> It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty

The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a process to ratify treaties in the US. The president approves a treaty and sends it to the senate to approve or reject.

It's easy for president to make executive order agreements because it doesn't require approval from the senate (something Obama knew he couldn't get for either deal). But all parties should know that these non-treaties can be undone without a second thought by a new president.

The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.

No, by international law [1] (and U.S. law [2]) they are treaties [1]. U.S. is not the only country with the notion of ratification [3][5] (not a surprise). Generally, the U.S. distinguishes between "treaties", executive acts or acts of Congress agreements internally, but externally they are treaties.

U.S. treaties are not permanent, and while the statement as ratified, it is law, the U.S. has broken a lot of treaties treaties. See Native American section [4].

I can agree that statements like "It is wrong for the US to walk away..." are strictly moral, with no legal ground, as it was not ratified. Yet this is a treaty that was signed. In the eyes of the world and U.S. law, this is a "broken" treaty. And it doesn't help if we go around breaking treaties. It is not illegal, but you are not building credibility right? It might be only fair if other States start breaking their treaties when convenient. (And some of them do.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_a...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_o...

Edit: This is a nice interesting read, in case you are interested: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international...

Not to go Godwin but a lot of massacres were also wrong on moral not legal grounds. When it comes down to that non-defense things get even uglier very quickly as it turns to "there is no law here against heading there and breaking your face". Even if they thought it was firmly in their domain.

"Their word is law." is a primitive framework but it expresses that enforcement backs laws.

From that link, it is not a treaty in US law. The article uses the blanket term "treaty-related law", but the Iran agreement falls under the "Executive agreement" category. This is in part a long-standing presidential workaround for the similarly-long-standing Congressional unwillingness to bind the US to treaties. But it does come with a bit of deception of foreign partners, because it does not bind the US in the same way that treaties bind other countries under their own domestic law. One of many ways in which the US system is a bit dysfunctional.

What I read from this is: "the US has a convoluted process, which nobody understands, in order to commit to international agreements". It seems everybody, including head of states, thought the US had agreed to the treaties, but they had not (?), because of a technicality. I assume these technicalities can be applied to anything, any time, in order to justify pulling out of international agreements.

Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith.

> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.

You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part.

And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants, existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties.

The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.

Oh come on. That is just plain insulting to all the other parties of the agreement. They knew full well that they did not have a ratified treaty with the US and they were explicitly warned of that fact ahead of time.

Just because people on the internet did not understand that doesn't mean the parties involved did not know that.

It is not insulting what so ever. Every single agreement that two parties enter is a temporary agreement that will be broken. The only question is when. The history is littered with the agreements/treaties between countries that were tossed.

Every single diplomat knows it, which is why diplomacy is about horse trading. Parties want to "sort of" maintain the status quo, even if it means giving up some of what is "rightfully their" by the agreement.

This argument reeks of "not my fault you were conned, you should have known I'm a conman"

Iran got their pallet of cash, they knew Obama was making the deal without the support of congress thereby giving the middle finger to US citizens. It would be diplomatic malpractice to not forecast the deal getting revoked, especially if they violated it (and they did)

How did they violate it?

If you find requiring the president to sign and congress to approve a treaty convoluted, what DON'T you find convoluted? Putting together a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is more conceptually complex, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't baffle international leaders, or you.

I don't find convoluted when you say that you take part into an international agreement, and then you stick to your word.

You expect the whole world to be familiar with the intricacies of the US Government. I assume that you have taken the same interest in familiarizing yourself with the technicalities of the Serbian government agreeing to international treaties.

The United States of America has a population over 300 million, we did not agree to take part in the international agreement. Obama knew that the American people would not support the agreement which is why he did it with the stroke of a pen rather than through congress.

Aha you think the American people has the facts and experience enough to be able to make good judgements in foreign policy and even that YOU actually now what their voice is and can represent them completely?

What you now is the same as everyone else what’s being sold in the media (even social media). There are lots of hacks like Thomas Friedman being given lots of page space in papers such as NYT to even spread propaganda for powerful interests. In aggregation these hacks represents alignments of powers which even a president cannot surmount in the long term. Obama of course understood this but didn’t give up on what he thought was right, and now Trump does not care about was is right instead he simply surf the waves of narratives spewed by the conservative/alt-right to both winning the presidency and keeping his hold on power and enrich himself in the process, while he claims he’s being backstabbed by the deep state. But it’s clear his bet on the wrong horse is becoming a hazard as more Republicans in Senate are realizing this and changing course to avoid the risk of complete collapse of their party and American morals.

I guess another Vietnam has to happen so that the American people will again learn the real news, but given the assymetry in military power and outsourcing of it to allies like SA I’m not sure if they will learn this time.

I expect the people who make agreements with the Serbian government to have. That's why they do the job instead of me.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [0] is not a treaty. That's not a matter of technicality, but of fact. I don't state this intending to defend the actions of the Trump administration. But when you get the basic facts so patently wrong, you do not do your argument any favors.

The staggering amount of these untruthful statements I read on a daily basis here and elsewhere on the internet is extremely disconcerting and increasing at an alarming rate. Please do not try to criticize Trump unless you are able to do so effectively. Posts like yours only make Trump's deceit and dishonesty harder to challenge, by damaging the credibility of anti-Trump individuals. Worse yet, they do nothing to further the cause of promoting positive change. Because if you want to do good, you do have to get things right.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...

They were sold a false bed of goods by Ben Rhodes and he bragged to the NYT about how he duped people into thinking it was a ‘treaty’

Seriously? And China is more trustworthy? Look at what they are doing with 1MDB scandal in Malaysia and Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. US is no saint - but it is the best of the worst out there.

Pulling out of a loophole in a treaty is something any country can do. Why is US especial in this?

Wasn't 1MDB to blame on Goldman Sachs, a US company, and Jho Low, a Malaysian?

This is the problem. 1MDB was a money laundering scam. Where do you think the money was laundered from?

https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/...

What are they doing with 1MDB?

Jo Low is evading arrest, and they say is hiding in China. Makes sense.

Then the US should change their procedures: first get the treaty ratified then get their head-of-state to go and sign the treaty. Otherwise, in the eyes of the rest of the world the treaty has been signed and the US is bound by it, whatever their internal politics. Optics matter. The way it looks now because of this - and many other recent examples - that the US is not trustworthy.

A non-trivial number of countries have separate signing and ratification procedures. This is common enough that no reasonable observer in international politics automatically equates the two. Most of them have procedures that mirror those of the US!

It's worth considering that changing this process from one widely understood to one widely not understood is likely to lead to more confusion about weird internal political processes rather than less.

In any case a US president could always make up a story why the other party has violated a treaty if there’s enough interests which are aligned.

Remember Iraq WMDs?

1. Iran had an election shortly after JCPOA. If that election would have led to a change in government, and under the new president, Iran had decided to abrogate from the agreement, would the argument then be "hey, fair enough, it was not a a treaty"?

2. The senate passing it makes no difference. The Republicans, controlling the House and the Senate, may well have been successfully in passing legislation withdrawing from the treaty. Except - that isn't even necessary. Trump can withdraw from any treaty he likes whenever it pleases him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/0...

All of these are simply internal American processes, and it is up to the Americans to consider wether they want their politicians to run a foreign policy that projects stability, where the decisions of previous presidents are maintained because, being legitimately elected it was their decision to make, and American's word should stand for something - or whether they want their country to be perceived as erratic - which is in fact the case now, whether or not it causes allies such as the EU to ultimately make real changes in the relationship.

Strong political polarization in the US guarantees that going forward there won’t be continuity between presidents because there’s likely to be rapid shifts back and forth across the political spectrum

So,you agree with USA being unreliable partner now? (it might have been always that way, but it really looks different now)

This means that rest of the world can't trust the US on any issue...

This decreases US power. Everyone knows that they just have to wait for the next president and everything will be reset.

> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987, it is now dead. so by your definition, 30 years is now called permanent? To me, a far better definition of the term permanent can be concluded from the matter of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - US permanently refused to join that convention.

How is the INF dead? Trump announced he is withdrawing the US from it but he has no authority to do so unilaterally and requires the approval of the Senate to actually withdraw. That approval has not happened and, as far as I am aware, the Senate has not even discussed the matter yet. It's just being used to strongarm Russia into complying with the treaty after they violated it at least once (that I am aware of, anyway)

> Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. For the rest of the world, it's just abuse and plain wrong.

(Almost?) All countries have a similar approval process in the parliament. Usually the president has enough votes in the parliament or has an informal arrangement with the opposition leaders to ensure the approval.

For example, Iran never ratified the 2013 treaty with Argentina. It was approved by the Argentinean Parliament, but it was never approved by the Iranian Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding_be... more info in the Spanish version (autotranslation): https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=htt...

[Disclaimer: I'm from Argentina. I didn't like the treaty, but nobody asked for my opinion.]

You're complicating things: USA has issued an international arrest warrant. X person went to Canada and his name was blinking so he was arrested. End of the story.

A Canadian Court will decide whether the US arrest warrant was based on common Western norms or not. In this case the arrest warrant was not issued for free speech, tax evasion or political activity so almost certain he'll be extradited. End of the story. Canada will determine that the person involved--essentially with billion$ behind her--will get a fair hearing in USA. And she will, laws may be unfair but...

Yes, the US was wrong to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran.

But that's not the whole story with the Huawei CFO arrest.

China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own.

Chinese companies enjoy open access to Western markets, but Western companies are highly restricted in their access to Chinese markets.

If Huawei illegally sold technology to sanctioned nations, and the US can use that to pressure China on trade and espionage, more power to them.

> China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own.

Do you have any evidence for this? Have we arrested any US citizens for selling/leaking military technology to China?

While there is definitely good reason to believe that is happening, it should be noted that multiple Chinese-American scientists have been subjected to meritless witch-hunts. See e.g. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/feature-chinese-amer... and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/technology/sherry-chen-na... for examples.

I’m as opposed to current US idiocracy as anybody, but requiring people to relitigate every last fact, and prove even widely accepted moral concepts from first principle, just destroys any honest debate.

I do not know of any place that widely proves that "state-owned and state-controlled companies" are stealing trade secrets.

Individuals, sure. State-owned companies? I would like to know the proof for this.

> Chinese companies enjoy open access to Western markets

please show me how Huawei enjoyed its open access to the US market.

if you like, I can easily show you tons of evidence on how Huawei's competitors say Cisco enjoyed its open access to the Chinese markets.

What that has all to do with the arrest?

She has been arrested for violating a completely unrelated US law (in non-US territory).

You seem to suggest using a political move you disagree with to take hostages to force China to act on an entirely unrelated set of grievances.

Huawei is not open access to US market.

NYT said NSA is hacking into Huawei's server steal information.

Well said, US bias towards Saudi Arabia while both SA and Iran have totalitarian regimes which misbehave in the region shows they are primarily interested in having influence in the region. SA is the one deemed best suited and most willing to at least publicly show support for US foreign policy. Unfortunately affiliation with SA will wreck havoc with any diplomatic mission of US in the region for the future. Russia and China will gain more influence going forward as they don’t have so much moral baggage in the region.

The external situation, and whether you agree or disagree about Iran, has no impact on whether or not it was illegal.

The company traded tech with the US under an agreement not to share said tech with sanctioned countries. They then proceeded in an apparent act of circumventing those trade agreements.

If they didn't like the sanctions against Iran then they shouldn't have been dealing with the US tech for which those sanctions applied in the first place.

Your argument is like saying "it's not theft because the person they were stealing from is a bad person" which isn't how the law works.

> If you want peace, you have to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia as well.

Funny how Israel never gets mentioned by anyone!

That’s probably because Israel is a part of the Western world and nobody in their right mind is concerned about it becoming a military threat or sponsoring radical Islamists.

Israel doesn't sponsor radical Islamists it just creates them by it's disregard for international law in the West Bank and Gaza.

And yet the heavy hitters (Al Qaeda, ISIS and co) never really bothered with Israel. They went directly after other Western nations which supported the Palestinian cause and sponsored Palestinians with billions of dollars.

The concern isn't becoming radical Islamists but becoming no different. The behavior is the ultimate problem. I mean the Shakers are technically a radical Christian sect who doesn't believe in sexual reproduction. Radical Martha Stewart fans deciding to kill people would be just as big of a problem.

Well if there is anything the Middle East can agree on, it’s their hatred of Israel. Probably better for Israel that they fight amongst themselves.

Israel is a bunch of middle European people clinging to a mythology of an omnipotent real estate agent granting them land amongst a bunch of eternally warring tribes. It's not gonna end well. I just wish the U.S. would stay out of that bs.

>I just wish the U.S. would stay out of that bs

You mean the descendants of Europeans who clung to a mythology that the son of that same omnipotent real estate agent granted them manifest destiny over a continent owned by a bunch of tribes?

And whose support for Israel is based, in part, on the belief that Israel as a state has a role to play in ushering in the Apocalypse of the Book of Revelations and the second coming of Christ?

The phrase "not bloody likely" comes to mind. The US is in with Israel for reasons that go far deeper than geopolitics.

political correctness, being called racist and whatnot

> "I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions."

Iran stopped its nuclear enrichment program, so the sanctions were wavered. Iran continued working on a ballistic missile program (capable of carrying nuclear warheads), and continued destabilizing countries throughout the middle east (through proxy terrorism) - so the sanctions came back.

In other words - temporarily halting the nuclear enrichment program alone should not excuse Iran from being held accountable.

> “continued destabilizing countries”

Pot, kettle, black. The US are continuously destabilising countries they don’t like, Iran included; in fact, most poweful countries do, all the time, from Russia to France to Germany. That doesn’t justify breaking treaties on a whim, like Trump has done.

The US had built up a reputation as a violent and aggressive bully after 2003. Obama worked hard at correcting that, but the new guy has thrown it all away again. The US at the moment look seriously bipolar, from the outside.

> A few will say that Iran is threatening Middle East Peace.

That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts. I am currently in the Middle East due to one or more of these conflicts.

I am not stating any opinion for or against the recent (now ignored) agreement.

> What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran.

That is a gross over simplification of how the complexities of global trade does not always align with the interests of international politics. It is within the capabilities of one nation to impose laws that forbid trade and supply to another nation while trading with third party nations trading contingent upon that awareness.

> That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts.

Where is your proof on this? Where is all of the proof on any of the things claimed about Iran? Just like there were mass destructive weapons in Irak?? Sure, we know how that turned out. It's time for big ol' USA to just stop meddling in affairs it has no business in. They just want to get their hands on all the oil in the world so they can play the boss, and it most likely is not going to stop there either, next it's water, the market, and so on. The USA is just a big bully, it's their way or not at all. And Europe is like the bully's accomplice, too scared to stand up so just joins along in the bullying. Pathetic, more more more, it's always more they want. Protecting the peace, ha, joke. And while we are at it, let's forgive Saudi Arabia for obviously brutally murdering a journalist, afterall, they just invested millions on some of our weapons.

Farce.

The evidence exists if you care to look. Most of it is in the way of first-hand accounts, however. Seeing as how this particular forum lacks a subpoena power over defected Shi'ite militia members, I have no way of directly presenting you the evidence.

Indirectly, however, you'll find the Internet is pretty replete. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

Given the strident tone of your post, I suspect you'll dismiss those sources. No doubt you'll suspect them of being self-serving. Very well. Evidence of Iran's doings also exists in forms which cut against the U.S. military's interest, such as the fact that they duped the U.S. military into violating U.S. law by providing them weapons.

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Is-the-US-supporting-Irani...

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2017/9/4/how-iraqi...

https://abcnews.go.com/International/dirty-brigades-us-train...

The fact is that Iranian-sponsored terrorism is so prevalent in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, that just defeating Daesh is a moral problem... it's become a logistical nightmare to not only perform Leahy vetting but to actually carry out operations without a Shi'ite militia taking part and committing atrocities in the name of the Coalition.

And those Shi'ite militias? "All are directly backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps and are notorious among the Sunni minority population for carrying out extrajudicial killings, torture and ethnic cleansing."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/iraqs-shia-militias-accused-of...

----------

You are entitled to your opinion that the "USA is just a big bully," although I personally don't think it's a well-founded opinion. However, the next time you feel inclined to start calling things a "farce" before you've examined any evidence, I'd encourage you to reconsider.

And you think it’s just of US to sell weapons to a authoritarian murderous regime like SA? Previously Saddam in Iraq? And also the Afghan fundamentalists during Russian and Afghanistan war? Eventually US went to war with both Iraq and Afghanistan with the same leadership they supported earlier.

The Shia militias your talking about is no better nor worse than the kind of people both US and SA and other gulf countries have supported in the region. You think ISIS could have existed without certain external help in the ME?

The question is not if Iran is bad they clearly are, but they are not worse than the rest of the regional powers also not worse compared to US given it’s track record in both supporting totalitarian leaders and fundamentalists.

My understanding is that the topic of this subthread is whether there is evidence to support the idea that Iran has done something for which sanctions are appropriate. I think there is sufficient evidence of that.

If you want to debate whether the U.S. should sell arms to Saudi Arabia, I think that is a different topic.

I think the debate is whether you think that Iran has done something that warrants the sanctions and if yes, whether you think sanctions should also be imposed on Saudi Arabia, who has unquestionably done much worse, or is this not an objective standard that the U.S. follows and only select 'rouge' states fall under them, whereas other rouge states do not, as long as they maintain sufficient trading relationships?

Sure it’s a different story. Because it explains everything. How come one country is sanctioned while the other is treated like good friends. This is not a new trend with Yemen and Khashoggi affair either. Saudi Arabia has spread it’s ideology both to Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia and also in parts of Africa. That ideology is behind groups such as Al-quaida, Al-shahab, ISIS, Taliban who knows who else. This started in the 80s. Yet because they were allied with US they were treated like friends. Reagan even took a couple of pictures with some of them.

But history and context does not suit a soldier who is only looking at the “facts” given by his superior.

But yes, of course I know Shiite military are active in the middle east. I mean, it is their region, right? I can sense militarism in your terminology. Shiite militia, sunni militia? How about state-sponsored violence in the name of oil? You would not call that ‘militia’ would you? Since you copy pasted some news articles as evidence, here is some articles that argue otherwise for you: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-irrationality-of-am...,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/08/tehran...

https://www.mepc.org/nuclear-terrorism-iranian-perspective

But none of these articles would be enough for you either. I will dismiss arguments that talk about Iran one-sidedly, not the evidence. You can also see more scholarly articles that talk about the complexity of the military and political affairs in the middle east. Not from an over-militarized point of view, but also from a justice, social and anthropological perspective:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1035771060069611... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2968/065001004?src=r...

the point is, you throw Iran and nuclear and militia around like they are not connected to a people, and the best of you just reduce the situation to a state vs. people point of view. Iranians have the right, just like any other people, to defense and safety. The evidence to Iran being a terrorist state does not exist and what you sent me is a list of politically motivated accusations. The evidence for Iran meddling in the region, yes. I think there is plenty of that, and yes, that’s bad, as long as we don’t compare it to other countries around the world that do a million times worse but are left alone because they are western allies. I don’t think I have to convince anyone about the chaos Western intervention has created in the region. Iran is evil because it does not comply to bullying. O I hope you can also find the time for nuancing your view.

Well, since you accuse me of "throw[ing] nuclear . . . around" when I said no such thing, I hope you'll forgive me if I'm not convinced that it is I who should improve the nuance of my position. Particularly since none of the links you've posted support your position.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, regardless of how strongly you disagree with someone. If you post anything like this again we will ban you.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You are right, you did not throw that around, you is used in plural as well. While you personally didn't throw it around it's just a statement I make to the general public, like I said, it's not all about you and/or I, it's about people, the Iranian people, not trying to generalize or single out.

I'm not attacking anyone or arguing with you in person, just trying to show that I too find evidence and not base my views on personal feelings alone. Enjoy the rest of your day as well.

If you were really interested in evidence I am sure you wouldn't have any trouble finding it yourself.

I'm asking evidence of people claiming things without any proof. And yes, I can find my own evidence, hence my question. How is your comment any relevant?

Then just say you disagree.

Saudi Arabia is known to finance Wahhabism groups around the world, its books for children say it is ok to kill non-Muslims and even Muslims of the “wrong kind”, the terorist behind 9/1/1 were from the country, ISIS got its money from SA and the country is engaged in mayor war in the Middle East. Yet SA is a friend of US and many western countries.

I don't believe this thread is about Saudi Arabia.

So does imposing sanctions have any consistent basis or framework in the U.S? I believe that is very relevant here, because if not, it's basically being a bully.

Reducing international relations to schoolyard concepts like “bullying” leads to a child’s understanding of something that’s actually quite complex.

The U.S. has a history of regime change and subversive actions in every country that does not completely open its markets to it. Whatever you want to call it, it often punishes such countries by imposing sanctions, backing coups etc. because as the world's sole superpower it knows it can do so.

When a significantly more dominant part uses the power it knows it has over other parties to try to get its way, it is indeed buying, or any other synonym describing the same principle you may want to use.

Attempting to impose much greater intricacies to every single issue is rarely the right call.

Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. If she knowingly tried to export to Iran knowing it was forbidden by law, then she got what was coming to her.

> What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats.

Sanctions are powerful tools that benefit the country applying them in the same way that you benefit by not handing over ammunition to your enemies.

She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law.

Extra-territorial application of law is a nightmare.

How would the US react if a US businessman was arrested for trading with Israel in Turkey?

it should be Iran not Turkey , trading with israel is not forbidden in Turkey

> She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law.

If a tourist travels to another country and breaks that country's laws, they will be subject to the consequences of breaking those laws. So why should a foreigner that willingly conspires to use Huawei's US business to break the US laws be free from punishment? The fact that they are a foreigner is irrelevant.

She was arrested in Vancouver.

It's not completely unusual that criminals get arrested in allied countries through mutual cooperation, then get extradited for trial. This is happens with other countries as well besides the US.

As to whether or not that's right, I personally think it's reasonable. Most all countries seek to enforce their laws regardless of location, especially when they deem a serious crime was committed against them.

No, most countries don’t try to enforce their laws like that. If she has “committed” these acts while in China, obeying Chinese law, there is simply no crime.

This is not “robbed a bank in country X and then fled to Y”, which is what international law-enforcement cooperation was built for. This is like “copied Windows in a country where piracy is legal”. It’s a massive overreach by US and Canada, but then again, they are not new to this (see Kim Dotcom et al).

If you commit a major crime against Chinese law, and then visit China, they are within their rights to arrest you for it.

Similarly, if you commit a major crime against Canadian law and visit Canada, they can arrest you for it. And if you also committed a crime against US law, the US can petition for you to be extradited after the Canadians arrest you.

I fear I don't understand where the overreach is. I've clearly missed an important and nuanced detail. Can you help me?

How can you commit a crime under US law when you are not under US law at all? If I pass a law that bans eating cornflakes, you then have breakfast and enter my country, am I justified in putting you under trial?

International law is never simple - although I suppose having the biggest stick might drive people to ignore certain nuances.

> How can you commit a crime under US law when you are not under US law at all?

What makes this complicated is that Huawei does have a registered company in the US (with multiple offices), and therefore at least some part of Huawei ought to be subject to US laws. By making the choice to establish a US presence they ought to be willing to comply to the local regulations.

> If I pass a law that bans eating cornflakes, you then have breakfast and enter my country, am I justified in putting you under trial?

Yes, though the problem is that this example is trivial. If I pass a law that bans cyber attacks on my country's infrastructure, and you perform attacks in a country where it is legal and travel to my country, I'm well in the grounds to arrest you.

If cornflake eating were against the law, the solution would be to avoid traveling to that country in the same way that some people might not travel to North Korea for fear of being arrested unfairly.

You're absolutely right! That's an absurd scenario and it makes no sense in any way under a basic understanding of how laws work.

It may be worth considering that laws are not always strictly confined to physical borders in what actions they can apply to. In this case, there are nuances that could be worth paying some attention to about Canadian laws and trade embargoes.

It was not on US soil. The world is not American.

> If a tourist travels to another country and breaks that country's laws.

For god sake Huawei did business with Iran as "China to Iran" not "USA to Iran" why they had to comply with US stupid laws? the business never occurred in USA. US is shooting it self with stupid laws that try to sanction the wrong nation while still supporting Saudi and Israel a clear terrorists nations.

And the funny thing that Israel and Saudi regime are the ones that pushed Trump to cancel Iran deal with the US.

She's been arrested for circumventing US laws by exporting items _made in the US_ to Iran (via intermediate countries).

While I don't agree with the US sanctions, she is not being charged with shipping goods made in China to Iran. Obviously the US has no say in that.

> Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences.

I'd argue this is not as self evident as you imply for such "worldwide" laws. It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries.

> It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries.

That's a fair point. However if Huawei has a physical presence as a business in the US (which it does) then it should certainly be subject to obeying US laws. The one responsible for violating that law should be held responsible for breaking the law, whether they are a foreigner or not, in the same way that a tourist traveling to another country is still subject to that country's laws.

sanctions always benefit the oppressor (read the dictator). While sanctions (in theory) make it harder for a regime to earn money - in practice it leads to more poverty and hardship among the poor people (who don't care about politics). Sanctions usually lead to more anti-foreign sentiments and a boost to the radical power-bases within the sanctioned country. Walking a country (society) back from the effects of sanctions is incredibly tricky and requires more than just undoing the sanction.

Ask the Apartheid states how sanctions benefited them. Always is a bit of a strong word.

I think "justification" internally matters for the internal role. If the people view the actions and its consequences as unjust nothing changes to benefit opinion wise.

However even if (they think) it is totally unfair that they are being sanctioned want to just because they burnt a few evil witches/abolished slavery they are still weakened internationally.

> Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences.

Like those charged under the Russian laws living in Europe? Do you see how problematic this idea is?