…from your cite:
I’m less reassured for an entirely different reason than you appear to be.
I won’t play selective citation. I will repeat, though, that I am not reassured and, as per the article, neither are many non-US actors.
ETA: Bottom line is that given China’s recent and remote history, it would be foolish to trust Huawei (and thus China). They do not value what I do.
…I’m not playing “selective citation”, whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean. I’m quoting your cite. I’ve quoted a sentence from your “balanced” citation that is an assessment from the authors of that article on the evidence that has been presented so far. And that assessment is backed up by the contents of the article you cited. The fears that have been expressed are almost entirely theoretical. Read your cite.
And please read my edited post above.
…:: READS ::
Your edited post has been read. You don’t trust the Chinese. Gotcha.
The United States Federal Government has been broadcasting State propaganda daily since the inauguration of Trump and his regime. The President and his surrogates lie to the American people several times a day. They separate parents and children at the borders. They invade other countries and are responsible for the deaths of millions. Given America’s recent and remote history it would be foolish to trust any American company. (And thus America.) They do not value what I do.
Just to be clear, all cites are selective. Mine included. I meant no offence, only that in my opinion the article was clear. “Theoretical”, absolutely. But, so are Trump’s crimes right now.
Indeed, I interpreted the article just as you suggest above - I don’t trust the Chinese. Nope. This is the same ruling party that killed millions and now holds citizens hostage (and I don’t view Meng as a hostage). They can’t be trusted and shouldn’t be trusted.
ETA: if it’s not too late to add, I think Trump is a criminal and a plague upon the world. I used ‘theoretical’ only to illustrate my point.
Just curious but what has any of this to do with the illegal actions by Meng Wanzhou and Huawei? 
The reason Canada has detained Meng Wanzhou is because she and her company lied to international banking interests about funds obtained and what they were to be used for. That’s illegal in Canada as well as the US and, well, in most of the rest of the world. That whole ‘illegal’ thingy. Not the sanctions, per se, or some political move wrt the trade war, except in that she and they lied about that funding. Which is, again, illegal and all. In Canada. And the US. It’s actually illegal in China too, though the CCP decides there what gets prosecuted and what doesn’t, so it’s a bit more, um, fluid there.
Trump lies all the time. And it’s possible that some of Trump’s actions might actually lead to him being impeached (lying not being a crime, in and of itself) and even prosecuted and going to jail. Xi lies all the time, and there is essentially zero chance that his actions could lead to him being ousted through legal means. Through a faction coup though? Yeah, that could happen. But not through their court system. Zero chance of that ever happening. None of which seems, to me anyway, to have any bearing on this particular case, or why Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Canada or may be extradited to the US. Am I missing something?
…you forgot to use the word "allegedly. She hasn’t had her day in court yet.
Excuse me for not having any trust in what America does on the world stage at the moment. The case may entirely have merit. But to borrow from KarlGauss: “I don’t trust the Americans.” So before I’m willing to call anyone a liar I’ll wait to see how this plays out.
No, I didn’t forget that at all. That’s kind of why she was arrested and will be extradited…so she can go to trial and determine if what she did is/was illegal. That’s sort of the basis of our system. If this were China, the CCP would decide and she would probably already be being processed for parts, but there is sufficient evidence, that the Canadian judicial branch has evaluated in concurrence with the US judiciary, to warrant arrest, extradition and a trial. You understand that, if someone is accused of murder, say, they get arrested, and if it’s in another country with extradition to the country where it happened they would be extradited, then sent there for trial…right? They might not be guilty, in the end, or there might not be sufficient evidence to convict, but that doesn’t seem to have much to do with the process of determining that or going through the legal process of arrest and extradition before that’s been determined if there is sufficient evidence that they MAY have committed said crime. I’m no legal genius, or even a legal novice, but that seems to me to be pretty clear cut.
When you say ‘you don’t trust America’, are you seriously saying that the US made this all up AND convinced the Canadian judiciary that there was sufficient evidence to warrant arrest and extradition? :dubious: Seriously? Because…Trump? Or just because America? Is Canada willing to circumvent their own system AND risk heavy fallout with China that is already happening because they, what? Are afraid of the US?? Or just because they love Trump so much? Seriously…I’m not getting it. How does this seeming conspiracy work in your all’s minds here?
I’m pretty sure that Canada has a very low threshold for granting an extradition request to the U.S. so “the Canadian judicial branch has evaluated in concurrence with the US judiciary, to warrant arrest, extradition and a trial.” is a little on the bullshit side. The Canadian judicial branch has not remotely evaluated whether an arrest or trial is warranted. They’ve evaluated that the crime she is accused of meets the requirements for extradition.
…yeah you did. Well you might not have forgotten it in your head, but you forgot to say it in that particular post. The nuance matters.
Nope.
Nope.
Well America has a long history of fucking things up. But a careful reading of my response should draw the parallels between my post and the post from KarlGauss (hint: it said something along the lines of “I don’t trust China”), which should make my statement more clear.
Nope. Nope. Nope. And nope.
Uh huh. You’ve certainly read a lot into what I said. I have already conceded The case may entirely have merit. But I don’t think there is enough information in the public domain right now to conclusively state that that it does.
Well, if that’s the case then that would be where my confusion comes from. If Canada is willing to risk the political fallout from China, which anyone who knows anything about China was militantly unsurprised by, and just do all this with nothing more than bullshit, then I suppose I can see a major problem here. If you have evidence to back that up, it would certainly change my own understanding, as it’s hard for me to believe…but as I said, I’m not a lawyer nor even well versed in any sort of legal matter, so I’m willing to be educated.
I’m more than half drunk, so I’ll try and parse through this. First, we are talking about extradition. I don’t think ‘nuance matters’ in this case, since clearly she hasn’t gone to trial…yet. The Canadian court hasn’t even had a trial…just evaluated, as far as I now (and CarnalK seems to be saying they didn’t even do this) the merits of the potential case that would warrant extradition. I don’t think I needed to make that all clear in the post you quoted from as it’s pretty much evident.
I didn’t really follow the exchange between you and KarlGauss to be honest…I was asking a more fundamental question, which perhaps CarnalK will clear up. That being why would Canada risk the fallout that was sure to come if there wasn’t sufficient evidence to arrest and extradite? Yeah, America has a history of fucking up, blah blah blah (we shall leave aside China and Huawei’s history) and…so? What’s that got to do with the legality of the case? As for what is in the public domain so far, well…again, so? Am I missing something? The case hasn’t gone to trial yet. Hell, she hasn’t even been extradited yet. So, at least as far as I know, those details wouldn’t be out yet since, you know, it has to go to trial. However, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that Canada would have sufficient evidence that they would determine if an arrest was warranted and if extradition was warranted. This has little if nothing to do with America fucking up in the past, as far as I can tell, and everything to do with the legalities…unless Canada just says something like ‘well, America says so…good enough for us!’ and arrests someone with zero evidence and zero data just because America says so. Perhaps that’s how all this works, and my vision of international law takes another hit. I have said I’m no lawyer or even well versed in law, domestic or international, so I haven’t a clue…just how I THOUGHT all this was supposed to work. Plus half a bottle of tequila.
…we are talking about the statement **you **made that said “The reason Canada has detained Meng Wanzhou is because she and her company lied to international banking interests about funds obtained and what they were to be used for.”
I think the nuance matters in this case: *especially *because the case has not gone to trial.
The statement that you made (that I quoted) makes it evident you believe that Wanzhou and Huawei are guilty. You are welcome to hold that belief. But to state that belief categorically as if it were truth is misleading.
The Canadian justice system isn’t obligated to consider the “fallout”: they are obligated to consider the facts.
The fact you are missing is that your statement assumes guilt and it shouldn’t.
Well…it’s clear to me that YOU think I’m missing that. Could be my inebriated state, but I’m not seeing how you draw that conclusion from what you quoted, but let me clear this up for you…I’m not in any way assuming she is guilty in the legal sense. I’m not assuming that the Canadians have ruled that she is guilty in a legal sense. I’m assuming that the Canadian’s have enough evidence to warrant arrest and extradition. I’m also assuming that since the Canadian government weighed in on this that they evaluated that evidence and supported the judiciaries ruling, and that they did consider the ‘fallout’…not that this would or should impact their decision to move forward (or not). But then that works the other way too, i.e. whether it’s the big bad US asking or not, it’s the merits of the evidence that matters. And that, yes, that means they ‘consider the facts’. Hell, they (the Canadian government) slapped down one of their own diplomates over this and fired him, IIRC.
So…you seem to be nitpicking here while bobbing and weaving about the central question. Let’s assume that my opinion about the guilt or innocents means dick, and that I was unclear in that post as to what I meant…as you noted, in my head it says one thing, in yours another, and you aren’t a mind reader and I’m drunk.
You said you don’t trust the US. How does that impact Canada’s actions wrt what we were discussing in this thread? It seems, to my alcohol soaked brain to be irrelevant, but then I’m not tracking on all cylinders here, admittedly. Do you think that the Canadian judiciary considered the facts, as you put it? Or not? Is it all bullshit the US is making up and Canada is just buying it, or is there enough to warrant arrest and extradition (not about guilt or innocence)? I know that there isn’t enough evidence in the public domain…that seems militantly unsurprising to me, but I’m not tracking all that well as stated. So, based on Canada’s actions, what’s your presumably sober assessment of the core question, leaving aside my questionable post?
Well, here’s a case from a few years ago:
I can look up more on it later if you want but iirc basically the court said the threshold for extradition didn’t include examining the evidence, it was more “if what they say is true, that would be enough evidence”.
I’ll read it when I’m sober, but I’ll take your word for it. I didn’t know that. Never mind then…I obviously have an over inflated idea of how this stuff works if whatever they say is good enough wrt evidence to arrest someone and extradite them. 
…I suspect that it is exactly this.
The standard for her arrest is that she is “sought for extradition by the United States”. Canada and the US have an extradition treaty and Canada is complying with that treaty. The process says very little about the merits of the case.
Rather than assuming this: why don’t you demonstrate what role the Canadian government played in “evaluating the evidence.” I’m not aware that the judiciary have “made a ruling.” Have they done this? Can you point it out to me?
The courts (who make the initial decision before it gets passed onto the Minister of Justice) do not consider the fallout. That isn’t their job.
While the separation of powers isn’t as “big a deal” in Canada as it is in other places in the world, there is a distinction between the actions of the government and the actions of the court. You seem to not understand the distinction.
I’m not the one “bobbing and weaving.” I’ve suggested you use the word “alleged.” You not only refuse to do so: you are arguing with me while refusing to do so. I don’t think my suggestion was unreasonable.
Rather than assume, I’d much prefer it if you just conceded that “yeah, maybe I should have said alleged.”
It doesn’t.
You are aware that she hasn’t been extradited yet? That the US has a deadline of 60 days to formerly request extradition and my understanding is (correct me if I’m wrong) that they still haven’t done this yet?
https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/traites/en_traites-ext-can-usa4.html
Under the terms of the treaty the US (or Canada), in urgent circumstances, can apply for the provisional arrest of the subject. That appears to be the circumstances of the initial arrest and subsequent bail hearing. The standard for this is:
-a description of the person sought
-an indication of intention to request the extradition of the person sought
-statement of the existence of a warrant or arrest or a judgment of conviction against that person
These conditions were easily met here: hence the arrest. But the initial arrest says nothing about the merits of the case.
My sober assessment of the core question is that Canada is acting precisely the way it should be acting based on the terms of the extradition treaty they have with the US.
The 60 day period expired today, and the US has filed a detailed request for extradition.
The BC judge now had 30 days to review it and determine if it is sufficient to warrant a hearing.
“U.S. formally requests extradition of Meng Wenzhou to face financial fraud charges.”