I disagree. I think Trump and his team are doing a great job negotiating with assholes and that we're not the biggest offenders in that category. It makes previous administrations look totally incompetent or sold out in comparison. I still hold out hope that the border will be taken more seriously as well and that we can shut down whoever is funding all the human movement designed to undermine Western governments.
Also, Huawei can do business here, all they have to do is remove the Commie spy apparatus built into every device because many of those devices will find their way into sensitive locations and work.
Then I wish the NSA would follow suit! We can have real security and real privacy in our time if we demand it. Trump is very bad on privacy, they want to man-in-the-middle every device. Just say no--say no for the same reason we don't want shitty chicom spy-tech in our gear. We want secure banking and secure comms, we are entitled to that as American citizens. The issue of terrorism, crime, pedos, is always the foot in the door. Don't let them get away with techno-tyranny and turning the US into a jail with no bars.
The government is still bound by law, and unless he formally removes them from the restricted entity list there isn't much choice on how to proceed. It is not legal to special case Huawei, they must act fairly within the entire class of restricted entities.
Trump frequently gets tripped up on this - he wants to make decisions with immediate effect. He would be more effective if he played off it, "I'd love to fix that but we have to follow process first...".
I had a manager like that. The bottom line is who he was talking to. Every decision was based on not losing face or winning the current meeting and if that meant affecting earlier decisions, he could roll the current meeting back also, no? Just not now, but later.
The thing which helped him (survive( was that he owned (part of) the company so his decisions could not be questioned easily, same as our president.
Once you have shown your hand, now the other side has a number of new contingencies to address over the coming years. Even if you strike a deal with them, you are putting off the inevitable. It's like Trump started a half-ass war that he was not really interested in even seeing through his term, more than long term. Don't think we have seen frenemies since before WWI.
I don't see an issue if the US Government themselves wants to not use certain companies (foreign or otherwise).
The issue is when the US Government tries to tell private US Companies who and how they should do business with certain foreign companies, and forgets to provide any actual evidence for their assertions.
This all could be avoided by simply publishing what Huawei is meant to have done. Otherwise it just strikes of a trade-war/protectionism but using "cyber security" as a justification.
It's illegal for a government entity to just decide they don't like somebody without due process.
The carnival atmosphere in Washington is bad for everyone. The Tweeter-in-chief undermines his own authority by governing in the public square. It makes any counter-party position much stronger, as they can easily manipulate the emotions of the president, and the negotiators on the ground have very little leverage within the US camp. A random ad on TV may change strategy!
Where in the law is it required that the government must offer due process in relation to contractual business deals with corporations? Is 'due process' even the correct term for that type of thing? You seem to be conflating the government punishing someone for crimes without due process to convict that person of said crimes.
The Constitution is very clear that treaties are the law of the land, and every state must abide by them (including the private companies and citizens in that states). A trade ban / embargo is a form of treaty.
Article VI
Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, Religious Tests
Signed in convention September 17, 1787. Ratified June 21, 1788
...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I am surprised how any Chinese companies came this far into the west, theyre all just communist arms disguised as big corps. Kudos to the chinese, its difficult to pull this off
Huawei has been seen as a shady actor for over a decade now. It was during Obama's term that the House Intelligence Committee deemed Huawei a national security threat.
21 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 56.5 ms ] threadHe's doing a great PR job for China, no matter what he'll ensure USA come out of it looking like bullying assholes.
Edit: yes, Xi Jinping can do anything he likes Trump will steal the headline.
Also, Huawei can do business here, all they have to do is remove the Commie spy apparatus built into every device because many of those devices will find their way into sensitive locations and work.
Then I wish the NSA would follow suit! We can have real security and real privacy in our time if we demand it. Trump is very bad on privacy, they want to man-in-the-middle every device. Just say no--say no for the same reason we don't want shitty chicom spy-tech in our gear. We want secure banking and secure comms, we are entitled to that as American citizens. The issue of terrorism, crime, pedos, is always the foot in the door. Don't let them get away with techno-tyranny and turning the US into a jail with no bars.
Trump frequently gets tripped up on this - he wants to make decisions with immediate effect. He would be more effective if he played off it, "I'd love to fix that but we have to follow process first...".
The thing which helped him (survive( was that he owned (part of) the company so his decisions could not be questioned easily, same as our president.
The issue is when the US Government tries to tell private US Companies who and how they should do business with certain foreign companies, and forgets to provide any actual evidence for their assertions.
This all could be avoided by simply publishing what Huawei is meant to have done. Otherwise it just strikes of a trade-war/protectionism but using "cyber security" as a justification.
The carnival atmosphere in Washington is bad for everyone. The Tweeter-in-chief undermines his own authority by governing in the public square. It makes any counter-party position much stronger, as they can easily manipulate the emotions of the president, and the negotiators on the ground have very little leverage within the US camp. A random ad on TV may change strategy!
Article VI Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, Religious Tests
Signed in convention September 17, 1787. Ratified June 21, 1788
...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This is not at all a treaty. Actual treaties require a 2/3rds approval of the Senate, which has not happened.
It is, at best, on the level of 'executive order', which can (and, IMHO, should) be challenged in court per 'checks and balances'.
I think it's more likely this derives simply from some Federal level law which is why it gets its power over states and individuals.