k_paleologos

"During the investigation, the Committee received information from industry experts and current and former Huawei employees suggesting that Huawei, in particular, may be violating United States laws. "

This is a claim which can only be proven in a court of law.

What government can do is limited by the constitution. Generally speaking, unless these companies have done something unlawful there is no ground for banning their products. Is it established that they have broken US laws?

Is government involvement problematic? Many firms have government involvement, often in an under the table manner. For example Airbus. Government involvement is in itself no grounds for banning a company.

Is this an executive measure? Does the executive have authority to do such a thing, based on vague and nebulous claims of threat to national security? Were these companies providing sevices/supplying goods in the US market subject to necessary US regulatory approvals? On which grounds can such approvals be rescinded without evidence that will stand in courts?

Moreover this is infact a restriction on US citizens/ firms from buying these goods? Does it not impinge on their rights to fair choice?

Why should the government decide which apps a user can install in their device?

Reports suggest that they require only 3 launches in this configuration LM5B where the core stage falls back, for the construction of their station. They might have made the assumption that chances of damage due to debris is very low considering that only 3 launches are to happen with this configuration.

In case even if there is damage on the ground, there are treaties that govern the liabilities in case.

It would be interesting to know why they technically chose this particular way of doing it, but the discussion seems too hyperbolic for that.