Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Second Canadian 'missing' in China

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#101

Post by barry-cotter »

latch wrote: post #81
barry-cotter wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you conflate Hong Kong and the PRC mainland tells quite a lot. Hong Kong had the rule of law and still has a close approximation. The mainland doesn’t. If you knew accountants in both places you doubtless know that an audit from a HK firm is held in vastly greater esteem than a Chinese one because they’re less likely to be leaned on or threatened. Did you know any business people? If you did you know ho…

Conflating them would have been "I lived in Hong Kong thus have an informed opinion about China." I gave a link with specific examples of _experts_ saying China has rule of law but with limitations and asking someone with expertise to compare these limitations to those you find in, say, America. All you're doing is repeating "China doesn't have rule of law." Unless you are such an expert (and you very well may be, bu…

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/thatschina

> After seven years building up a magazine empire in China, I had it stolen by the state. I lived in the grey zone that is China's media business and, despite my commitment to the country, paid a high price

https://www.baldingsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/An-...

> A few weeks later over beers with a lawyer colleague, I recounted my tale of hysterical woe. He informed me that in reality, much of Chinese dispute resolution from neighborhood quarrels all the way through to significant civil and criminal litigation follow a similar pattern with open conflict avoided. According to him, recompense for damages all the way through to incidents involving death can allow people to avoid jail time. What I first thought a mistranslation, Negotiation Rooms existed to serve that purpose where every dispute from noise complaints to many business disputes to many acts that would qualify as felonies resolved themselves with official help in a Negotiation Room. In China as a foreigner, you become so used to being treated differently, both good and bad, that it surprises you to find out your experience is just like everyone else.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#102

Post by NTDF9 »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #97
ahakki wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I don’t know about tech, but multiple swiss banks have had internal advisories against visit to the US, as some of their employees have been arrested.

Swiss banks have been hiding assets of people worldwide and many nations consider that a crime. So yes, if you're helping Americans cheat on their taxes, you're going to get arrested. So the 'advisory' would be: don't break laws.

> So the 'advisory' would be: don't break laws.

Whose laws? Why should the Swiss follow US laws? What if the US establishes arbitrary laws? Should the Swiss still follow those laws?

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#103

Post by ardy42 »

paraditedc wrote: post #24
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12

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…

> I've seen this brought up quite a lot, but to me, a Chinese national, it's confusing how judiciary branch is independent.

I'm an American, but I have a Chinese friend who liked the 近距离看美国 series of books by 林达 as an explanation of the American system for a Chinese audience.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#104

Post by paraditedc »

ardy42 wrote: post #103
paraditedc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I've seen this brought up quite a lot, but to me, a Chinese national, it's confusing how judiciary branch is independent. I'm an American, but I have a Chinese friend who liked the 近距离看美国 series of books by 林达 as an explanation of the American system for a Chinese audience.

Thanks for the suggestion. Gonna pick it up soon!

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#105

Post by tomp »

NTDF9 wrote: post #102
sonnyblarney wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swiss banks have been hiding assets of people worldwide and many nations consider that a crime. So yes, if you're helping Americans cheat on their taxes, you're going to get arrested. So the 'advisory' would be: don't break laws.

> So the 'advisory' would be: don't break laws. Whose laws? Why should the Swiss follow US laws? What if the US establishes arbitrary laws? Should the Swiss still follow those laws?

But that's the point, no? Swiss have their own laws (hiding assets), US have their own laws (arresting people who hide assets), seems perfectly fair.

Personally, I wish no developed (e.g. EU, US) country would allow any economic relationship with any country that allows tax avoidance (like 0% tax) or tax evasion (like bank secrecy).

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#106

Post by rgbrenner »

sbmthakur wrote: post #72
paraditedc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? And isn't the nomination confirmed by congress? What about the constant conservative vs democrat number battle in the supreme court? I am not from the US but another democratic country. So I think I can provide an answer. Being nominated(in democracies) doesn't imply that they've to play by the nominator's rules. In democracies, all branches of the Government have to…

That's not the way things work in the US. First, the president is not a figurehead of the legislature. He's the head of a separate branch of government called the executive... which also contains all US agencies: DOJ, NASA, HUD, CIA, BLM, SEC, etc.

He nominates judges, and the legislature (which is its own branch) decides if they agree with his picks (by voting in the senate).

Similarly, he nominates people to oversee each division in the executive branch, and the senate confirms those people also. The people he nominates are in charge of their division. He can't go to the DOJ and demand they drop cases... that's a crime called obstruction of justice.

Constitutional cases are heard by the supreme court (but Meng's case isn't one of those).. but if the president does not like their decision, he can't do anything himself about it. There are only two ways to change the constitution: by getting 2/3rds of the 50 states to agree to the change (very hard, long process that usually takes much longer than the president's term.. rarely attempted); or by nominating judges to the supreme court who favor a different interpretation.

On the second part, there are a few road blocks too: whoever he picks must be confirmed by the senate. Once they are confirmed, it's a lifetime appointment. So if you look at the current court, you can see the current judges were nominated by 5 different presidents over 30 years. Since he needs to wait for one of these judges to retire, the president's picks will always be a minority on the court. He has no way of knowing when or if someone will retire. He'll only get a couple of chances to nominate a judge during his term (presidents serve max 2 terms of 4 years).

The legislature and president can change laws (sometimes those changes are the result of court decisions), but they don't change the court's decisions. Just their future decisions. Also laws can't override the constitution. And there are limits to the laws they can pass.. they can't for example make things illegal retroactively.

Also, I should add, the president can be imprisoned for violating the law. If he obstructs justice, he can impeached by the legislature and removed from office. He can then be prosecuted for the crimes he's committed. It's very unlikely though, because in the past, the vice president (who replaces the president after he's removed) can pardon the president for his crimes.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#107

Post by NTDF9 »

tomp wrote: post #105
NTDF9 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the 'advisory' would be: don't break laws. Whose laws? Why should the Swiss follow US laws? What if the US establishes arbitrary laws? Should the Swiss still follow those laws?

But that's the point, no? Swiss have their own laws (hiding assets), US have their own laws (arresting people who hide assets), seems perfectly fair. Personally, I wish no developed (e.g. EU, US) country would allow any economic relationship with any country that allows tax avoidance (like 0% tax) or tax evasion (like bank secrecy).

> Personally, I wish no developed (e.g. EU, US) country would allow any economic relationship with any country that allows tax avoidance (like 0% tax) or tax evasion (like bank secrecy).

But US allows huge tax deductions for businesses. Maybe other countries don't? Wouldn't they have a right to say, "Personally, I wish no developed (e.g. EU, US) country would allow any economic relationship with any country that allows unfair deductions or tax evasion (like states give to Amazon).

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#108

Post by str33t_punk »

kodablah wrote: post #98
sonnyblarney wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are charges laid against Meng in public, the whole world can see what she's accused of. So far, there seems to be rule of law. The Canadians in China have vanished: we don't know why they if they have been arrested, charged, there's no hint of anything. So yes - 'being charged in a court of law' is rather different from 'government agents arbitrarily grabbing you off the street'.

Once again doesn't answer the original question. How did the commenter come to the conclusion that two people were randomly arrested?

We still don't know why they have been arrested. The only reason that China has given was they were 'endangering national security'. Seeing that they use this reason every time they want to arrest a dissident, it seems like a random arrest.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#109

Post by str33t_punk »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #38
str33t_punk wrote: post #9

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.

I'm not arguing for or against Iran sanctions. However, they exist, and the US has a history of enforcing such sanctions. Getting around sanctions is typically given large punishments (see the Movie 'War Dogs'). This is not some arrest on trumped up charges for 'national security' like the Chinese arrest

The fact of the matter is that there is strong evidence that Huawei committed fraud to breach US sanctions. This is neither a 'good' or 'bad' thing, it is just very illegal.

Re: Second Canadian 'missing' in China

#110

Post by sonnyblarney »

NTDF9 wrote: post #102
sonnyblarney wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swiss banks have been hiding assets of people worldwide and many nations consider that a crime. So yes, if you're helping Americans cheat on their taxes, you're going to get arrested. So the 'advisory' would be: don't break laws.

> So the 'advisory' would be: don't break laws. Whose laws? Why should the Swiss follow US laws? What if the US establishes arbitrary laws? Should the Swiss still follow those laws?

Money laundering and tax evasion are not 'arbitrary' laws.
Post reply on HN