I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions.
It is said that Iran has been developing various weapons, but these weapons do not fall under the treaty, and experts and controllers all agree the nuclear program has been stopped.
It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty, in the same way it was wrong to walk away from the Paris accord agreement. You agree on one thing, you have to follow. That is the honourable thing to do.
A few will say that Iran is threatening Middle East Peace. What is obvious is that its Saudi Arabia who's bombing its southern neighbour or sending tanks to Bahrain. If you want peace, you have to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia as well.
What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. For the rest of the world, it's just abuse and plain wrong. History will judge.
The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a process to ratify treaties in the US. The president approves a treaty and sends it to the senate to approve or reject.
It's easy for president to make executive order agreements because it doesn't require approval from the senate (something Obama knew he couldn't get for either deal). But all parties should know that these non-treaties can be undone without a second thought by a new president.
The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.
U.S. treaties are not permanent, and while the statement as ratified, it is law, the U.S. has broken a lot of treaties treaties. See Native American section .
I can agree that statements like "It is wrong for the US to walk away..." are strictly moral, with no legal ground, as it was not ratified. Yet this is a treaty that was signed. In the eyes of the world and U.S. law, this is a "broken" treaty. And it doesn't help if we go around breaking treaties. It is not illegal, but you are not building credibility right? It might be only fair if other States start breaking their treaties when convenient. (And some of them do.)
Edit: This is a nice interesting read, in case you are interested: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international...
"Their word is law." is a primitive framework but it expresses that enforcement backs laws.
Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith.
> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.
You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part.
And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants, existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties.
The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.
Just because people on the internet did not understand that doesn't mean the parties involved did not know that.
Every single diplomat knows it, which is why diplomacy is about horse trading. Parties want to "sort of" maintain the status quo, even if it means giving up some of what is "rightfully their" by the agreement.
You expect the whole world to be familiar with the intricacies of the US Government. I assume that you have taken the same interest in familiarizing yourself with the technicalities of the Serbian government agreeing to international treaties.
What you now is the same as everyone else what’s being sold in the media (even social media). There are lots of hacks like Thomas Friedman being given lots of page space in papers such as NYT to even spread propaganda for powerful interests. In aggregation these hacks represents alignments of powers which even a president cannot surmount in the long term. Obama of course understood this but didn’t give up on what he thought was right, and now Trump does not care about was is right instead he simply surf the waves of narratives spewed by the conservative/alt-right to both winning the presidency and keeping his hold on power and enrich himself in the process, while he claims he’s being backstabbed by the deep state. But it’s clear his bet on the wrong horse is becoming a hazard as more Republicans in Senate are realizing this and changing course to avoid the risk of complete collapse of their party and American morals.
I guess another Vietnam has to happen so that the American people will again learn the real news, but given the assymetry in military power and outsourcing of it to allies like SA I’m not sure if they will learn this time.
The staggering amount of these untruthful statements I read on a daily basis here and elsewhere on the internet is extremely disconcerting and increasing at an alarming rate. Please do not try to criticize Trump unless you are able to do so effectively. Posts like yours only make Trump's deceit and dishonesty harder to challenge, by damaging the credibility of anti-Trump individuals. Worse yet, they do nothing to further the cause of promoting positive change. Because if you want to do good, you do have to get things right.
Pulling out of a loophole in a treaty is something any country can do. Why is US especial in this?
It's worth considering that changing this process from one widely understood to one widely not understood is likely to lead to more confusion about weird internal political processes rather than less.
Remember Iraq WMDs?
2. The senate passing it makes no difference. The Republicans, controlling the House and the Senate, may well have been successfully in passing legislation withdrawing from the treaty. Except - that isn't even necessary. Trump can withdraw from any treaty he likes whenever it pleases him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/0...
All of these are simply internal American processes, and it is up to the Americans to consider wether they want their politicians to run a foreign policy that projects stability, where the decisions of previous presidents are maintained because, being legitimately elected it was their decision to make, and American's word should stand for something - or whether they want their country to be perceived as erratic - which is in fact the case now, whether or not it causes allies such as the EU to ultimately make real changes in the relationship.
This decreases US power. Everyone knows that they just have to wait for the next president and everything will be reset.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987, it is now dead. so by your definition, 30 years is now called permanent? To me, a far better definition of the term permanent can be concluded from the matter of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - US permanently refused to join that convention.
(Almost?) All countries have a similar approval process in the parliament. Usually the president has enough votes in the parliament or has an informal arrangement with the opposition leaders to ensure the approval.
For example, Iran never ratified the 2013 treaty with Argentina. It was approved by the Argentinean Parliament, but it was never approved by the Iranian Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding_be... more info in the Spanish version (autotranslation): https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=htt...
[Disclaimer: I'm from Argentina. I didn't like the treaty, but nobody asked for my opinion.]
A Canadian Court will decide whether the US arrest warrant was based on common Western norms or not. In this case the arrest warrant was not issued for free speech, tax evasion or political activity so almost certain he'll be extradited. End of the story. Canada will determine that the person involved--essentially with billion$ behind her--will get a fair hearing in USA. And she will, laws may be unfair but...
But that's not the whole story with the Huawei CFO arrest.
China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own.
Chinese companies enjoy open access to Western markets, but Western companies are highly restricted in their access to Chinese markets.
If Huawei illegally sold technology to sanctioned nations, and the US can use that to pressure China on trade and espionage, more power to them.
Do you have any evidence for this? Have we arrested any US citizens for selling/leaking military technology to China?
Individuals, sure. State-owned companies? I would like to know the proof for this.
please show me how Huawei enjoyed its open access to the US market.
if you like, I can easily show you tons of evidence on how Huawei's competitors say Cisco enjoyed its open access to the Chinese markets.
She has been arrested for violating a completely unrelated US law (in non-US territory).
NYT said NSA is hacking into Huawei's server steal information.
The company traded tech with the US under an agreement not to share said tech with sanctioned countries. They then proceeded in an apparent act of circumventing those trade agreements.
If they didn't like the sanctions against Iran then they shouldn't have been dealing with the US tech for which those sanctions applied in the first place.
Your argument is like saying "it's not theft because the person they were stealing from is a bad person" which isn't how the law works.
Funny how Israel never gets mentioned by anyone!
You mean the descendants of Europeans who clung to a mythology that the son of that same omnipotent real estate agent granted them manifest destiny over a continent owned by a bunch of tribes?
And whose support for Israel is based, in part, on the belief that Israel as a state has a role to play in ushering in the Apocalypse of the Book of Revelations and the second coming of Christ?
The phrase "not bloody likely" comes to mind. The US is in with Israel for reasons that go far deeper than geopolitics.
Iran stopped its nuclear enrichment program, so the sanctions were wavered. Iran continued working on a ballistic missile program (capable of carrying nuclear warheads), and continued destabilizing countries throughout the middle east (through proxy terrorism) - so the sanctions came back.
In other words - temporarily halting the nuclear enrichment program alone should not excuse Iran from being held accountable.
Pot, kettle, black. The US are continuously destabilising countries they don’t like, Iran included; in fact, most poweful countries do, all the time, from Russia to France to Germany. That doesn’t justify breaking treaties on a whim, like Trump has done.
The US had built up a reputation as a violent and aggressive bully after 2003. Obama worked hard at correcting that, but the new guy has thrown it all away again. The US at the moment look seriously bipolar, from the outside.
That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts. I am currently in the Middle East due to one or more of these conflicts.
I am not stating any opinion for or against the recent (now ignored) agreement.
> What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran.
That is a gross over simplification of how the complexities of global trade does not always align with the interests of international politics. It is within the capabilities of one nation to impose laws that forbid trade and supply to another nation while trading with third party nations trading contingent upon that awareness.
Where is your proof on this? Where is all of the proof on any of the things claimed about Iran? Just like there were mass destructive weapons in Irak?? Sure, we know how that turned out. It's time for big ol' USA to just stop meddling in affairs it has no business in. They just want to get their hands on all the oil in the world so they can play the boss, and it most likely is not going to stop there either, next it's water, the market, and so on. The USA is just a big bully, it's their way or not at all. And Europe is like the bully's accomplice, too scared to stand up so just joins along in the bullying. Pathetic, more more more, it's always more they want. Protecting the peace, ha, joke. And while we are at it, let's forgive Saudi Arabia for obviously brutally murdering a journalist, afterall, they just invested millions on some of our weapons.
Indirectly, however, you'll find the Internet is pretty replete. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
Given the strident tone of your post, I suspect you'll dismiss those sources. No doubt you'll suspect them of being self-serving. Very well. Evidence of Iran's doings also exists in forms which cut against the U.S. military's interest, such as the fact that they duped the U.S. military into violating U.S. law by providing them weapons.
The fact is that Iranian-sponsored terrorism is so prevalent in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, that just defeating Daesh is a moral problem... it's become a logistical nightmare to not only perform Leahy vetting but to actually carry out operations without a Shi'ite militia taking part and committing atrocities in the name of the Coalition.
And those Shi'ite militias? "All are directly backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps and are notorious among the Sunni minority population for carrying out extrajudicial killings, torture and ethnic cleansing."
You are entitled to your opinion that the "USA is just a big bully," although I personally don't think it's a well-founded opinion. However, the next time you feel inclined to start calling things a "farce" before you've examined any evidence, I'd encourage you to reconsider.
The Shia militias your talking about is no better nor worse than the kind of people both US and SA and other gulf countries have supported in the region. You think ISIS could have existed without certain external help in the ME?
The question is not if Iran is bad they clearly are, but they are not worse than the rest of the regional powers also not worse compared to US given it’s track record in both supporting totalitarian leaders and fundamentalists.
If you want to debate whether the U.S. should sell arms to Saudi Arabia, I think that is a different topic.
But history and context does not suit a soldier who is only looking at the “facts” given by his superior.
But none of these articles would be enough for you either. I will dismiss arguments that talk about Iran one-sidedly, not the evidence. You can also see more scholarly articles that talk about the complexity of the military and political affairs in the middle east. Not from an over-militarized point of view, but also from a justice, social and anthropological perspective:
the point is, you throw Iran and nuclear and militia around like they are not connected to a people, and the best of you just reduce the situation to a state vs. people point of view. Iranians have the right, just like any other people, to defense and safety. The evidence to Iran being a terrorist state does not exist and what you sent me is a list of politically motivated accusations. The evidence for Iran meddling in the region, yes. I think there is plenty of that, and yes, that’s bad, as long as we don’t compare it to other countries around the world that do a million times worse but are left alone because they are western allies. I don’t think I have to convince anyone about the chaos Western intervention has created in the region. Iran is evil because it does not comply to bullying. O I hope you can also find the time for nuancing your view.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
I'm not attacking anyone or arguing with you in person, just trying to show that I too find evidence and not base my views on personal feelings alone. Enjoy the rest of your day as well.
When a significantly more dominant part uses the power it knows it has over other parties to try to get its way, it is indeed buying, or any other synonym describing the same principle you may want to use.
Attempting to impose much greater intricacies to every single issue is rarely the right call.
> What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats.
Sanctions are powerful tools that benefit the country applying them in the same way that you benefit by not handing over ammunition to your enemies.
Extra-territorial application of law is a nightmare.
How would the US react if a US businessman was arrested for trading with Israel in Turkey?
If a tourist travels to another country and breaks that country's laws, they will be subject to the consequences of breaking those laws. So why should a foreigner that willingly conspires to use Huawei's US business to break the US laws be free from punishment? The fact that they are a foreigner is irrelevant.
As to whether or not that's right, I personally think it's reasonable. Most all countries seek to enforce their laws regardless of location, especially when they deem a serious crime was committed against them.
This is not “robbed a bank in country X and then fled to Y”, which is what international law-enforcement cooperation was built for. This is like “copied Windows in a country where piracy is legal”. It’s a massive overreach by US and Canada, but then again, they are not new to this (see Kim Dotcom et al).
Similarly, if you commit a major crime against Canadian law and visit Canada, they can arrest you for it. And if you also committed a crime against US law, the US can petition for you to be extradited after the Canadians arrest you.
I fear I don't understand where the overreach is. I've clearly missed an important and nuanced detail. Can you help me?
International law is never simple - although I suppose having the biggest stick might drive people to ignore certain nuances.
What makes this complicated is that Huawei does have a registered company in the US (with multiple offices), and therefore at least some part of Huawei ought to be subject to US laws. By making the choice to establish a US presence they ought to be willing to comply to the local regulations.
> If I pass a law that bans eating cornflakes, you then have breakfast and enter my country, am I justified in putting you under trial?
Yes, though the problem is that this example is trivial. If I pass a law that bans cyber attacks on my country's infrastructure, and you perform attacks in a country where it is legal and travel to my country, I'm well in the grounds to arrest you.
If cornflake eating were against the law, the solution would be to avoid traveling to that country in the same way that some people might not travel to North Korea for fear of being arrested unfairly.
It may be worth considering that laws are not always strictly confined to physical borders in what actions they can apply to. In this case, there are nuances that could be worth paying some attention to about Canadian laws and trade embargoes.
For god sake Huawei did business with Iran as "China to Iran" not "USA to Iran" why they had to comply with US stupid laws? the business never occurred in USA. US is shooting it self with stupid laws that try to sanction the wrong nation while still supporting Saudi and Israel a clear terrorists nations.
And the funny thing that Israel and Saudi regime are the ones that pushed Trump to cancel Iran deal with the US.
While I don't agree with the US sanctions, she is not being charged with shipping goods made in China to Iran. Obviously the US has no say in that.
I'd argue this is not as self evident as you imply for such "worldwide" laws. It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries.
That's a fair point. However if Huawei has a physical presence as a business in the US (which it does) then it should certainly be subject to obeying US laws. The one responsible for violating that law should be held responsible for breaking the law, whether they are a foreigner or not, in the same way that a tourist traveling to another country is still subject to that country's laws.
I think "justification" internally matters for the internal role. If the people view the actions and its consequences as unjust nothing changes to benefit opinion wise.
However even if (they think) it is totally unfair that they are being sanctioned want to just because they burnt a few evil witches/abolished slavery they are still weakened internationally.
Like those charged under the Russian laws living in Europe? Do you see how problematic this idea is?
Keep in mind that US sanctions against foreign companies doing business with Iran are opposed by:
The United Nations International Court of Justice, which ordered the US to withdraw sanctions, to which the US responded by pulling out of international agreements.
The European Union, which has attempted to block its companies from complying with US sanctions.
With that said, the US is free to sanction anyone for its own interests, that's its right as a sovereign state. It is also its right as a sovereign state to refuse market access and trade to any company that violates its sanctions.
But arresting foreign nationals in other countries for violating US sanctions? That's the equivalent of Russia arresting American business executives and extraditing them to China for violating Chinese sanctions against Taiwan - and yes, there are sanctions against Taiwan, which are regularly ignored by the US, of course. This is a massive escalation and will undoubtedly cause a major international crisis. Stay tuned.
In this case, the other country in question is Canada, which has made its own sovereign decision to also sanction Iran.
Extradition treaties, including the US-Canada one, require that the conduct involved be a crime in both jurisdictions. If the Canadian courts decide that what she did is not a crime under Canadian law, she will get off. Simple as that.
Huawei Mate 20 Pro starts from 1049 Euro and Mate 20 start from 800 Euro, last time when I checked, 1049 Euro is almost $1200 USD, common sense tells that when an Android phone has a price tag of $1200 USD, it is anything but competing on price.
I have Mate 20/Mate 9/P8, the top ranking build quality has been repeatedly confirmed by numerous reviews world wide. I never ever had any issue with my Huawei Mate 20/10/P8. Labelling Huawei products as poor quality without proof is not helping on anything.
As for consumer products, yes of course they will have to get their money back somewhere. If you're running on one end a shady operation that is to cut the price to levels nobody can compete with and deliver shitty products only developing countries or banana republics want to afford, ... then you need to make up for this somewhere else in order not to expose the whole racket.
> They're able to compete below price precisely because they are heavily government funded.
so you are arguing that rather than funding carefully selected new businesses with good potentials, or those state owned established companies with full government control in the same area such as ZTE, Chinese government is heavily funding the most profitable private high tech company Huawei?
sounds like the Chinese government is on a self destruction mission to me.
There is no indication that this arrest is related to U.S. policies to sanction foreign companies for selling to Iran.
Rather, the arrest is far more likely related to "US law [that] prohibits exports of certain US-origin technologies to certain countries" (from nytimes article). Huawei purchased certain technology from the US with the promise not to sell it to certain countries like Iran, and then proceeded to shamelessly violate the agreement.
Without laws like this, sanctions are far less powerful, because any foreign company not affected by the sanction can act as a middleman between the origin country and the sanctioned country.
What the UN International Court of Justice and European Union think about US sanctioning foreign companies that do business with Iran is completely irrelevant, since this arrest is not related to that policy.
>>LOL, kill thousands of its own citizens in protests? The Chinese government never did that (even the famous tank man was unharmed and was not arrested), the truth is, many soldiers got killed because they were not allowed to fire at citizens. Even the Chinese government did kill its own citizen they learnt from the US (1932 Bonus Army, 1970 Kent state massacre, Jesus that was only 48 years ago, not mentioning almost every day someone is being shot by the police somewhere in the US. The funny thing is one shot won't even make it to the newspaper now.)
>>In a word, you have been brainwashed by your media. I know it's hard to wake up someone who pretends to be asleep, but it's good for you.
Perhaps you or someone else knows more than we do about this on Hacker News, but in that case you should be telling us at firstname.lastname@example.org so we can look into it. That's in the guidelines as well. When there's real information, we take it very seriously. Unfortunately, though, this trope is driven mostly by imagination, not information.
this is really challenging as it is something I have been thinking about a long time and each idea I have I find a way that it would simply not work.
I've spent a lot of time looking into this. We are always open to new information and when we find evidence of abuse, we ban accounts and then some. We have low tolerance for actual abuse on HN.
But I can tell you with confidence that most people accusing "paid propagandists" are simply imagining the nastiest about those who happen to disagree with them. Both sides do this on divisive issues. That's not acceptable either.
That’s not a rip on you, the previous poster, or anyone. It’s just a statement that, yeah, sometimes it is important to highlight a poster’s potential bias. Why would you not want to?
Also, I’m curious: what technologies do you guys use to identify bad actors? Maybe if I understood the sophistication of your methods, I would have more trust. There are a lot of smart people here (much smarter than me) who may want to help.
"Sometimes it's important to highlight a poster's potential bias" is covered by the site guideline that asks you to send such concerns to email@example.com rather than posting them in the threads. In the vast majority of cases that I see, it's not hard to establish that the accusation of shillage is wrong and that the user was just expressing their personal view—unless you think the Chinese government planted people on HN years ago to establish posting histories about Julia or whatever.
Legit HN users have a right not to be dressed down or have their histories hauled out by a flash mob that doesn't like what they said. If you're concerned that someone is breaking the site guidelines or otherwise abusing HN, please contact us privately.
At worse you could argue that the poster is biased, but then in this types of geopolitical discussions who isn't? Certainly not me.
Yet sometimes it leads to a better outcome than just analysis of the argument alone. Context is real. Context matters. Automatically disregarding real information on the grounds of "maturity" ideology can lead to a worse outcome, so it doesn't seem like the best course.
>This is ridiculous equivocation between a democratic society with a rule of law and an authoritarian regime. You're kidding yourself if you don't think the Chinese government has an interest in data owned by foreign nationals that they could gain access to.
The test we apply is whether an account has crossed the line of using HN primarily for political battle. If that is the case, we ban the account, regardless of which politics or nation they're fighting for or against. That is because these battles have a way of consuming everything if allowed to, and therefore must not be allowed to.
Further explanations of how we moderate this are here for anyone who wants more: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20primarily%20test&sor...
There's plenty of explanation of https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=by... if you want to understand why we make a big deal about this on HN.
Edit: why did you censor yourself? At least own up to what you post.
No, it isn't. They're only equivalent if the American executive's company in question is selling, say, Huawei networking equipment (assuming it is banned; I don't know if it's the case) to businesses in Taiwan -- probably under an arrangement where the intention to sell to Taiwan was never made clear and likely actively concealed.
That's circumvention of export controls and likely fraud at the expense of the sanctioning country -- an entirely different beast than merely passive business between the sanctioned and a separate third-party.
>will undoubtedly cause a major international crisis.
It will, but it has less to do with any escalation by the US than it does with China's own, well, unique political environment. If a similar case occurred to CFO of e.g. Yandex, I have a hard time seeing Russians/Russia reacting nearly as strongly as I expect Chinese/China to.
> Since at least 2016, U.S. authorities have been reviewing Huawei’s alleged shipping of U.S.-origin products to Iran
Huawei is free to export all their Chinese origin products to Iran. The allegation here is that us-origin products are not following us export laws. This seems more like a case of "when in Rome, follow Roman laws".
That would resolve the question of whether she was arrested solely because of her role as CFO, or if it was also an attempt to send a personal message.
I assume that is what is being discussed.
You steal a car in Belgium. Belgium investigates, charges you and issues an arrest warrant. In some cases it goes to Interpol or EU-wide systems. You go to Germany for a vacation and your name is flagged. Yes, you are arrested by Germany for violating Belgian laws and the extradition process starts.
You can challenge the arrest on a few basis (such as "Iran wants to jail me for criticizing Mullahs") but other than that, countries do help each other catch criminals. "Violating US sanctions" is apparently a crime in USA and Canada more or less has the same view on major international relations so he is likely screwed. (I think the arrest is almost automatic everywhere, but then courts and justice dept decide on whether to extradite.)
I definitely feel anxious..
She works for the company in question.
This is supposed to be about Iran? Arresting the daugther of Huawei's founder definately makes it seem like there is more going on.
How is any significant American business man flying through Hong Kong airport supposed to feel right now?
They may be but US is on the right side of history on this one. And I say this as an European.
I hate Islamic Republic with every single cell in my body but you're just wrong.
* U.S. plain and simply fucked Iran up with a coup at 1953.
* Then helped Islamic Republic gain power in 1979. (This is up for debate though)
* Then helped Saddam Hussein attack Iran.
* Then sanctioned the country to the verge of bankruptcy.
* Then made a deal and backed out of it for no reason (Internal politics?)
The late 19th century was marked by occupation by Russia and the Ottoman empire. Following defeats in wars which Iran generally had provoked.
Once Iran became a constitutional monarchy in the early 20th century political instability reigned as forces loyal to the monarchy fought for power with those with a more democratic bent. Between 1947-1951 Iran had 6 different prime ministers. The coup itself was really a continuation of this political battle with the US helping the forces loyal to the monarchy.
Iran also didn't help itself during WW2 by choosing to technically remain neutral while allowing a large German presence and German utilization of the oil fields. This led to a joint British and Russian occupation to drive the Germans out.
Even today Iran's economic woes although made worse by sanctions is mostly rooted in economic policy decisions and large scale corruption which feeds money to those backed by the revolutionary guard at the expense of the people.
But it is easier to blame the big bad West for all your woes rather than take an introspective look at your own culpability.
We've had our moments that we were getting close. Now those moments are quite fragile. Every single time the U.S. has kicked us in the nuts in those moments.
Examples are this very same moment, where the economic sanctions and the reformists finally convinced the hardliners to talk to the U.S.
Supreme Leader finally gave it a thumbs up. And he raised his concerns back then that the U.S. cannot be trusted but if that's what people want it's OK to do it.
He was right. The U.S. could not be trusted. Now reformists have lost all credibility. In 2 years we have another election and for sure a batshit crazy like Ahmadinejad is going to be elected.
Same happened around 9/11. We had a really strong reformist movement and government. Then, out of nowhere, president Bush named Iran a part of "axis of evil". That gave the hardliners enough of a reason to push back against major reforms.
Jack Straw (British foreign minister of the time) has good notes on this if you're more interested.
1953's coup was another moment like that. Actually that's probably the closest we've ever been.
Now, if Iran is moving towards democracy, and at the most important moments, you kick it in the nuts, you "are" part of the problem.
The humanitarian toll of US policies is hard to fathom.
I am so deeply ashamed by how the US treats the people of Iran.
As a European I wish the US would take all the refugees their actions cause.
The same kind of hardships that also radicalized Trump voters, it lead them to vote a populist fascist into power.
Of course if Iran or Iranians cause trouble in the future, you'd use these as an excuse to say "Trump did the right thing, see what they did, they deserved those sanctions!", ignoring cause and effect: without the sanctions, they wouldn't be that pissed off to cause these troubles.
What the US is doing is a form of terrorism. It completely nullifies any inspiring or positive influence that the narratives about the US founding principles might evoke in those abroad, and it is only possible due to the idea of American Exceptionalism, which is patently false to anyone who observes without bias US actions.
I agree the horrible policy is bipartisan.
Please clarify the nature of your disagreement with my comment. Not sure I fully understand.
> you have just been brainwashed into hating your country.
That's a very large assumption from a few lines of text, I'll classify this as a cheap baseless attack/dismissal.
> The last president and Secretary of State are directly responsible for open slave markets in libya.
So I guess Bush and Cheney are "directly responsible" for a lot of thousand dead Iraqis and Afghanis. Or were those military interventions justified in your eyes? At least Obama has admitted "the aftermath" is his biggest regret.
This isn't Reddit, but the argumentative tone of this thread certainly reminds me of Reddit. Sensitive people make me sad :(
As anopther European, the US is most certainly on the wrong side of history with this shit. They're still salty that their pet dictator got ousted all those years ago.
You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to ask you for the arguments behind your opinion. You are of course entitled to respond angrily. However, it doesn't make for great discussion and you won't persuade many people with this approach.
Regean had sovereign immunity, so he could not be personally tried.
That is a strange closed loop.
And for the sake of humanity let's hope the US is never beholden to Chinese whims.
2. Canada has similar embargo laws on the books.
3. Canada has a multi-lateral extradition treaty with the US
4. The crime is considered serious with a maximum penalty (in the US) of up to 20 years in prison plus substantial monetary fines.
So she's accused of a serious crime in the US that's also recognized as a crime in Canada, and the countries have an extradition treaty.
If I’m wholesaling Cisco routers and they show up in Syria or Iran, and Cisco and I can prove we didn’t know how they got there , that still doesn’t make it okay.
If HP (A US company) sells to a middleman without knowing who the final customer is for embargoed goods then HP and its executives can be held legally responsible.
This is mostly based on mandatory training I had to go through while working for a US company. I am not a lawyer ;)
If embargoes were trivial to get around they'd be pointless. The intent of embargo laws are to as much as possible, within the full power of the US, prevent goods from getting to a certain country regardless of any other variable. Embargoes are pretty extreme actions, there are only a few targets for those in general and the embargo usually targets specific goods.
However, it may not be salient. It's allegedly HP computer equipment - https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-huawei-skycom/exclusive-h...
This is surely about hardware.
Canada arrested him, not the US.
If you mean, what is the authority for the US to ask Canada to do that, well, asking doesn't require any special authority; OTOH, the US does have an extradition treaty with Canada , and while trade sanctions violations don't appear to be an enumerated offense covered by the extradition treaty, sanctions violations tend to also involve false declarations and certain kinds of frauds, which are covered.
What "authority" do you need to ask for a favor from a friendly ally? Canada also has active economic sanctions against Iran.
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
I'm sure you forgot. We all make mistakes.
For example, this article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18476805
...is just dominated by people that didn't read to the end. The top complaint is treating the article as if it isn't facetious (it is.)
That does get very frustrating. I understand the premise of the rule, though.
Sarcasm is annoying, and prone to misinterpretation. That's not the fault of the reader who took the author at face value.
I think the more important question is: if someone is talking out of their ass, is it worth continuing to talk to them? In RL, other factors may apply, but in a forum like this...?
Unless ofc you end up with an interesting response anyways ;) (note: did you read tfa does not constitute interesting unless your standards are disturbingly low). Imo the minimum is a good backhanded insult thrown in
I'm merely reminding. People forget lists of rules written in pages they don't frequently visit. It's no big deal. Fun fact, though: the guidelines say nothing about telling people to read the guidelines themselves ;)
What if the us origin component was a plastic bezel, a screw or some peice of sheet metal in the chassis...
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
You will also note that the poster of the question never came back to acknowledge the work people put into replying and explaining the situation. I believe that eduction wasn't the intent here.
Regarding "coming back", the poster may be in a different time zone or have an abnormal work / life schedule
Your explanation is flawed because it’s derived from how you think of the speaker with no good faith.
The crackdown on online poker was a striking example of this. To give cliff notes the US, heavily influenced by casino lobbyists, decided to ban online poker. Online poker sites were operating in foreign countries obeying all laws domestically applied to them. In spite of the fact that sites were operating within all laws that domestically applied to them, the US decided to act because they refused to overtly ban US players. In an extremely rapid action the US simultaneously confiscated the domains of these sites, and executed arrest warrants on many of the involved individuals including surreptitious raids and extraditions from places including South/Central America, and froze numerous bank accounts around the world including in places such as Ireland.
The US is powerful enough that its own desire is sufficient authority to enact any action. Guantanamo Bay is a great example. This is not a just a US property under US law. It is operated as a US territory but mostly independent of US legal authority. The Geneva Convention is disregarded as convenient. For instance the three prisoners that were reported as having committed suicide (which would result in condemnation in Islamic belief) were allegedly tortured to death at a secret facility in Guantanamo, known as 'Camp No' (as in, no it does not exist), detached from the main camp. 
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_No
I'm not saying that Huawei is innocent, I just agree with the downvoted comment that the situation seems ridiculous.
For instance, Thailand sought extradition of those insulting their king abroad.
They all have long prison sentences/death in their country, and light/no sentences in most of the rest of the world.
All countries have tried to go after people breaking their culturally sensitive thing abroad, with varying levels of success.
That doesn't make them morally equivalent. You can't defend 30 years in prison for being mean.
This sense of moral superiority or having a better judgement than others, is exactly the property that blinds individuals and entire cultures to the absurdity of their own morals.
Almost every culture at almost every point in history prevalently believes they have morals figured out and anything that came before them or from elsewhere is absurd.
In Thailand a lot of people jailed for Lèse-majesté get pardoned by the king. This king is new though so that might not continue.
This is why a number of VW corporate officers cannot travel to countries with extradition treaties with the US, due to diesel cheating scandal.
In most countries laws are created faster than citizens can learn them even if they would put a lot of effort into that. In many cases those who vote them haven't even read them in detail. There is no single person on the planet who knows all laws in all countries. Should we abandon the idea of the Internet?
It would be purely hypothetical pondering if not for GDPR which bring a lot of mess to countries outside EU and cut off some EU users from the content which they could otherwise consume.
Unless regulators get their stuff together reasonably quick, we may likely end up in some more encrypted and decentralized version of the Internet which makes governments less relevant. I don't mind.
I highly doubt that Huawei executives were unaware that this was against US policy and law; they just thought that the US would only punish the corporation and not the people involved, without realizing that the arm of US law extends to a whole web of countries that have extradition treaties with it.
See also the German VW executives who are very restricted in where they can travel to based on their crimes in the diesel emissions scandal.
The unusual thing is that the Canada-US extradition treaty allows extradition on such a "political" offense, but that's probably mostly down to the US and Canada having the same position on Iran.
Whenever you get in the cross-hairs of any country and you travel abroad, there is a non-zero risk of you being extradited.
If you're outside America, you don't have a right not to be blown to pieces by a killer robot (aka "drone"). Why would you think that? They can blow you to pieces for any reason at any time no matter where you are.
That's a given, mate. The commentor made the ridiculous claim that he had a right not to be arrested in China for breaking Chinese laws. No individual has that right.
The passage I responded to was
> How sure can I be if my company is not breaking any Chinese laws? Would it by fine if I get arrested for breaking those when I'm on a trip to Asia?
The answer is that you cannot be sure. The chinese government has every ability to arrest you for crimes committed elsewhere. They have every ability to change their laws at any time to enable their arrest. No one will even blink if they abandoned their legal system entirely to arrest just you for nothing at all in particular. There is no 'rule' saying they can only arrest you for things done on their soil; or that arrests of a non-citizen must be just; or really anything.
This is true of America as well. Why wouldn't it be? We're speaking on the level of sovereign nations.
> If you're outside America, you don't have a right not to be blown to pieces by a killer robot (aka "drone"). Why would you think that? They can blow you to pieces for any reason at any time no matter where you are.
This is another topic entirely and completely non-germaine to the thread.
Countries with "incompatible" legal systems generally don't have extradition treaties, but if they do you typically have to be charged with something that's a serious crime in both countries.
To the second aspect of your question, Canada is under treaty obligation to cooperate with extradition requests issued by US courts for fugitive apprehension, and Canadian courts will rule on whether the extradition is consistent with Canadian law before transferring the suspect to US federal custody.
Welcome to the rule of law.
What she is alleged to have done would be a crime in Canada too so her nationality isn’t relevant.
That's not a fair comparison. If any law was broken, it was definitely not broken on US soil. It would be like US arresting people that it thinks committed murders in China.
> What she is alleged to have done would be a crime in Canada too so her nationality isn’t relevant.
I think it is. It's also relevant where the crime occured. e.g., lets say some small country decides that it's illegal to wear grey color pants. Then, can they morally arrest any person anywhere in the world that they think wore grey color pants at any point in the time at any place in the world?
It seems the only allegations are against Huawei, of which sh is just one of many board members, and there's a good chance she wasn't even involved with the deal the allegation is concerning.
There's all sorts of similar agreements/declarations/etc. We have a rather fluid border for the arrest and extradition of individuals.
The US calling Canada on the phone and asking them to arrest someone they want seems too.. easy? I imagine there's a limit where goodwill only gets you so far, and then some sort of compensation is expected. Maybe there's a lot of backdoor Gov2Gov money funneling or economic deals, but idk. This seems like stuff that is opaque to average citizens.
> All extradition treaties currently in force require foreign requests for extradition to be submitted through diplomatic channels, usually from the country's embassy in Washington to the Department of State. Many treaties also require that requests for provisional arrest be submitted through diplomatic channels, although some permit provisional arrest requests to be sent directly to the Department of Justice. The Department of State reviews foreign extradition demands to identify any potential foreign policy problems and to ensure that there is a treaty in force between the United States and the country making the request, that the crime or crimes are extraditable offenses, and that the supporting documents are properly certified in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3190. If the request is in proper order, an attorney in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser prepares a certificate attesting to the existence of the treaty, etc., and forwards it with the original request to the Office of International Affairs.
For the Canadian version, see https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/emla-eej/tocan-aucan.htm...:
There are three key stages to the Canadian extradition process:
The Minister of Justice must determine whether to authorize the commencement of extradition proceedings in the Canadian courts by issuing an “Authority to Proceed” ;
Where an Authority to Proceed has been issued, the Canadian courts must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the person’s committal for extradition; and
Where the person is committed for extradition, the Minister of Justice must personally decide whether to order the person’s surrender to the foreign state.
A person sought for extradition may appeal their committal and seek judicial review of the Minister’s surrender order.
In all cases, the conduct for which extradition is sought must be considered criminal in both the requesting country and in Canada. This is known as “dual criminality”.
Central Authorities from outside Canada are encouraged to contact the IAG to determine what is required to make an extradition request to Canada, including the evidentiary requirements, and whether provisional arrest is appropriate in a given situation.
Some times the US later finds out that the arresting country’s courts found no authority or legality for their own country to arrest the person and wont continue with extradition. This happened in New Zealand.
So typically a bit more research is needed and they find a way to get it right in future cases.
Another thing the US does is send an FBI agent to merely observe the arrest, to ensure that it is later compatible with US courts as well. Its a lot of organizations to make happy but the US is essentially one of the only organizations with the resources and interest to bother.
It is an interesting outcome of the nation state concept.
Canada: 5'4 @110 lb kid in glasses with a pocket protector. Very smart. Has adoring crowd that claps.
US: the 6'1 220lb line backer built in the same school yard
Arrested Chinese exec: 4'10, 78lb daughter of a family from a different school somewhere over there. That school has lots of those like the US, US sometimes exchanges words with that school but they are somewhere over there.
Girls shows up in a schoolyard with Canada and the US. US tells Canada: "Give her to me. I have some business with her".