President Trump To Use Huawei CFO As a Bargaining Chip (politico.com) 351
hackingbear shares a report from Politico, adding: "This fuels the suspicion that the Chinese executive is held as a hostage for the ongoing trade negotiation with China." From the report: President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he reserved the right to weigh in on the Justice Department's case against the CFO of Huawei, if it would help him close a trade deal with Beijing or would serve other American national security interests. "If I think it's good for what will be certainly the largest trade deal ever made -- which is a very important thing -- what's good for national security -- I would certainly intervene if I thought it was necessary," Trump told Reuters. Trump added that President Xi Jinping of China had not called him about the case, but that the White House had been in touch with both the Justice Department and Chinese officials. Huawei's CFO, Meng Wanzhou, was arrested in Canada earlier this month at the request of American authorities, who allege that she violated U.S. sanctions against Iran. Yesterday, a Vancouver judge ruled that Meng would be released on a $7.5 million bail if she remains in British Columbia.
Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
That seems like a pretty unhealthy precedent to set.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
That seems like a pretty unhealthy precedent to set.
Quite so. I believe she is still in Canada. If Canada has any backbone at all, they should refuse to extradite in the wake of these extrajudicial threats.
Re: (Score:2)
Too right. I need to contact my MP.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
Canada acted in good faith in accordance with international law. Canada's politicians do not have the ability to tell the legal system what to do, because it's independent.
If Canada has been played in Trump's pissing contest with China ... and certainly Trump is suggesting he'd exert influence over the US legal system to get his way .. then I agree with this entirely, and hopefully the judiciary deems that since the US didn't act in good faith we consider the matter dropped.
This is no different from Russian sending out INTERPOL red notices to suppress dissent.
Trump seems to be literally suggesting he'd actively pressure the department of justice to either stage this, or to drop charges.
This is some scary shit, and if this is the kind of ally the US is, then I will likely never go there again. The US is on a path of becoming a very scary and dangerous nation in terms of what it is willing to do with its friends to prove a point.
Fuck you, America.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Canada's politicians do not have the ability to tell the legal system what to do, because it's independent.
The politicians can't tell the courts how to rule, but the PM can drop the extradition request.
So Justin can't extradite without court approval, but he can unilaterally decide to NOT extradite.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it is a Minister that can decide not to extradite due to the political shit. Forget whether it is the Minister of Justice or international Affairs. Though that step happens after the extradition hearing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It really sucks, but we have a history of letting people go when it's politically expedient -- e.g. swaps with the russkies.
Re: (Score:2)
The Canadian government is in too late mode. Way too late to do anything but make it worse. Reality is they got sucked in by the US government because the US government was pissed about the Canadian government bragging about the extra trade they picked up at US trade war expense. Make no mistake it is a US scam and the Canadians were just the idiot sheep that got it's hind legs stuck in the American herders gum boots and is now getting ridden hard. America plays the game and Canada pays the price and make n
Re: Hmmm (Score:2)
China knows it's the U.S. When it comes to funding Iran, the international system is draconian. No reasonable member of NATO would refuse such a request.
Re: (Score:3)
That seems like a pretty unhealthy precedent to set.
Quite so. ...snipsnip...
Agreed. I wonder if our new Messiah Donald has heard the phrase "What goes around comes around". I.e. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or He that soweth iniquity shall reap calamity; And the rod of his wrath shall fail.
And I think the failing rod has long since come to pass.
Re: Hmmm (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please. Cocaine Mitch and they boys will never turn on Trump. Judicial nominees matter more.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure Pence wouldn't tow the line?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet we are not allowed to be offended that you refer to our President as a dotard in a playpen.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yet we are not allowed to be offended that you refer to our President as a dotard in a playpen.
You are totally allowed. We'd think you would be used to it by now.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At worst, this person will go through the courts for the crimes they are accused of (and absolutely committed). Or are you saying that the sanctions and those who violate them should be ignored?
It appears that you are already certain that she did what she is accused of. You must have some secret knowledge, please let everyone have the evidence.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
The warrant and arrest was legitimate. If the Canadian court rules she can be extradited (something outside the US's control) and she makes it to trial in the US, it will be real courts based on real law. The President cannot convene a kangaroo court in the US. What I read Trump's comments to mean, is that if it's beneficial to trade negotiations, he'd be willing to have the Justice Department rescind the charges or to offer a lenient plea. This would likely come with a commitment to stop dealing sanctioned items with Iran.
He's not holding her hostage. He likely had nothing at all to do with the ongoing investigation which is fairly serious. It's her and her father's company that put her in this situation. She knew of the issue and had been avoiding the US for several months despite having a son in school and business interests. This did not come out of thin air for the sake of negotiating.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
The President cannot convene a kangaroo court in the US.
That is what Guantanamo is for.....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, it's not for criminals. It's for "enemy combatants ". Enemy combatants aren't afforded civil rights by the Constitution, their rights are afforded by conventions of war.
Re: Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
That seems like a pretty unhealthy precedent to set.
Especially odd considering Trumps penchant for thinking things through and considering all the options and future consequences of his thoughts and actions. Quite off his game, I'd say. Perhaps he's distracted. Then again, I don't play 4D chess and can't perhaps see the lack of downsides to this going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty impossible precedent. She's in the Canadian judicial system - Trump just handed her a get out of jail free card.
Intermixing Domains Bigly (Score:2)
He's been mixing trade, military, law, and personal business ever since he got into office. And you wonder why the turnover is so high.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it depends.
If there is probable cause to arrest her and a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution, we are technically in our rights to ask Canada to extradite this person. And then if China offers a deal to get her back, it wouldn't be that unusual to let her return. We do that with spies all the time. With other types of convicted criminals sometimes the home country agrees to detains them for the rest of their American sentence, but that's not strictly necessary.
But to publicly announce that you are using somebody held in custody as a bargaining chip is astonishingly stupid. There is nothing to be gained by saying that, and the instant you do everyone starts operating off the assumption that this was a political arrest. This not only puts you at a disadvantage, you really encourage the other country to collect bargaining chips of their own.
This man is catastrophically incompetent. To be fair, political posturing is a big part of being president, and he's actually pretty good at that. But no amount of bullshitting brilliance can do the whole job for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
If he understood power politics he would have never made this announcement. He may have just thrown away any chance that Canada will actually agree to extradite her. This is incompetence politics.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? The charges against her are as real as they have been.
What he said may give her a hope for an easier resolution — he didn't threaten her with death penalty, which could've alarmed Canada, he promised, she might be let go.
Re: Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
"The political incidence test looks to whether the offence is "part of and incidental to a political struggle". Initially, it did not concern itself with the motives of the offender" from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_offence_exception
When the Trump said what he said he basically implied that this was part and incidental to a political struggle. I agree with OP, and bet her Lawyer's will enjoy his words.
Re: Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
She is not part to a political struggle — she is not even a US citizen. She may be part of a trade-war between countries, but that's not political at all.
How is a trade war not political?
He said nothing of the kind. The media's disease of putting words into Trump's mouth has, evidently, infected their best customers...
Damn fake news at it again! Putting words in Trump's mouth by printing them verbatim!!
He said, he might allow her to go, if China cooperates — the charges are perfectly real and not political.
The arrest didn't seem to be political, but now she's in custody Trump is talking about using the charges for political gain.
On the one hand that could mean "we got a deal, drop all charges!!"
But it could also mean "I don't care if the case is falling apart, I need the leverage! Keep her in custody!!"
Hence the reason why a Canadian Judge, even if they think the charges are legitimate, could refuse the extradition request on the grounds she won't be subjected to a fair legal process.
Re: (Score:2)
She may be part of a trade-war between countries, but that's not political at all.
WTF? you don't get much more political than a trade war.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the Canadian government gets the last word in when it comes to extraditions, it's usually yes but politics is one reason they can say no.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? The charges against her are as real as they have been.
Nobody told you that there is NO formal charge against her so far, only a provisional charge? And if the news reporting is right, this case was dated back to 2009-2014. Not to mention this whole Iran sanction thing is a falsified accusation without any backing from the UN.
Of course, now she's a hostage. Whether there will be a charge made up depending on how China responds.
It is apparent the real terrorist state is not Iran but the US.
Re: (Score:2)
> NO formal charge against her so far, only a provisional charge?
?? There's an arrest warrant. If you find out someone is going to Canada that you have a warrant for, you send a provisional request to Canada so they can act immediately. Then within 45 days you follow up with a formal extradition request. That's what the treaty says.
45 days! (Score:2)
That is a long time to keep someone on spec.
It should be something like 7 days. If there is not enough evidence to extradite then the arrest warrant should never have been issued.
Within civilized countries there are definite limits on how long Police can hold someone without charge, and they are nothing like 45 days!
Re: (Score:2)
It's normal for extradition treaties. It makes sense, because you need to present lots of evidence in a radically different jurisdiction. Exact same timeframe applies to Canada's requests of the US, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
US can impose its own sanctions.
And the rest of the work can ignore them, and mostly are.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? The charges against her are as real as they have been.
Which charges would those be? The charge of a Chinese citizen in China not complying with a unilateral declaration of "sanctions" by the USA which isn't even recognized by the UN? That's not a charge, it's a farce and a pretext. US law stops 12 miles offshore. Chinese citizens can do whatever they want under Chinese law while in China.
I can't wait for Saudis to start grabbing American tourists for extradition from Dubai for consuming alcohol, fornication and blasphemy while in the US.
Re: Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Which charges would those be? The charge of a Chinese citizen in China not complying with a unilateral declaration of "sanctions" by the USA which isn't even recognized by the UN? That's not a charge, it's a farce and a pretext. US law stops 12 miles offshore. Chinese citizens can do whatever they want under Chinese law while in China.
Your UID tells me you're probably senile, so I'll try to be gentle:
1. The UN doesn't need to recognize US law. As a general rule, the UN does not get involved with the laws of ANY country, though they will occasionally criticise ones which infringe on basic human rights.
2. You have no clue if her crime was commited while she was in China; you're just assuming it. This may be a revelation to you, but Chinese people do actually leave China once in a while. They even travel to the USA now and then.
3. Even if she had never left China, that doesn't mean she couldn't have broken a US law. Canada exports a lot of Canola to China. If I were to contaminate one of those shipments with ricin, I would very much be breaking Chinese law. If I were to then travel to (or through) a country which has an extradition treaty with China, the Chinese would be fully within their rights to demand that I be extradited on the charge of murder.
I can't wait for Saudis to start grabbing American tourists for extradition from Dubai for consuming alcohol, fornication and blasphemy while in the US.
The Saudis do not have laws against US citizens consuming alcohol while in the US. If they did then yes, they absolutely could do that; and the US would advize it's citizens not to travel to Saudi Arabia.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh great, that means the ICC can begin war crime investigations of US citizens. The US has been very vocal about preventing that, as they claim it infringes on their sovereignty. How is this any different?
Many many many countries try to do this all the time, the US is no exception beyond our large power. "Your laws do not apply in our country, but our laws apply to yours." might be hypocritical, but it is not uncommon.
Re: Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
If he understood power politics he would have never made this announcement. He may have just thrown away any chance that Canada will actually agree to extradite her. This is incompetence politics.
Nah, this is straight out of the N-Korean playbook, take hostages and use them as bargaining chips to extract concessions. Kind of a new low for the US though.
Re: Hmmm (Score:2)
Kind of a new low for the US though.
Does projecting ethics onto geopolitics make things simpler for you?
Re: (Score:3)
Did no-one tell him that you're supposed to get the hostage first before using them as a bargaining chip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pants-on-your-head Politics
Re: (Score:2)
If he understood power politics he would have never made this announcement. He may have just thrown away any chance that Canada will actually agree to extradite her. This is incompetence politics.
I'm Canadian. Canadians follow the rules to a fault. She will almost certainly be extradited.
Re: Hmmm (Score:3)
So am I. Prior to this comment she almost certainly would have been. Now it's a whole new ballgame. I can absolutely see a judge deciding that Trumps comments indicate that the US is looking to hold her for political reasons.
Funny enough, while checking google for Canadian extradition policies just now I stumbled on this article:
https://globalnews.ca/news/475... [globalnews.ca]
Looks like the Canadian government has taken his comments in the same light as I have, and they've already made a public response.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a joke, right? Nothing good for anyone is gonna come out of this. Why would China not just start trumping up charges to arrest Americans? As soon as they did that, the toddler would back down like the wimpy weenie he is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except they won't. They'd likely just incorporate overseas.
Re: (Score:2)
How would this help them avoid trumped-up charges in China? Wherever they incorporate, if the executives are dear to someone in the US, who is in a position to put pressure on government, they will be facing the danger you've alluded to. And to avoid it, they'll try to have less to do with China — which will mean, in many cases, stop owning stuff there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except Trump is overplaying his hand just like with Kim. China isn't gonna blink, they'll just escalate. The PRC isn't quaking in their boots since they'll be in power long past when this toddler leaves office.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
voting
Hahahahahaha good one.
Ah... Where will this end? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like a dangerous/crazy step to take. How does this type of negotiation tactic end? (ie - has someone thought out the likely reactions and steps the Other Side is likely to take?) What's to stop other countries from following suit?
Traditional diplomacy rested on a sort of 'gentleman's agreement'. While some of that diplomacy took forever and yielded less than we wished, at least (on the surface) it was civilized and seemed to prevent harm. Our current course could get unpleasant quickly.
Or am I just overthinking this?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Dangerous for sure. Does that make it crazy... I dunno. I would say it's too risky to do, but that doesn't make it irrational.
Seems extremely unlikely. It's not likely Trump is keeping the people who's job it is to think about stuff like that informed, and even if they have, there doesn't seem to be any evidence he listens to their advice.
Re: (Score:3)
Look up the usual punishment for breaking sanctions against Iran. Fines, lots of fines aimed at the company, not arresting the CFO and threatening 10 or 20 years . This is pretty well unprecedented
Re: (Score:2)
She's accused of violating the old, global sanctions against Iran. You know, the ones the EU, Russia, etc. agreed to. Heck, I think even China agreed to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because China only arrests people who have committed crimes? They've never capriciously jailed and executed people without even needing a reason. Nope, not once.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ah... Where will this end? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's based on international law and norms. However, if a superior orders someone to arrest a diplomat, the diplomat will be arrested. It's not like the handcuffs won't lock or something.
We're so far off the reservation right now, I could easily see the FBI arresting a diplomat and holding them for an extended stay. We're getting pretty close to the point that there are no consequences for high level executive branch employees breaking the law.
The Justice Dept has already said no (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, his poll numbers haven't budge an inch (according to 538, which is usually right). He's a true Demagogue. Nothing he does or says makes his base second guess him. The GOP is even trying to get him to go after Social Security and Medicare, with the assumption being that he could do it without taking any damage politically. And you know what? I think they're right. Fortunately he's said no (so far).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's honestly funny and sad to see how far the TDS goes. People like you actually deny that people are commonly used as bargaining chips by US. Even a cursory check will show you countless cases of negotiations with Talibs for example, where people were used as bargaining chips as a matter of routine. "We got this commander of yours, he will be returned in exchange for these concessions" is a norm.
You can find similar cases in pretty much every relationship, across many states. Even small states that press
Re: The Justice Dept has already said no (Score:5, Insightful)
There is precedent (loads of it) for exchange prisoners during a war, since the laws in play are completely different. There's also some precedent for exchanging captured spies for other captured spies, which is again a rather unique situation. There is zero precedent for releasing prisoners convicted of any type of crimes in exchange for trade agreements. If you start doing that you may as well admit that your laws mean nothing.
Re: The Justice Dept has already said no (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There is precedent (loads of it) for exchange prisoners during a war, since the laws in play are completely different.
Except that China has not taken a hostage first.
Only a terrorist state would take the first hostage, outside of a battle field, on fake charge.
With POWs and Spies there's equivalence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of whether or not you support him, wouldn't you expect this strategy from someone who wrote "The Art of the Deal" and promised to run the country like a business? I'm a little surprised his poll numbers aren't going up.
His base claims to love the rule of law (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is his base has stopped thinking and they're just feeling. Trump feels _good_. He tells them what they want to hear. He gives them simple answers to complex problems. It's classic demagoguery just like Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Mussolini did. Trump's not violent like them, he just like attention. So he'll fade into the background when his time's up.
Trump's paving the way for a real dictator. We, and most definately Trump's base (who've been crying about FEMA death camps since Obama got elected) should be freaking the heck out about that. Trouble is they mostly get their media from propaganda outfits (Fox News, Alex Jones, and now even NRA TV, go watch it, it's creepy as hell). So they can't see the very thing they fear most creeping up on them...
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of whether or not you support him, wouldn't you expect this strategy from someone who wrote "The Art of the Deal"
Not really [wikipedia.org]. I mean Trump endorsed it and it's certainly inspired by Trump but it represents a more sophisticated approach to dealmaking than he uses.
and promised to run the country like a business? I'm a little surprised his poll numbers aren't going up.
Successful businesses recognize that trying to exploit every loophole works in the short-term but it raises the costs of doing business and drives away partners and customers. There's a reason Trump made all his recent money from scams, Russian money launderers, and selling his image. No one legitimate wants to do business with him.
Trying to run a country the
Now we're getting Politico reposts... (Score:2)
This is Slashdot, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot has had political posts for nearly two decades even back when Taco was running the show. Get over yourself.
You realize I said "Politico" and not "political", right? Get over yourself yourself, then.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's definitely worse with Trump now. If 24 hours goes by without a story mentioning Trump then something is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's definitely worse with Trump now. If 24 hours goes by without a story mentioning Trump then something is wrong.
That is because 24 hours never goes by without him doing something retarded.
Fair trial (Score:2)
Really This hasn't been NSS since day 1? (Score:2)
Fake president Trump (Score:2)
Mandatory clarification.
Works both ways ... (Score:2)
... I hope China takes hostages in retaliation. The new term this presidential cycle is, "Chickenshit Politics."
Re: (Score:2)
a psychopaths need to BRAG, (Score:2)
A new Ransom Gambit (Score:3)
Re: A new Ransom Gambit (Score:2)
Great. The idiot strikes again (Score:2)
Before you take up the narrative about "precedents (Score:3)
Consider this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1... [nytimes.com]. If he is using a high-level figurehead as a bargaining chip to force China to let those folks out, more power to him.
What a mess (Score:5, Insightful)
Such a sad day for our democracies (Score:2)
To a Chinese colleague telling me a few days ago that this whole thing must of course be instructed/manipulated by US executive power, I answered I did not believe so because unlike China and other authoritarian regimes, the ground of our western democracies is that justice is not a tool of the executive power but independent.
As an example a meaningful symbolic action in the beginning of the French revolution was to free the prisoners from the King's prison La Bastille.
Apparently I was wrong. Is America goi
Really? (Score:2)
"President Trump To Use Huawei CFO As a Bargaining Chip"
What could possibly go wrong?
extradition and double criminality principle (Score:3)
A fundamental underpinning of extradition proceedings is the âoedouble criminalityâ principle. If Canada is to extradite, there must be an offence charged in the U.S. that corresponds to one in Canadian law. While Canada has followed the UN with sanctions on Iran as regards nuclear and missile technology, I'm not aware that UN sanctions ever covered the trade in telecoms. Since in Canada sanctions like this emanate from the UN, I doubt there is a matching crime here. There is also the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act that spells out that American sanctions cannot operate in Canada -- otherwise 10,000s of Canadians who have visited Cuba could be rounded up.
Was my first thought. (Score:2)
When it was first announced, I immediately wondered if it was related to the trade war. You don't hear about these types of prosecutions often, so it seemed like there had to be some greater political machination going on.
Trump is an unbelievable moron (Score:2)
He's playing right into China's talking points about it being a political arrest.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The rest of the story you did not hear (Score:4, Insightful)
But, no, he publicly muses about using the arrest of Ms. Meng as a bargaining chip to extract a better deal from the Chinese government. That dramatically increases the chance that extradition will be denied, since political overtones were just dropped all over the case, while burning any good will there may have been from the trade truce.
It really isn't normal to forewarn the President about individual arrests in ordinary cases. If this had simply been left to career staff to make a legitimate case the Chinese government would have scowled some and then filed it as precedent for later use when the shoe is on the other foot. But it was very much the President's choice to make Iran related issues a priority for the Justice Department, as is his rightful prerogative, and also his choice to make this case a political football. So if he is in fact pissed about this, some of that ire needs to land on the man in the mirror.