - in the 1800s, but it didn't. SCOTUS decided the question, as is their role, and that was that. A hundred years later most people thought the President SHOULDN'T pardon Nixon, but nobody made a serious claim that he COULDN'T.

            • Here's a question SCOTUS has NOT yet ruled on.
              Can a President pardon *himself*?

              Most legal scholars say "yes, but Burdick v. United States would almost guarantee impeachment".

              Under Burdick, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. If a President were to pardon himself, he would be admitting guilt. Based on this admission (and the ugliness of pardoning oneself), impeachment would follow.

              • Under Burdick, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. If a President were to pardon himself, he would be admitting guilt.

                Not necessarily. That's only the default if the pardon doesn't speak to the issue. But it can, if he so chooses:

                (Quoting Washington Post)

                ... some pardons expressly state that they are based on the pardoner's decision that the defendant was actually innocent; and some legal rules expressly contemplate that - consider, for instance, the federal statute that provides for compensatio

              • How quaint. You think that the President admitting that he committed a crime would ultimately lead to impeachment and removal.

              • The current GOP is so pathetically spineless they wouldn't impeach if Trump straight up handed Putin the launch codes and told them to kiss his ass. Not that Dems are entirely off the hook, they seem to have the opposite problem, where rumors and trivial offenses against PC culture make them eat their own routinely.

      • Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States of America, and as such is the head of Executive branch of the federal government, and as such has control over the DOJ. Further, he can pardon anyone he damn well pleases with one exception. Yes, he can even pardon himself if it came down to it and that one exception wasn't in play.

        Grow up.

    • Well they going to need...

      Retard tense?

  • What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if an American citizen was arrested in a 3rd country and extradited to China? What would Donald Trump do? The Andrew Brunson affair indicates he would not accept it passively.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by sycodon ( 149926 )

      You can be sure that this individual will receive far fairer treatment than anyone in China ever would.

      And...plenty of Americans have been jailed in China.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

        And...plenty of Americans have been jailed in China.

        How many American citizens have been jailed after being extradited for breaking a Chinese law while living in America?

        How many of them were arrested while changing planes in a 3rd country?

        Huawei has offices in America. This could have been dealt with through the civil courts.

        Just because America has the power to be a bully, doesn't mean we should be one.

        • The bitch was detained in CANADA you fucking moron, for violation of international sanctions against Iran. That's not something for civil courts. The flagrant violations could be seen as treason if she were a citizen of a country that gave a shit.

          • The bitch was detained in CANADA

            Ms Meng was detained while changing planes at the Vancouver Airport.

            ... for violation of international sanctions against Iran.

            Wrong. They were American sanctions, not international sanctions. She (allegedly) violated an American law ... while living in China as a Chinese citizen. What other country claims such an extraterritorial reach?

            That's not something for civil courts.

            Huawei had an agreement to not re-export certain American products to Iran. They apparently broke that agreement. Breaking an agreement is generally a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

            • For the millionth time on the millionth story, you personally are being informed that it doesn't matter which country your ass is in when you commit a financial crime in the US by giving banks here information related to transactions that are happening here.

              If you do not want to follow US financial law, it isn't enough to not be physically in the US; you have to also leave your money outside the US, and not utilize financial accounts or instruments that are in fact in the US.

              What part of this do find so mes

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by rtb61 ( 674572 )

                The part where a bunch of Americans and Canada get arrested in China as Chinese authorities target and crack down on them specifically. China is an authoritarian state and that means that have lots and lots of police officers. Honestly fuck the bullshit propaganda the Americans government wants to spout, leaving China would probably be a sound idea if you are American or Canadian, the slightest infraction will have you seeing a quite stiff penalty, again something for which authoritarian states are known. Y

                • China is an authoritarian state and that means that have lots and lots of police officers.

                  Actually, America has way more police per capita than China. America is over policed.

                  Also, the local police in China have little to do with political repression. That is done by a separate organization.

                  If you visit China, you will notice a lot of heavily armed guards, carrying assault rifles and dressed in camouflage uniforms. But they are not police or soldiers. They are private security guards, and since private citizens are not allowed to own firearms, the "assault rifles" are actually non-functionin

                • You're a moron. If you break US law, the US is going to get you or your assets how and when they can.
                  US action against Assange is bullshit. US action against Kim Dotcom is bullshit. This case is completely justified.

            • Ms Meng was detained while changing planes at the Vancouver Airport.

              In Canada.

              Wrong. They were American sanctions, not international sanctions. She (allegedly) violated an American law ... while living in China as a Chinese citizen. What other country claims such an extraterritorial reach?

              When you travel to a formal ally of such nation, who happens to have an extradition agreement, you end up almost as dumb as ShanghaiBill.

              Huawei had an agreement to not re-export certain American products to Iran. They apparently broke that agreement. Breaking an agreement is generally a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

              LOL! Breaking an agreement to not aid a criminal is not a civil matter. It is a crime.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Just because America has the clout to make this happen and China would not doesn't mean we shouldn't have asked Canada to do this. Really, we'll have to wait until we see what the charges are as last I read she had filed for and been granted a publication ban of the charges ( https://www.bbc.com/news/busin... [bbc.com] ) although that info was a bitch to track down after I read it the day before as I couldn't remember where I had read that at and most media outlets are focused on the mystery and not the cause of.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

        And...plenty of Americans have been jailed in China.

        For breaking Chinese law, in China. Not for "violating" unilateral sanctions by the US (which are not legal) and traveling to Canada. China has no sanctions against Iran nor is it bound by US dictates. Chinese citizens are not required to follow US law while outside the US. This is like Saudi Arabia grabbing your girlfriend you took with you on a trip to Egypt and stoning her to death for adultery.

  • Histage (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hackingbear ( 988354 ) on Thursday December 06, 2018 @04:46PM (#57762342)

    1. Can't compete with Huawei 5G.
    2. Can't get real advantage as claimed by Donald's tweets
    3. Made up and exaggerated accusation as before the Iraq War.
    4. Held the daughter of a VIP as hostage for negotiation.

    Sounds like a plot from terrorist country like Iran.

    • typo: "Hostage"

    • Your comment seems to be predicated on Huawei being some kind of behemoth which it is not.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Can't compete with Huawei 5G.

      Sadly it's not just the US using "national security" as a tool to try to make their own tech companies more competitive by banning the competition.

  • China but not US (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dicobalt ( 1536225 ) on Thursday December 06, 2018 @04:48PM (#57762358)
    I wish they would prosecute board members of US companies for financial crimes and monopolistic practices.

  • China can't complain (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Thursday December 06, 2018 @05:02PM (#57762452) Homepage

    Might have something to do with this;

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46352336

    Chinese officials have defended their decision to bar three US citizens from leaving the country, saying they are suspected of "economic crimes". Victor and Cynthia Liu, children of a fugitive businessman, and their mother, Sandra Han, have been detained since June, the New York Times reported. The US Department of State confirmed to the BBC that they are in "close contact" with the adult Liu children. Their father, Liu Changming, is wanted in a $1.4bn (£1bn) fraud case in China.

    FYI - Victor, 19, was born in the U.S. The Chinese are holding a US citizen hostage and then have the nerve to complain?

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by melted ( 227442 )

      I wonder what Obama would do. He'd probably launch an apology tour of some sort.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not exactly the same. They’re dual citizens. China doesn’t recognize dual citizenship. Still I agree the fact that they are holding them as collateral is scummy.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No. This is about the U.S. crying to other countries to not buy Huawei equipment after they're not willing to buy the backdoored spying equipment from Cisco and Juniper any more, and instead opting for Huawei.

      This is the U.S. literally panicking about the world replacing their spying equipment, and now they're grasping at everything.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Clearly they should be released. But China doing it doesn't justify USA doing anything similar. And in fact claiming universal jurisdiction which is unacceptable.

  • Fuck'em (Score:2, Informative)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

    China arrests Americans all the time for much dumber reasons. Turnabout is fair play.

    • Oh? Which CEO from America's largest companies was arrested by a 3rd party government on the request of China? You want to talk about turnabout, then prove it.

      • Oh it has to be a CEO and not one of the dozens of students that have been arrested this decade? I guess you win. We should roll over until things escalate to some imaginary line you have drawn.

        The attempts by China to silence American citizens by imprisoning family members in interment camps is well known [nytimes.com]

        • Oh it has to be a CEO and not one of the dozens of students that have been arrested this decade? I guess you win.

          Well yes. And since now I know you're taking about the students, it's also interesting you're comparing foreigners against dual nationals who broke Chinese law. Or maybe you were talking about the American student who was arrested after getting into a fight? You're going to have to be specific about precisely which completely different and entirely irrelevant to this current case arrest you are talking about.

  • Geng Shuang, a spokesman for the ministry, said her detention needed to be explained, and both countries had to "effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of the person concerned."

    And if you disagee, China will subtract 50 from your Communist Black Mirror score, and too low means Bryce doesn't get to borrow anymore.

  • Can someone explain he crime to me? She is not an US national, her company is in China, but she was arrested in Canada because the US says its a crime for her company to trade in Iran? The trade did no occur in US soil. None of the parties in the trade are under US jurisdiction, not even the arrest was made on US soil.

  • WTF???? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 )
    Why is America grabbing her? So what if they trade with Iran? We have no legal say in that. This is no different than Assange. We have no legal rights on this.

    • Re:WTF???? (Score:5, Informative)

      by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Thursday December 06, 2018 @07:46PM (#57763312) Homepage Journal
      That is a pretty dumb comment, even for you. They are shipping US origin products to Iran. There is a US sanction against Iran. Hope you understand, but I doubt you will.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        They are shipping US origin products to Iran.

        This.

        But this (and the ZTE embargo [extremetech.com]) will just motivate China to roll their own version of 5G and fab their own chips. Back when 3G was on the drawing board, China was considering developing their own protocols. US chip makers went to our government and begged them not to. It doesn't look like they (China) got strong enough concessions in return for giving up their own R&D. This time may be different.

        • will just motivate China to roll their own version of 5G

          Huh? What do you mean own "version"? If you're talking about America actually being the technological leader here you've already lost. Huawei is already a large developer of 5G modems, and ZTE already a developer of 5G infrastructure.

          There is zero incentive for them to do something incompatible with the rest of the world just because they are having a spat with the USA. The only country really that has something incompatible IS the USA and is rightfully seen all over the world as an incredibly dumb situatio

    • Another asshole who wants a war with Iran, eh. I get it, I get it.

      It makes no sense why anybody would want it, but some people do. I get that much.

      Don't think whining and crying will save America's enemies. Sanctions are the most peaceful option on the table.

  • Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

  • We should be Canadian about this - "So sorry for arresting you. We're putting you an a plane for Beijing in an hour. No hard feelings eh. Here, have some maple syrup and smoked salmon. Oh wait, here's some BC bud too."

  • with big nukes.

Slashdot Top Deals

"...a most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!" -- _Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure_

Close