US blocks shipments of semiconductors to Huawei

Post by generatorguy » Fri, May 15, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

billfruit wrote: post #110

gpm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Canadian government wishes they had never gotten involved - they should have just let her slip. With the US and China, Canada is between a rock and a hard place. Source on this? I certainly haven't heard the government say anything to this effect. As a Canadian I certainly do not wish we had "just let her slip". We're a country of laws. We should follow those laws, not just give in to pressure from China becaus…

I doub't her detainment had anything at all to do about Canada, so in this case Canada was, it appeared merely toeing the US line, rather than having a specific stake in the matter. Really though the crux of the matter is wether Meng is held due to a real criminality as per Canadian/US law, or is being held as a political move, and signals from both US and Canadian administration has been confusing in this regard. So…

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, May 15, 2020, 3:46 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #152

zadokshi wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there are no ‘human rights’ in America. There are only ‘American rights’. Non US citizens are not protected by the Constitution. Do not have free speech, etc...

Noncitizens are protected by the Constitution. It's just that those who are blithely violating the rights of noncitizens simply don't care about obeying the laws themselves. A document without maintainers is dead.

Post by free_rms » Fri, May 15, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #154

free_rms wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying we should all ignore the very, very obvious political angles here and trust that it's all about the rule of law, applied neutrally and apolitically? Next you'll be telling us that a police officer would never lie on the stand.

No, I'm telling you that you should look at the public court process and conclude that it's the rule of law being applied, very little trust is necessary in this instance. Not requiring trust is the entire reason why we have such a public court process.

Post by backtracking » Fri, May 15, 2020, 3:55 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #125

evancox100 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “loophole” was this: “Under the new rule, any foreign company that uses American technology to produce microchips would need a license to sell to Huawei. That makes it difficult for major chip contract manufacturers like Taiwan’s T.S.M.C. to sell to Huawei, because its supply chains rely heavily on American manufacturing tools. It could also clamp down on sales by makers of semiconductor equipment, like Applied M…

I don't really understand why they are requiring a license to sell to Huawei in the first place. That this is all such a string of vagueness makes me suspect it's a bunch of bullshit, more about politics (in the 'optics' sense) or business competitiveness than actual national security.

Post by ladyanita22 » Fri, May 15, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #87

spangry wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, it's difficult to be diplomatic when one side is so belligerent, sensitive and petty. China has started imposing trade sanctions on my country (Australia) because our Prime Minister had the audacity to suggest there should be an independent inquiry into the origin of COVID-19. Meanwhile, they see fit to interfere in our domestic and political affairs through various front organisations, bribery and…

That's fair-ish for Australia (but then again, Australia is part of the five eyes, so essentially a part of US global policy), but less so for the US. I believe most people see US China in conflict, they don't really consider China Australia, Vietnam or Japan.