Dec 1st arrest only announced today? That's secret police gestapo stuff right there. Should've been announced same day, no reason to hide arrests of folks. Strange no reason given, I thought that was required.
"a publication ban that was requested by Meng" Why does every arrest have to be public? In Germany, that is against data privacy rules, unless those are overruled by public interest in the case, which is handled on a case by case basis (and often ignored by tabloids).
I don’t think it’s so dramatic. Since she was arrested in Canada, there is an option for a publication ban to protect the detainee’s reputation or for safety. She’s not yet in US custody. If anything, they honored her request for privacy, probably until the hearing date was set, at which time there would probably be public awareness of the arrest.
If a person can be arrested and released without the media being notified then that person could have an incentive (e.g. reputation) to suppress the information. Otherwise, there is little, if any, incentive, for them, in temporarily suppressing it. It also opens the door to abusing the arrest system. Frivolously arresting a lot of people is a tactic that happens and should not be encouraged.
Remember when a literal black helicopter was sent to a high school to arrest Ron Paul supporters trying to caucus, after Romney hacks had kicked them out of the gym? The arresting officer literally said "We'll tell you back at the station" when asked what the arrest charges were. The same line was used to arrest people mildly dancing. When you have media blackouts for arrests, you get a lot more "We'll tell you what you're being arrested for when the cleverer people at the precinct (or the Washington lawyers they've called) figure out what pretext to invent".
I'm a bit confused here. Why the US has any authorization to detain a foreign company dealer for deals done in a third party country? Does Huawei actively sold US tech to "embargo" countries?
Huawei has labs in the US, they have some sort of operations in the US as a company and I presume that's the basis for the enforcement of the embargo, but ultimately I believe there are legal grounds for this that "just is" and doesn't have to make immediate sense, it's not like every Chinese law makes sense either but they're there and as long as you have business in China expect them to be enforced.
That seems to be the allegation, although nothing is official yet. Most/all Huawei phones (and likely also base stations and other infrastructure hardware) has either US-designed chips or chips with licenced IP owned by US companies inside. All such technology is banned from being exported to a certain list of countries, regardless of the number of in-between links, as per US trade regulations. This is a condition of the sale of the IP/chips in the first place, which binds Huawei to follow US trade law when they sign the purchase agreement - and they would thus be in violation of US trade law regardless where the sale took place. As for your first question, any country can request that another country (particularly ones where some sort of police collaboration exists, which neighbouring countries nearly always have - of course, there's also Interpol, which counts 194 member countries) arrest wanted persons if they are in the second country. Extradition treaties are also very common, and even without those extradition of wanted criminals can often be negotiated. Of course, the only thing allowing the US to request this is treaties already in existence - without that, the other countries would be free to do whatever they wanted.
The allegation is that the company evaded the US sanctions by routing payments in the US through a shell company. HSBC in Manhattan flagged the suspicious payments and alerted the US government.
There is a lot of speculation about the reasoning behind the arrest. I guess we have to wait for more information in order to get some insight. At the moment, I admit I'm concerned about US and China relations and about US relations with other nations in general. Things seem a bit turbulent.
I do agree that there are and have been problems with China's conduct with relationship to the few international governing bodies out there. I would just like to see a more...uh...I guess professional and coherent response from the US in specific. The reaction is all over the map.
I'm old enough to remember $.20/gal gas and pistachios for $1/pound. OF COURSE, it's always 'spook-works' from Uncle Sugar, Chairman Mao, Rootin' Tootin' Pootin, Ayatollah Aseholla, Looters & Special Interests, et. al. We need a bigger swamp.
Be thankful for that $2 gas ... and if someone shows up at your next meeting with a bone saw, run away.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
Back to Article
webdoctors - Wednesday, December 5, 2018 - link
Dec 1st arrest only announced today? That's secret police gestapo stuff right there. Should've been announced same day, no reason to hide arrests of folks. Strange no reason given, I thought that was required.jcc5169 - Wednesday, December 5, 2018 - link
Only if one is a citizen, which Meng is notZolaIII - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
So worse then Gestapo then. Its nice to see we democratically progressed.FunBunny2 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
you get to complain only if you didn't vote for the Manchurian President. actions such as this are now routine. MAGA!!!!!!!lindagist - Sunday, January 20, 2019 - link
It is indeed worst than the acts of <a href="https://lindagist.com/">Gestapo</a>BedfordTim - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
Oh well thats OK then.Death666Angel - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
"a publication ban that was requested by Meng"Why does every arrest have to be public? In Germany, that is against data privacy rules, unless those are overruled by public interest in the case, which is handled on a case by case basis (and often ignored by tabloids).
Oxford Guy - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
Yeah, it interferes with rounding up lots of people.MonkeyPaw - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
I don’t think it’s so dramatic. Since she was arrested in Canada, there is an option for a publication ban to protect the detainee’s reputation or for safety. She’s not yet in US custody. If anything, they honored her request for privacy, probably until the hearing date was set, at which time there would probably be public awareness of the arrest.Oxford Guy - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
If a person can be arrested and released without the media being notified then that person could have an incentive (e.g. reputation) to suppress the information. Otherwise, there is little, if any, incentive, for them, in temporarily suppressing it. It also opens the door to abusing the arrest system. Frivolously arresting a lot of people is a tactic that happens and should not be encouraged.Remember when a literal black helicopter was sent to a high school to arrest Ron Paul supporters trying to caucus, after Romney hacks had kicked them out of the gym? The arresting officer literally said "We'll tell you back at the station" when asked what the arrest charges were. The same line was used to arrest people mildly dancing. When you have media blackouts for arrests, you get a lot more "We'll tell you what you're being arrested for when the cleverer people at the precinct (or the Washington lawyers they've called) figure out what pretext to invent".
tamalero - Wednesday, December 5, 2018 - link
I'm a bit confused here. Why the US has any authorization to detain a foreign company dealer for deals done in a third party country?Does Huawei actively sold US tech to "embargo" countries?
tipoo - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
It doesn't, hence the extradition deals.yu - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
Huawei has labs in the US, they have some sort of operations in the US as a company and I presume that's the basis for the enforcement of the embargo, but ultimately I believe there are legal grounds for this that "just is" and doesn't have to make immediate sense, it's not like every Chinese law makes sense either but they're there and as long as you have business in China expect them to be enforced.Valantar - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
That seems to be the allegation, although nothing is official yet. Most/all Huawei phones (and likely also base stations and other infrastructure hardware) has either US-designed chips or chips with licenced IP owned by US companies inside. All such technology is banned from being exported to a certain list of countries, regardless of the number of in-between links, as per US trade regulations. This is a condition of the sale of the IP/chips in the first place, which binds Huawei to follow US trade law when they sign the purchase agreement - and they would thus be in violation of US trade law regardless where the sale took place. As for your first question, any country can request that another country (particularly ones where some sort of police collaboration exists, which neighbouring countries nearly always have - of course, there's also Interpol, which counts 194 member countries) arrest wanted persons if they are in the second country. Extradition treaties are also very common, and even without those extradition of wanted criminals can often be negotiated. Of course, the only thing allowing the US to request this is treaties already in existence - without that, the other countries would be free to do whatever they wanted.KPOM - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
The allegation is that the company evaded the US sanctions by routing payments in the US through a shell company. HSBC in Manhattan flagged the suspicious payments and alerted the US government.tipoo - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
Take her Huawei, boysUkyo - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
Lol, I see what you did there..nonig - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
Made me chuckle.FunBunny2 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
LOCK HER UP!! LOCK HER UP!! put her next to Manafort.JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
I kek'd.Samus - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
i lol'dlenghui - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
Thank you for reporting this news and provides the info as facts instead of opinions -- one reason I keep coming back to AT.yannigr2 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
Stock market games.Notmyusualid - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
Nonsense. Rules are rules.And at the top of your game, you should know them all.
yannigr2 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
You have the right to be naive.PeachNCream - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
There is a lot of speculation about the reasoning behind the arrest. I guess we have to wait for more information in order to get some insight. At the moment, I admit I'm concerned about US and China relations and about US relations with other nations in general. Things seem a bit turbulent.Violet Giraffe - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
Given that Chinese government as well as Chinese companies casually dismiss international law and regulations, I say they've had it coming.PeachNCream - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
I do agree that there are and have been problems with China's conduct with relationship to the few international governing bodies out there. I would just like to see a more...uh...I guess professional and coherent response from the US in specific. The reaction is all over the map.Smell This - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
I'm old enough to remember $.20/gal gas and pistachios for $1/pound. OF COURSE, it's always 'spook-works' from Uncle Sugar, Chairman Mao, Rootin' Tootin' Pootin, Ayatollah Aseholla, Looters & Special Interests, et. al. We need a bigger swamp.Be thankful for that $2 gas ... and if someone shows up at your next meeting with a bone saw, run away.
PeachNCream - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link
I don't understand.lindagist - Sunday, January 20, 2019 - link
It is really incredible that Canada took such action against her.https://lindagist.com/
lindagist - Monday, February 11, 2019 - link
In 21st century such things should not be happening again https://lindagist.com