Live data from Hacker News

Second Canadian 'missing' in China

bbc.com

31–40 of 117 posts

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#31
post #7

I have little doubt both of these guys are spies. A guy working for an NGO that does "crisis research" and a guy leading tours in North Korea. LOL. Any country with sufficiently advanced counter-intelligence has a list of spies operating on their soil that they monitor and keep in reserve for when it's politically favorable to round them up.

1. Canada doesn't spy China. They cannot be spies. 2. China is an authoritarian state. The two Canadian are innocent. 3. I have made my mind before reading the article.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meng's trial in the US would be subject to political or economic considerations Unlike in China, Canadian and American courts are fiercely independent of the executive.

I've seen this brought up quite a lot, but to me, a Chinese national, it's confusing how judiciary branch is independent. Didn't Trump nominate the supreme court justice? And isn't the nomination confirmed by congress? What about the constant conservative vs democrat number battle in the supreme court? Also, didn't Trump himself say that he can intervene in Ms. Meng's case? Edit: Great. Thanks for the downvotes as an…

The executive nominates judges, but they hold tenure for life and after confirmation operate with complete independence as a separate branch of government with their own budget etc. The Supreme Court is also irrelevant to this because they do not initiate investigations, they do not oversee prosecutors, and they do not administer the justice system. They only hear cases about Constitutional issues - not criminal issues, so unless there's a constitutional dispute a case has no chance of reaching them.

Judges in general do not oversee or initiate prosecutions, U.S. attorneys do. They're also appointed by the executive, but they operate independently and while, subject to Congressional oversight, he can fire some of them (but not the permanent civil servants who are the bulk of the staff), he cannot directly order them to do anything.

In any case, an investigation of this complexity almost certainly started under Obama, just because they tend to take many years to reach the stage where charges are filed.

Trump frequently claims to have powers that he does not have. He has said many times that he is going to do something only to find that he cannot actually do it, and so it hasn't been done.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has a long history of refusing extradition requests by allies despite overwhelming evidence. It's become a one way street. The UK has blocked extradition to the US before even though the guilt is assured[0], the alleged crimes here are nothing in comparison. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#British_governme...

> the alleged crimes here are nothing in comparison Willfully violating sanctions is a serious crime.

Sanctions imposed by the U.S that hold no merit according to WTO or International law aren't even legal and are in fact considered an act of war. The only crime committed here is by the U.S.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has a long history of refusing extradition requests by allies despite overwhelming evidence. It's become a one way street. The UK has blocked extradition to the US before even though the guilt is assured[0], the alleged crimes here are nothing in comparison. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#British_governme...

> the alleged crimes here are nothing in comparison Willfully violating sanctions is a serious crime.

UN sanctions were lifted on 16 January 2016.

The US unilaterally decided in May this year they want to pull out of that agreement.

The EU is still pushing ahead to have their largest companies trading with Iran despite American protestations. We both know nothing will happen to Daimler or Societe General execs.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has a long history of refusing extradition requests by allies despite overwhelming evidence. It's become a one way street. The UK has blocked extradition to the US before even though the guilt is assured[0], the alleged crimes here are nothing in comparison. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#British_governme...

> the alleged crimes here are nothing in comparison Willfully violating sanctions is a serious crime.

Which is why U.S. banks simply get a fine when they do it. The hollier than thou attitude when it comes to discussing China online honestly urkes me.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#36
post #28

canada had to have seen this coming.

Canada was fulfilling an extradition treaty it has with the United States. It really had no say in the matter. This should be of surprise to nobody.

No, Canada had a say. It's a card like any other. Comply with the treaty or not. There's no clear answer. What happened here is clearly a choice officials weighed in on.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meng's trial in the US would be subject to political or economic considerations Unlike in China, Canadian and American courts are fiercely independent of the executive.

I've seen this brought up quite a lot, but to me, a Chinese national, it's confusing how judiciary branch is independent. Didn't Trump nominate the supreme court justice? And isn't the nomination confirmed by congress? What about the constant conservative vs democrat number battle in the supreme court? Also, didn't Trump himself say that he can intervene in Ms. Meng's case? Edit: Great. Thanks for the downvotes as an…

Trump says a lot of things but the system is actually more balanced than the power-play media show makes it seem.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#38

China is making themselves look horrible here. Ms. Meng has a proper reason for being arrested (the allegations are that she committed fraud to bypass US sanctions against Iran and sell them US tech by lying about HuaWei and SkyComs involvement to HSBC). There will be a trial, this investigation has been happening for years, and it is by the Justice Department, not a request from Trump (who seems to have been caught…

Whatever it is, it's nowhere near is simple as the good guy / bad guy situation you're making it out to be.

US sanctions against Iran versus the "situation normal" with Saudi Arabia despite the state-sanctioned murder of a journalist makes a mockery of US foreign policy.

It's not as simple as that either. It's politics and money. ie. There will be no winners, and everyone involved is already covered in shit.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meng's trial in the US would be subject to political or economic considerations Unlike in China, Canadian and American courts are fiercely independent of the executive.

I've seen this brought up quite a lot, but to me, a Chinese national, it's confusing how judiciary branch is independent. Didn't Trump nominate the supreme court justice? And isn't the nomination confirmed by congress? What about the constant conservative vs democrat number battle in the supreme court? Also, didn't Trump himself say that he can intervene in Ms. Meng's case? Edit: Great. Thanks for the downvotes as an…

> Didn't Trump nominate the supreme court justice?

Independent, not sovereign [1]. The branches can check each other, but a judge over whom the President has pretty much zero power will decide if Ms. Meng is guilty or not.

For example, one of Trump's nominees recently voted to keep existing case law regarding Planned Parenthood in place [2]. This disappointed conservatives. But there isn't anything the President can do except complain about it.

> didn't Trump himself say that he can intervene in Ms. Meng's case?

Trump says lots of things. His Justice Department can decide whether or not to bring the case. That's prosecutorial discretion, and it's devastatingly powerful. But in the end, if Ms. Meng is to be convicted, an independent judge presiding over a jury must agree with their case.

(It's not all rosy. The U.S. federal conviction rate is over 90% [3]. Better than China's 99.9%, but nothing to phone home about.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence

[2] https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/12/12/wh...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States

[4] https://qz.com/246696/chinas-criminal-conviction-rate-is-99-...

Side note: You asked an honest question. It's ridiculous you're getting downvoted.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#40
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada has an extradition agreement with the US. The Canadian government has a duty to uphold its end, which means arrest the individual when the US requests it and investigate the merits of the case. The Justice Department would do the same, though I'm sad to say, as a Canadian, that our prosecutors in Canada seem less interested in high-level white collar crime. (Yes, less interested than their American counterpart…

the world doesn't work like that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik power and situation dictates how laws, specially from international treaties, are upheld.

[Downvotes for my parent are unwarranted.]

It would be naive to believe politics/geopolitics plays no role in the justice system; it would be equally naive to believe rule of law is a sham.

I am an immigrant from a place where the legal code is largely a set of tools and pretexts for the powerful. I can assure you that the rule of law is more than just a phrase thrown around by our politicians.

Post reply on HN