EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 974
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
12084 Posts
On December 07 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote: So the US just had Meng Wanzhou, one of China's most powerful business persons detained, people suspect for attempting violate Iran sanctions. Needless to say, this is a huge move and would be like China detaining the head of a US major tech company while they are visiting India or something. China is rip shit and this isn’t going to do trade talks any favors. I’m not sure who approved this plan, but it seems ill thought out. IF the accusation is true and she committed the crime while in the US then I don't really see the issue here. Of course it will not be popular with China but I assume any US person breaking a major law while in China would be arrested as well. Maybe to later be released for sentencing in the US in a criminal exchange program. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On December 07 2018 00:56 Yurie wrote: IF the accusation is true and she committed the crime while in the US then I don't really see the issue here. Of course it will not be popular with China but I assume any US person breaking a major law while in China would be arrested as well. Maybe to later be released for sentencing in the US in a criminal exchange program. Nooooope, she was arrested in Canada and is facing extradition to the US. | ||
|
Yurie
12084 Posts
On December 07 2018 01:01 Kyadytim wrote: Nooooope, she was arrested in Canada and is facing extradition to the US. That is a bit more odd but Canada is also enforcing those sanctions. So committing the crime there would have the same effect. I don't see why extradition to the US is warranted. She should be tried in Canada if she broke the law there. Though it seems logical if the US put out a notice with Interpol or a similar international cooperation for her arrest. Then it is them arresting her for the US for a crime committed against the US (should really be in the US as well though). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 07 2018 00:56 Yurie wrote: IF the accusation is true and she committed the crime while in the US then I don't really see the issue here. Of course it will not be popular with China but I assume any US person breaking a major law while in China would be arrested as well. Maybe to later be released for sentencing in the US in a criminal exchange program. If the CEO of Google travels abroad, China is going to think long and hard about having him arrested because they believe he violated a Chinese law. Not to stay she is directly comparable to the CEO of Google, but this is a hell of a gauntlet to throw down while in the middle of trade talks. | ||
|
Yurie
12084 Posts
On December 07 2018 01:08 Plansix wrote: If the CEO of Google travels abroad, China is going to think long and hard about having him arrested because they believe he violated a Chinese law. Not to stay she is directly comparable to the CEO of Google, but this is a hell of a gauntlet to throw down while in the middle of trade talks. I personally don't find that type of thinking conductive to good governance long term. If corporate CEOs and similar can expect to get away with breaking the law they will do that. Sure that makes for good relations short term, long term it means you are condoning the actions. The problem comes with actions that aren't clearly illegal in both states. As far as I know China is not using sanctions against Iran right now. So if her company based in China trades with Iran it is legal while not being legal if their other branches do or she promotes sub suppliers in sanction countries to do it. So here you hit the other side of international business, the strictest law is the one that locally applies to your company. Either your home law or the local one. Though I am not an expert on international law so I am not sure if the sanctions apply to anybody breaking them even if they aren't a legal resident in a country that has the sanction running and does it from that does not have the sanctions. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18283 Posts
On December 07 2018 01:22 Plansix wrote: The problem is that we are subjecting foreign nations to our own laws and legal systems. And by doing that, we open our citizens us to retaliation by the home nation of that foreign national, especially if their nation is not happy with the US. Detaining a high level foreign national is a big deal and can sour relations between two nations. In extreme cases, it has started nations on the path to war. As long as she was doing something illegal in Canada while in Canada, she should be detained and tried for that crime. However, her company is clearly not in Canada... so while she may be in Canada, she's not the one doing the trading. And even if she did something like explicitly signing off on a deal with Iran while in Canada, it's still shakey ground. Would you be able to detain someone in one state where pot is still illegal for managing his coffeeshop business in Colorado? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
China seems to be taking a very tame approach to freaking out, though. My feeling is that China knows all they can do is beg for her return. So I hope we throw her in American prison. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22308 Posts
On December 07 2018 01:08 Plansix wrote: You mean like China arresting the Chief of Interpol? Which they did recently, without telling anyone about it for a week...If the CEO of Google travels abroad, China is going to think long and hard about having him arrested because they believe he violated a Chinese law. Not to stay she is directly comparable to the CEO of Google, but this is a hell of a gauntlet to throw down while in the middle of trade talks. If the charges are real I don't see the problem with someone being arrested and extradited for a crime they committed, no matter how high their position somewhere is. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 07 2018 02:04 Gorsameth wrote: You mean like China arresting the Chief of Interpol? Which they did recently, without telling anyone about it for a week... If the charges are real I don't see the problem with someone being arrested and extradited for a crime they committed, no matter how high their position somewhere is. In general I agree. I just question the motives and thoughtfulness of this administration. I can see people in the administration thinking this is a great tactic to get concessions in trade talks. I don't know if the justice department would go along with that, but I could see it happening. And that is a can of worms I don't want anyone to open. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 07 2018 02:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: With guys like Corker and Graham pushing for action, do you think Trump will cave on his 'we'll never know' stance on SA/Khashoggi? No, they are just faking outrage because it allows them to make it seem like their party has morals. But because their demographics suffer from extreme reverence for authority, Republicans accept what Trump says goes. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22308 Posts
On December 07 2018 02:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: As with so many things. Call me when they actually do something.With guys like Corker and Graham pushing for action, do you think Trump will cave on his 'we'll never know' stance on SA/Khashoggi? Talk is cheap. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
On December 07 2018 01:45 Mohdoo wrote: This Huawei thing is a giant power play against China and I am downright thrilled to see it. China needs to be taken down a few rungs and anything we do to slam their dicks in a door sounds good to me. I am honestly surprised that China has not responded in any sort of insane way. China is a lot like Russia in terms of their businesses and government are essentially a single entity. Huawei is very important for China's spying and other bad shit. The CFO is clearly a very important person. China seems to be taking a very tame approach to freaking out, though. My feeling is that China knows all they can do is beg for her return. So I hope we throw her in American prison. Just to increase the stakes here, shes the daughter of the president and founder of Huawei | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 07 2018 06:12 CorsairHero wrote: Just to increase the stakes here, shes the daughter of the president and founder of Huawei Considering the dip the stock markets took due to that arrest, I think it is a much bigger deal than folks in the thread are anticipating. People are worried that we are in the very early stages of a cold war with China. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/business/stocks-wall-street-huawei-trade.html | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On December 07 2018 06:17 Plansix wrote: Considering the dip the stock markets took due to that arrest, I think it is a much bigger deal than folks in the thread are anticipating. People are worried that we are in the very early stages of a cold war with China. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/business/stocks-wall-street-huawei-trade.html I would say that if you're a even marginally relevant American tech exec it would be a good idea to stay away from China. I can totally see the Chinese retaliating in some form by detaining someone for violating their rules of doing business. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 07 2018 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote: I would say that if you're a even marginally relevant American tech exec it would be a good idea to stay away from China. I can totally see the Chinese retaliating in some form by detaining someone for violating their rules of doing business. A tech company my friend works for has an interesting policy when flying to China for business. They give you a brand new laptop before you go to China, to be opened when you get there. You use that laptop for everything you need a laptop for while in China. Then you dispose of the laptop in China. This practice was already in place like 8 years ago IIRC. It is not a question as to whether or not China/Huawei do super sketchy shit. It is just a matter of when is it appropriate to retaliate. My understanding/theory is that this has always been a cost:benefit thing. The FBI/CIA/DOJ/whoever have always had conclusive evidence of big Chinese executives doing bad shit. But when you look at it purely from the perspective of how many lives or lost or how much money is lost, all of the forms of punishment never really made sense. Now we have Trump, who takes an almost entirely qualitative approach to issues and mostly ignores quantitative considerations. My honest view is that China's methods of underhandedly increasing their influence in the world is really well tuned to evade/resist common protocols in EU/USA. Trump is uniquely tuned to deal with Chinese problems. I honestly do support the idea of us stabbing ourselves 3 times for the sake of stabbing China 6 times. To not do so is to only let the problem get worse. China can never be allowed to be an actual "world power". They need to always remain a distant second place because their philosophies regarding internment camps, censorship, point systems etc are fundamentally terrible for humanity. I've always felt like politicians take too short term an approach to China because we are worried about increasing unemployment or reducing quality of life by actually getting into a spat with China. An incumbent party would suffer in an election if they finally took a hard stand on China and took some damage a long the way. It appears Trump is willing to take damage for the sake of damaging China more. I like that a lot. But I only like it because my impression is that the issue of China will only get worse with time. We need to break their knees before they run too far. | ||
| ||
