Canada Grants Bail For Arrested Huawei CFO Who Faces US Extradition (cnbc.com) 234
A judge in Vancouver, British Columbia, has set a $7.5 million U.S. bail for Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, who was arrested last week on suspicion of violating U.S. trade sanctions against Iran. "The United States had asked the Vancouver court to deny bail for Meng, whose father is a billionaire and a founder of Huawei, calling her a flight risk," reports CNBC. From the report: Canada has been expected to extradite Meng to the United States over charges that the company improperly took payments from Iran in violation of sanctions against the country. Meng's next moves will be closely watched, but it is likely with her corporate and family connections that she will be able to make bail. The $10 million CAD ($7.5 million USD) includes $7 million CAD ($5.2 million USD) cash and $3 million CAD ($2.2 million USD) more from five or more guarantors, presented by Meng and her attorney's as sureties that she would remain in the country. As conditions of the bail agreement, Meng must surrender her passports, wear a GPS tracking device and be accompanied by security detail whenever she leaves her residence.
I'd like to know the odds (Score:2)
What's the betting line on whether the next country she goes to is China vs the US?
China, no question (Score:5, Interesting)
As soon as they granted her bail, China, no question. If the US really wanted her, they would have made arrangements to get her immediately after her arrest. Since the US didn't arrange that, then it's safe to say this was designed to be a shot across the bow at China, nothing more. But China clearly got the message. If you are a Chinese national in the United States (or Canada), you are vulnerable.
I found it so funny that they took away her passports. That only works for people who fly commercially. Chartered private planes don't require them. And with her estimated net worth at over $100 million, it won't take anything for her line up a flight direct to Beijing.
Re:China, no question (Score:5, Insightful)
And now what if you are an American (or Canadian) national in China? No doubt China will retaliate. There are a lot of American businessmen who operate in China. They already occasionally are subject to arbitrary action on the part of the Chinese government. Would this not give China more excuses to use them as political tools?
and what bondsman will take that risk? (Score:2)
and what bondsman will take that risk?
Re:and what bondsman will take that risk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is so civilised that it does not have bail bondsmen. I think that is something that is exclusively American and falling into disfavour.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bail-bondsmen are sketchy people, but in what way is it better to not have the option to pay a fee to have someone else front the money? If your bond is $1000 and all you can scrape up is $100, then is it better to stay in jail or pay $100 and get out and maybe keep your job, your house, etc. Either way, you're screwed. But why is having a choice in how you are screwed worse than no choice?
Because it's become standard for bail to be exorbitantly high as a result of bondsman. People who can't scrounge together $350 to pay their late parking fees get held on bails of $3000 because of the logic you outlined above.
Re:China, no question (Score:4, Interesting)
China has already retaliated:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi... [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
China is never a good actor. Hacking, theft, deception, lies, and retaliation against innocents that can't defend themselves if you speak up.
The Chinese government is the largest terrorist and criminal racketeering organization the world has ever known.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You could have substituted "US" for "China" in that post, and it would have exactly as convincing.
It was a boneheaded move to arrest this woman. Getting the Canadians to do it - just drags them down too. Frankly I'm surprised they went along, I suspect there's not many countries left that would have now. (Try pulling a stunt like this in, say, Australia or Japan instead. No chance.)
Note that the person arrested in that story - even assuming, as seems likely, it was simple retaliation - is hardly a nameless
Re: (Score:2)
Sooo, they should've looked the other way from her Iran sanctions evasion for political reasons, is what you're saying?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter that she's not American, she committed crimes in the US (which involved American companies), and is thus legally subject to arrest there and in places that have extradition treaties with the US:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1... [nytimes.com]
Re:China, no question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: China, no question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China minds their own business for the most part. They don't go around starting wars like the US does.
I can't remember the exact quote but Sun Tzu says something like "don't fight a war you can't win." China are biding their time and strengthening themselves before they flex their military might. They know they're not yet competition for the US and the US is going to get involved if they do anything too brazen.
Already China is taking land from neighbours in the South China sea and strengthening their borders. Once they're stronger- then the threat of military intervention elsewhere is real.
Re: (Score:2)
lies, and retaliation against innocents that can't defend themselves if you speak up. ... that was the legal base.
Hypocrite very much?
The Chinese Lady in question is innocent, too.
On what fucking legal base was she arrested? Oh, the Trumpet demanded it
The Chinese government is the largest terrorist and criminal racketeering organization the world has ever known. ... you must live behind the moon, or under a rock or under a rock on the backside of the
Really? I thought that was Nazi Germany and Stalin Russia
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese government is the largest terrorist ...
I think your auto-correct bit you in the ass.
The US is in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan (the Eternal War), killing innocent men, women, and children.
The Chinese? Where are their bombing raids?
Re: (Score:2)
And notice the difference, they are holding him without explanation. China doesn't pretend to care even slightly about due process of law.
Re: (Score:2)
The explantation is implicit: you assholes arrested one of us, we arrest one of yours.
China doesn't pretend to care even slightly about due process of law.
They do care. But they don't pretend. When it is appropriated they really care. In this case it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should China care about due process? Due process is coded in US law. Why not speak of freedom of speech? China doesn't have that. It's an American concept. China doesn't have freedom of assembly, freedom of press ...
China is not pretending anything, any more than the US "pretends" to have the right to keep and bear arms.
Re: (Score:2)
China has already retaliated:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi... [www.cbc.ca]
Of course they have. You poke the beast by arresting one of their executives on Trump-ed up charges, of course they will do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump administration, by way of the Tariff War, has demonstrated that it doesn't give a rat's ass about consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Globally, the number of literally dirt floor poor is collapsing as capitalism does its thing in increasingly economically free areas.
Y'all do care about the poor, right? It isn't just a fantasy point when you walk into a voting booth and vote for this or that power hungry politician who promises to help them, right?
The left who cares about the poor should be on their knees crying with delight at this.
Re: (Score:3)
Chartered private planes don't require them.
Immigration in your destination country kind of does, though. You realize they track planes through flight plans and radars and know if you're trying to skip immigration and customs, right?
Re:China, no question (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, but destination country would be China. I hardly think China would arrest her for violating her bail in Canada.
And I hope she runs. The US did this to harm Chinese/Canadian relations.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Canada has no interest in denying Iran stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Immigration in your destination country kind of does, though.
As a citizen of the country you "immigrate" to (is it really called immigrate if you fly home?), no.
It is about one out of ten times that I have to show my passport when I fly "home" to europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Flight plans? Where we're going, we don't need flight plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Chartered private planes don't require them.
Uh... no..... when a chartered plane lands, they will still have to go through customs. However, as a Chinese national she should likely not be prevented from easily getting the passport replaced or entering without a passport: long as she can prove her identity, which shouldn't be too much a problem for an individual with the full weight of a multi-billion$$ corporation at her disposal.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be more than a shot across the bow, and it didn't happen just because she was a Chinese national, even a prominent one, but because she evaded sanctions on Iran, which is a pretty serious crime.
Average Chinese nationals, who haven't committed serious international financial crimes, have no reason to worry that anything similar may happen to them.
And yes for a few million, if she really wanted to, she could hire a team of mercenaries to take out the security team around her, wrap some foil around her
Re: (Score:2)
but because she evaded sanctions on Iran, which is a pretty serious crime.
No it isn't.
Well, it is. In the fact that the sanctions should be declared illegal, and the same with the sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela. Time that the west stops to kowtow to USA, actually that was time 20 years ago ...
Re: (Score:2)
it didn't happen just because she was a Chinese national, even a prominent one, but because she evaded sanctions on Iran, which is a pretty serious crime.
The clue to the flaw in your argument is in plain sight. She is a Chinese national working for a Chinese company. China does not have sanctions against Iran in place. She has not broken the law.
And is it a serious crime? The sanctions themselves are breaking a signed treaty by this country. I don't normally defend China- but in this case the US is clearly the bad guy and Canada, who I normally respect, are abetting.
Re: (Score:2)
She committed crimes in the US involving a US company:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1... [nytimes.com]
How has she not broken the law?
Re: (Score:2)
She committed crimes in the US involving a US company:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1... [nytimes.com]
How has she not broken the law?
Skycom = Hong Kong company. Hong Kong ruled by China. China has no sanctions against Iran. If American banks were involved and didn't do due process to realize funds were coming or going from Iran then the banks are at fault.
This is 100% about politics and 0% to do with her breaking any laws.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that foreigners should be free to perpetrate fraud against American companies without facing any potential consequences from American law enforcement, interesting. Does it matter if she was physically in the US when she perpetrated the frauds? She may have been, it isn't clear, just wondering.
Re: (Score:3)
So you think that foreigners should be free to perpetrate fraud against American companies without facing any potential consequences from American law enforcement, interesting. Does it matter if she was physically in the US when she perpetrated the frauds? She may have been, it isn't clear, just wondering.
I think foreigners working for foreign companies whilst in foreign companies and dealing with other foreign companies should not face any potential consequences from American law enforcements, yes. In fact, that seems a pretty logical conclusion that almost anyone would make. America has no jurisdiction over China, or Hong Kong, or even Iran, the three countries involved with this dealing.
If she were American, or in America, or working for an American company, or if this had ANYTHING to do with America be
Re: (Score:2)
The bank used to facilitate the deal was a company operating and registered in the US that she directly acted to defraud (possibly while physically in the US). This link may help explain it:
https://law.stackexchange.com/... [stackexchange.com]
Also at some point SkyCom sold US-made equipment to Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
The bank used to facilitate the deal was a company operating and registered in the US that she directly acted to defraud (possibly while physically in the US). This link may help explain it:
https://law.stackexchange.com/... [stackexchange.com]
Also at some point SkyCom sold US-made equipment to Iran.
She doesn't work for the US bank though, she works for a Chinese company. What SkyCom did in the past is irrelevant. It may be illegal for the US bank to operate with Iran- but it is not illegal for a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese company within China to work with Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be illegal for a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese company within China to fool a US bank into working with Iran?
Would it be illegal for a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese company in the US to fool a US bank into working with Iran?
Everything I can find says yes to both. I haven't been able to find any support for your argument that it's basically HSBC's fault for falling for it and she's legally in the clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be illegal for a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese company within China to fool a US bank into working with Iran?
OK, so let's reverse the scenario. Your ISP is purchased by a Chinese company and you make a post saying "Xi Jinping looks like Winnie The Pooh". Does China now have the right to extradite you to China and send you to a re-education camp. What if you used a TOR browser and a VPN to post it (and fool them/hide your identity) By what you're saying above (that she used an American bank she is subject to American rules) one would have to assume that you using a Chinese owned ISP would make you have to abide
Re: (Score:2)
Re:China, no question (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder how she will pull that off, given the GPS tracker she must wear and the security team that must escort her everywhere she goes.
I get it, she's rich, but its still QUITE an operation she would have to pull in order to escape the country.
She's rich, she doesn't have to jump bail to stay out of jail. Heck, if you're rich enough you can be a pedophile and still avoid jail time [nbcnews.com].
Re:China, no question (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the GPS tracker made by Huawei?
When you cross the border into the US there is a sign that says "Welcome to The United States of America", the small print underneath says "Made in China".
Re: (Score:2)
Or a pussy grabber [youtube.com] and head up a country.
Full tape with lewd Donald Trump remarks (Access Hollywood)
Re: China, no question (Score:2)
So they'll shoot her down with missiles? Seriously?
Re: (Score:3)
$10.00 says she is gone before New Years. Dad is a billionaire, $10 million CAD is chump change to him.
Re: (Score:3)
The way bail works, is that you're eligible to be released from your current state of incarceration in exchange for a surety, usually enough cash/property to ensure with decent probability that you'll appear in court to face the music. Bail does not guarantee freedom from a criminal hold by another entity, so if you want to bet on Canadian release to China over Canadian release to America, please don't wager the light bill money.
For her sake, she'd hope the bail means release to her homeland...the Chinese
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assange needs a massage.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange needs a massage.
Sadly I hope these events don't end in worsening tensions. What we need is a happy ending.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not optimistic.
America doesn't want a happy ending.
She is arrogant, self-centered, is involved in several economic jobs-creation ventures outside her borders (Afghanistan, etc.) and has abandoned the "huddled masses" shit, and is on trajectory to implode by closing the borders and rejecting globalism. She needs to close the outbound side, as well. She's beginning to suffer from brain drain similar to what happened in WWII. Her batshit obsession with promoting White Evangelical Christianity at the expens
Re: (Score:2)
That's a suckers' bet. Almost guaranteed she buggers off back to China immediately. If not then the Chinese government will be hanging her out to dry. Even if she does jump bail and go back to China, even odds she's never heard from again, dropped in a deep hole somewhere, for embarassing the communist Chinese government by fucking up and getting caught.
She's much more likely to be treated as a hero or a martyr in China- an example of Western aggression. Someone who suffered for Mother China.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. It is a simple one, too - US laws don't apply to foreigners outside of the US.
Except that she is accused of using circumventing US trade embargoes with Iran while using US banks => inside US.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the crime that Meng is accused of in the US also a crime in Canada? If not, then the possibility of extradition seems remote.
That's not how extradition works.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the crime that Meng is accused of in the US also a crime in Canada? If not, then the possibility of extradition seems remote.
Yes, she is charged with fraud - A crime in both countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Canada does have a difficult decision as to whether to kowtow to a foreign government that runs ethnic re-education camps and rolled tanks over its own protesting citizens.
Or it can cooperate with its immediate southern neighbor with which it shares one of the world's longest unfortified international borders, a common language, a deeply intertwined economy and a shared cultural heritage dating back centuries which includes a common language, a democratic system of government and many constitutional fr
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Canada does have a difficult decision as to whether to kowtow to a foreign government that runs ethnic re-education camps and rolled tanks over its own protesting citizens.
China has done many terrible things and is wrong on so many issues; but that's kind of irrelevant, you can't just make examples of Chinese citizens and illegally try to have them extradited just because the Chinese government has done some terrible things.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Still don't believe there's an ongoing coup? (Score:5, Insightful)
DoJ Hypocrisy...
"Meng is charged with violating US sanctions on Iran. Yet consider her arrest in the context of the large number of companies, US and non-US, that have violated US sanctions against Iran and other countries. In 2011, for example, JP Morgan Chase paid $88.3 million in fines in 2011 for violating US sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Sudan. Yet Jamie Dimon wasn’t grabbed off a plane and whisked into custody.
And JP Morgan Chase was hardly alone in violating US sanctions. Since 2010, the following major financial institutions paid fines for violating US sanctions: Banco do Brasil, Bank of America, Bank of Guam, Bank of Moscow, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Clearstream Banking, Commerzbank, Compass, Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, JP Morgan Chase, National Bank of Abu Dhabi, National Bank of Pakistan, PayPal, RBS (ABN Amro), Société Générale, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Trans-Pacific National Bank (now known as Beacon Business Bank), Standard Chartered, and Wells Fargo.
None of the CEOs or CFOs of these sanction-busting banks was arrested and taken into custody for these violations. In all of these cases, the corporation – rather than an individual manager – was held accountable. Nor were they held accountable for the pervasive lawbreaking in the lead-up to or aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, for which the banks paid a staggering $243 billion in fines, according to a recent tally. In light of this record, Meng’s arrest is a shocking break with practice. Yes, hold CEOs and CFOs accountable, but start at home in order to avoid hypocrisy, self-interest disguised as high principle, and the risk of inciting a new global conflict."
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-war-on-huawei-meng-wanzhou-arrest-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2018-12
Re: (Score:2)
Whattaboutry, outside of excuses made for Apartheid Israel, is invariably total horseshit. It's only a Big Word westerners use to justify their massive hypocrisy whenever its pointed out.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively you could read it as the DOJ helping Trump by providing him with an opportunity to pardon her or otherwise shut the investigation down, doing Xi a favour and strengthening their relationship.
You can build a conspiracy to support any idea you want, but in reality it's probably just the DOJ doing what the DOJ is supposed to be doing.
They just snatched up a random Canadian. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So ... (Score:2)
... surrender her passports,"
A Chinese issued passport that will be easily replaced once she gets back to China.
"...wear a GPS tracking device..."
that can be easily disabled/spoofed by anyone with the know how. (it was probably made in China)
"...and be accompanied by security detail ..."
that will be even easier to disable/evade than the GPS tracking device by anyone who doesn't care about pissing off the Canadians.
And then it will be onto a private jet that will have filed a flight plan to San Diego but will then overshoot into Mexican airspace and disappear off RADAR never to be heard from again. Unless t
with out an passport you can't board an flight (Score:2)
with out an passport you can't board an flight
Re: (Score:2)
You mean a commercial airline flight. It's not like she's planning to fly Delta, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Money talks, I guess? (Score:2)
https://www.zerohedge.com/news... [zerohedge.com]
She has SEVEN passports that we know about (4 from China, 3 from HK), plus at least one more than listed.
Simultaneously, she's a cause celebre for the Chinese GOVERNMENT.
And so she's NOT a flight risk?
Re: (Score:2)
Go home (Score:2)
Best Idea (Score:3)
Would be to release her totally and let her fly away.
At the same time, turn on the rumour machine that she's turned into a double agent as a condition of her release.
Good for Huawei (Score:2)
Most American allies are buying Cisco instead of Huawei under US pressure. However Canada will probably be so embarrassed by this kangaroo arrest that they will allow Huawei to do business in Canada
USA is a plutocracy and the rich don't go to jail (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't feed this troll. They posted the same exact text on the article related to the Bloomberg/Super Micro hack:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Canada FAILS again (Score:2)
They should have "granted" her gitmo.
As part of Canada's austerity ... (Score:2)
... program, she has an Android [slashdot.org] duct-taped to her ankle.
Google's CEO Thinks Android Users Know How Much Their Phones Are Tracking Them
Re: I thought bail was set at $2,000 (Score:2, Funny)
That was the bribe for the guard. But there were complications and now we need you to send more.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is not Canada who cares. It is the USA and there is some extradition treaty the RCMP are bound by.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty much this. Demanding arrest and extradition without proof is SOP for the US "justice" system. See Kim Dotcom's case. What he was charged with (tertiary copyright infringement) isn't even found in US law, yet mere "suspicion" was enough for a helicopter raid. The clowns are running the circus.
Re:Arrest "on suspicion" (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States practices torture. As a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, Canada can tell the department of justice to GFY on any extraditions. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Re: (Score:3)
But Canada (like most countries) does care about due process. They're not just going to hand her over. She'll have a hearing first to determine whether that even happens. Of course, she has to make assurances that she'll show up, hence the bail bond and agreement to monitoring in lieu of detainment in a prison cell.
Re: (Score:3)
But the hearing is pretty one sided. She doesn't get to make her case and all the Americans have to show is that there is a good chance of conviction. After that it is up to the Minister and this is already political, weird warrant that someone, whether an employee or Minister had to sign off on in the time between the CIA spotting her getting on a plane with a stopover in Vancouver and the plane arriving.
Re: (Score:2)
One cannot be arrested "on suspicion" in Canada, arrest "on suspicion" being reserved for Fascist/Nazi countries. In Canada one may only be arrested "for" something and trial on the thing "for" which one was arrested must follow the arrest.
Sure you can be arrested for suspicion in Canada, its just that they have to let you go or show cause to a Judge to keep you locked up, usually within 24 hours, sometimes, like weekends, they can lock you up Friday night and let you go Monday morning. If they do it too many times (three?), you can sue (and win) for harassment.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why I'm using this as an excuse to get out of jury duty (if I ever get asked).
"My Lord, if that man is innocent, why are we all here? If the cops believe he's guilty, that's good enough for me."
Re:Arrest "on suspicion" (Score:4, Informative)
In Westminster systems like Canada and the UK, the charges go from the police to the prosecutorial service. It's up to the prosecutor in charge to review the evidence and charges and decide on whether or not there's a reasonable chance of success. If not, then the prosecutor then decides if a lesser charge might have a better chance (e.g., going from murder to manslaughter). If not, the case is dropped - better to drop it now where there is insufficient evidence going in than to drag out a court case wasting resources on a hopeless case.
It's why in general the prosecutors have a rather high success rate of conviction - they don't blindly take up every case they're offered and instead analyze them to see if it will meet the thresholds of conviction. Yes there will be back and forth - the prosecutor can ask the police if they have any more evidence to solidify the case.
This is also the point where the prosecutors do their best to analyze how the evidence was gathered to ensure the defense can't pull a "tainted evidence" defense that discards key evidence.
It's not a perfect system because it can mean people go free due to lack of evidence right from the get-go (though usually the prosecution also directs when the police may arrest someone, so something like this won't end up with a double jeopardy situation). And it can mean really long delays between the crime and arraignmet, charges and the eventual trial.
It's also why a jury trial is optional - the defense has a choice, but in general jury trial conviction rates are even higher than a judge only trial.
Re: (Score:2)
According to your classification, France is a fascist/nazi country.
France is world famous for having a terrible legal system.
Re:Those crazy Canucks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bet she's glad to be oot, eh?
Canadian expat here.
Dear Americans, we love you. But please, once and for all, Canadians do not say "oot." It's more like "aout" - soft 'a' followed by a rising 'o' to 'u' vowel transition, ending in a 't' consonant. Perhaps a linguist could explain it better. But it's not "oot."
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You love us?
What the fuck is wrong with you? /stockholm syndrome
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is wrong with me. I was sincere. I just wanted to make a gentle criticism. Go ahead and tease us about the way we talk. But please get it right.
If anyone understands Americans, it's Canadians. We're besties.
Re: (Score:3)
You haven't been keeping track of how the average Canadian feels about America since Trump and us being a national security threat. Though we do feel sympathy for the average American. For example, https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/... [ctvnews.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't been keeping track of how the average Canadian feels about America since Trump and us being a national security threat. Though we do feel sympathy for the average American. For example, https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/... [ctvnews.ca]
Fair point. Most of the world (including Canada) aren't too fond of the Trump administration. And yet the darker side of populism has made inroads elsewhere, including Canada (e.g., see Ford brothers.)
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian expat here.
Dear Americans, we love you. But
Stop right there! America still hasn't forgiven Canada for Justin Bieber... get back in the dog house.
Re: (Score:2)
I just hope that it's not China taking over. Because if you thought US capitalism was evil and crazy, you haven't seen Chinese capitalism. They out-capitalist the US in the worst way. And are also a regime,
If we continue on the same trajectory for long, it is inevitable China will take over as the world's most powerful country, and get to bully the world as the US has in recent generations. And you're right- unless they change, it will be far worse. China won't have to make up excuses like "WMD" or "extraditing people for pretend-breaking US sanctions", they will just do whatever the hell they want to do because they're not a democracy. They don't have to try to look good for their population- what the gov
Re: This is some sick shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sanctions are actions which are taken instead of just going to war with a country
No, sanctions are taken with allies, not unilaterally. If your allies didn't agree to enforce them, you've done it wrong.
...Bombing the shit out of Iran, or sitting back and just watching them gas their own population...
That was Iraq. The US did bomb the shit out of it, and now its a hell hole.
If you don't even know which country you're talking about, I suppose there's no point in explaining how the US has spent the last 70 years or so getting it wrong in Iran every single time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. I'd wager that it's better now than it was during the height of the Hussein regime.
Re:Accident - USA had no intention of arresting he (Score:4, Informative)
RCMP didn't just arrest her on their own-- they were irequested by US DOJ to detain her. Now they are awaiting a formal request for extradition; if none comes, they'll let her go in 60 days.
I suspect there is a lot more wiggle room in the USA on acting on arrest warrants than there is in Canada.
US arrest warrants have no standing in Canada. Instead, there was a request issued to Canada per Article 11 of the treaty:
> (1) In case of urgency a Contracting Party may apply for the provisional arrest of the person sought pending the presentation of the request for extradition through the diplomatic channel. Such application shall contain a description of the person sought, an indication of intention to request the extradition of the person sought and a statement of the existence of a warrant or arrest or a judgment of conviction against that person, and such further information, if any, as would be necessary to justify the issue of a warrant of arrest had the offense been committed, or the person sought been convicted, in the territory of the requested State.
Re: (Score:2)