Huawei CFO Asks For Extradition Case To Be Stayed, Says US Misled Canada (globalnews.ca) 41
hackingbear writes: Lawyers for Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei Technologies, have applied to a Canadian court seeking stays in the proceedings for her extradition to the United States, documents released on Thursday showed. The applications are based in part on what Meng's lawyers allege was a destruction of the integrity of the judicial process by United States President Donald Trump and other senior members of the administration by their intention to use Meng "as a bargaining chip in a trade dispute." As trading with Iran was legal in Canada, the extradition case hinges on whether Meng misled HSBC about Huawei's relationship with a company operating in Iran, putting HSBC at risk of fines and penalties for breaking U.S. sanctions on Tehran. However, Meng's lawyers allege that the United States misled Canada about the evidence in the case against her, by "selectively summariz(ing) information and omit(ting) highly relevant information" about the knowledge that Huawei accurately shared with HSBC about its operations in Iran.
The omissions are "far below the expected standard of diligence, candor and accuracy," the lawyers wrote. Meng's lawyers also cite comments by U.S. President Donald Trump and Canadian PM Trudeau on the case as proof of political interventions. "Trudeau described how he asked the U.S. to include the applicant in any trade deal it signed with China: 'We've said that the United States should not sign a final and complete agreement with China that does not settle the question of Meng Wanzhou and the two Canadians.'" "Where the requesting state engages in conduct that offends our Canadian sense of fair play and decency, the court must intervene to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process. This is such a case," Meng's lawyers say in their new submissions.
The omissions are "far below the expected standard of diligence, candor and accuracy," the lawyers wrote. Meng's lawyers also cite comments by U.S. President Donald Trump and Canadian PM Trudeau on the case as proof of political interventions. "Trudeau described how he asked the U.S. to include the applicant in any trade deal it signed with China: 'We've said that the United States should not sign a final and complete agreement with China that does not settle the question of Meng Wanzhou and the two Canadians.'" "Where the requesting state engages in conduct that offends our Canadian sense of fair play and decency, the court must intervene to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process. This is such a case," Meng's lawyers say in their new submissions.
Extradition is always a political decision (Score:1, Insightful)
Unlike how Trudeau is trying to pretend extradition is always a political decision. The courts dont even get involved till the Home Minister decides to recognize an extradition request. Otherwise there are multiple Interpol arrest warrants out for George Bush and Richard Bolton and Colin Powell for fraud in convincing other people that Iraq has WMDs. Noone has bothered to even open extradition proceedings as it would be a political disaster.
Canada has to decide how much of an independent country it wants to
Re:Extradition is always a political decision (Score:5, Interesting)
Trudeau has said this is up to the justice system, not the politicians, though it is true the politicians have the final say in this case. He is between the proverbial rock and a hard place - we want to stick to the rule of law, but Trump is making a laughing stock of that concept.
Most people I talk to think we should send Meng back to China. We have been friends and allies with the US for many generations, our ancestors fought in wars together, but your dotard in chief is working hard to destroy America's relationships with all its global allies. The guy just wants to break everything he touches, like a 2 or 3 year old.
Politicians try to be nice because they know Trump is a petty, vindictive POS, but really we should all just wish you luck as you set out in the world all by yourselves with no allies whatsoever.
Re:Extradition is always a political decision (Score:4, Insightful)
Trudeau is being disingenious. The political decision is there both before and after the court system. If the Home Minister had not recognized the extradition request the court doesnt even look into it. After the court has its say the politicians again have their say. Ultimately international relations are decided by politicians not courts.
Courts are not the supreme authority in issues dealing with national sovereignty. If they were it would not be a Democracy - it would be a Judicracy.
Re:Extradition is always a political decision (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you understand the principles of modern democracies, where separation of power is critical and vital.
In most of the modern democracies, there are 3 independent branches of the government with different responsibilities and powers and nither can fully control the other 2, they are: legislative, executive and judicial. Especially in this case, when extradition is a major issue, the case has to be proven in court - period. Understanding of this basic principle is broken due to recent events in the US, which are not a norm - in actual democracies a president has no say in a judiciary procedure, all he can do is to pardon or commute the sentence afterwords.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you do not understand, determining the validity of extradition is not a foreign relation - it's purely a judicial issue. In this case just the person with a (not confirmed) Interpol warrant arrest is a foreigner - still judiciary issue, as the Canadian court decides if the extradition request is valid.
Let me explain in more detail: a judiciary branch is responsible for interpreting the law, setting legal disputes, etc. When a case is in a court, neither president nor congress (in general) has a say
Re: (Score:1)
Keep drinking the koolaid or actually go check what extradition is. Its not a judicial issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the relevant details in case you are too intellectually lazy to do your own research from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/... [justice.gc.ca]
There are three phases to the extradition process:
1. Authority to Proceed: the decision to commence the proceedings by issuing an Authority to Proceed; this decision is made by Department of Justice officials.
2. Judicial Phase: the extradition hearing, which takes place before a judge of the superior court.
3. Ministerial Phase: the decision on surrender, which under the Extradit
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the high court can step in and overrule the politicians as well. They are ultimately the final authority. Here is an example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I see you're getting quite emotional about it.
The funny thing is that you actually answered yourself: In the extradition procedure the department of justice plays the kind of "prosecutor" role, but the decision is made in a court, as you yourself generously pointed out. The government initiates extradition and later hands over, but whether extradition is going to take place is decided in a court, where department of justice is just one side - and the court hearing is where the case is at the moment. If the
Re: (Score:2)
Its called prosecutorial discretion my friend. If the DA doesnt want to charge you the judge doesnt even hear about it. Same thing in extraditions. if the govt wants to it simply declines to initiate the process. Here Canada is trying to keep USa happy by initiating the process and will keep China happy by stopping it at the last step. The Judges are actors in an elaborate Dog and Pony show
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Rendition of US Marines from Syria to China for visa violations - I mean I dont think any US Marine in Syria actually has a Syrian visa.
Trump cant really complain about a crackdown on undocumented migrants can he?
Re: Extradition is always a political decision (Score:3)
I thought that generally states don't extradite people for actions that aren't illegal in that state. But, as everyone is saying, this is basically political at this point. Canada's best hope is to drag it out, hope Trump doesn't get reelected, and then let her go.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada's best hope is to drag it out, hope Trump doesn't get reelected, and then let her go.
I'm hopeful our courts will see they are being being used to make a laughing stock of the justice system. Our judges here, even though they are appointed, are actually very far removed from politics. Our former PM Harper appointed a majority of justices on our Supreme Court, but lost more cases there than any PM in recent memory. One thing our judges are not is lap dogs and I'm thankful for that.
Re: (Score:2)
To get around that, the claim used to justify the extradition isn't that Meng broke US sanctions (which Canada didn't sign on to), it's that she lied about doing so, which would be fraud and therefore illegal in Canada. We have yet to see if a judge buys that, but that's the angle they're going with to avoid the tricky problem of Canada not having signed on to those sanctions.
Re: Extradition is always a political decision (Score:2)
Dragging it out is exactly what the US wants. It's already an effective deterrent.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about warrants in Europe from European courts - a high bar and if any get issued that would mean USA has really shit the bed with Europe.
I am talking of a much lower bar. e.g. Say warrants from Iran and Sudan for the arrest of Richard Bolton for commiting fraud leading to the Iraq war.
They have about the same legal status in Canada as the warrants from the US against Meng for commiting fraud to conduct trade with Iran.
The difference is Canada makes a political decision to ignore warrants fro
Re:Extradition is always a political decision (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is Canada makes a political decision to ignore warrants from Iran and Sudan while honoring the one from US.
I don't see that Canada has an extradition treaty with Iran or Sudan. They do with USA: https://treaty-accord.gc.ca/re... [treaty-accord.gc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
A treaty is politics , its not a law. Its politics to not sign an extradition treaty with Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
After the treaty is signed it becomes binding. So, no deciding on a case-by-case basis depending on the current political weather.
Re: (Score:2)
The treaty only says the Govt of Canada will consider the cases on a case by case basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada hasnt agreed to any treaty which says it has to honor US extradition requests. It has only signed a treaty which says it will consider each case on a case by case basis and the decision to proceed will be made by politicians who will then give a go ahead to the judiciary to look at it from a more detailed judicial standpoint.
Nothing is cut and dry about this and the decision to detain Meng is definitely political. Dont try to hide behind - we dont interfere in the judiciary. its like letting loose a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Extraordinary Meritless". Hmmm. I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not, so you can quit with the false dilemma stuff now.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame me, it's the OP who brought it up about the "51st US State" BS.
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Arresting foreign nationals (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Arresting foreign nationals (Score:4, Interesting)
Its actually a step beyond. Its having a 4th country arrest a second country national for doing business with a third country for making a statement to a bank in a 5th country.
Talk about Globalist policies.
How can Trump rail against Globalists while participating in this farce?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How can Trump rail against Globalists while participating in this farce?
He thinks America is special.
So does Covid.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I've no mod points today to help you on your way to the coveted +5, Troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple, the USA, both now, and for the past many, many, many, years, does not believe in the concept of "jurisdiction". They believe that they are the world, and that therefore they have the ability to police any, and all, parts of the world however they see fit.
Unfortunately, almost all Western countries are quite happy to comply, and most other countries aren't strong enough to be able to say no. Only Russia and China dare stand against the USA, (Not that I think we'd be better off following either of tho
Re: (Score:2)
Europe
Re: (Score:2)
HSBC is also dirty (Score:1)
Probably unrelated, but a couple years ago, a careful hunt for the origin of some of the truck loads of SPAM I get regularly conclusively led me to HSBC's official mail server and their own IT staff. No forgeries or hacking attempts, these spear phishing attacks were in not so many words directly admitted to by their official support staff who also took the time to gloat that even though I may not have fallen for it (this time) I also couldn't stop them from persisting against me and others, because they c
Dear fascist degenerate Murica: (Score:2)
The world is not your country.
Build that damn wall already. All around your psychopathic shithole of nutjobs. And leave the first, second and third world alone. You can be the fourth (circle of hell) world from now on.
It is fraud she is being extradited for (Score:2)