- 主题发起人 故里
- 发布时间 2019-01-08
“极不正常”言过鸟。他的原话是酱紫滴： an extradition case on this basis will be breaking new ground, and courting uncertainty. 以此为引渡基础将会拓展出新的领域，会招致不确定性。
所以他并不是下鸟什么断言，而只是说如果以制裁问题为基础，恐怕会有些问题，但也不是一定奏不行。
但米国显然不想以此为基础，对此罗伯特认识到 it will doubtless frame as a straightforward criminal case (even though it is likely anything but).米国无疑将把此案装扮成一个简单直白的刑事案。然后他在括弧里说，“它其实一点儿也不简单直白”。这相当于说，你懂的，这个案子远超出一般的刑事案，蛋是这道理是莫法正经说出来滴。
最后编辑: 2019-01-09
俺不知道法官在采信方面有多大的自由度。好多情况下，即使法官本淫有狠强的定罪倾向性，但无奈关键证据奏是不给力，他也莫办法，只好无罪释放。这种案例恐怕不少。一个法官要坐实米方不是因为金融诈骗而要求引渡孟女，恐怕还是相当有难度的。比如兲朝的公知嫖娼案，如果嫖娼行为纯属子虚乌有，栽赃陷害，辣说这个案件是政治迫害奏比较容易，但如果公知确实嫖娼鸟，然后说兲朝是因为政治原因而不是因为嫖娼才抓鸟公知，辣奏是一件说不清楚的事儿。光说有辣么多嫖娼的都莫有抓，所以抓公知一定奏是政治迫害是说不通滴。
罗伯特专门有一段是讲法务部长的态度：
其中谈到加拿大与米国长期的合作传统。拒绝米国的要求是极其非同寻常的事情。偶看到好多同胞在分析加拿大面临两难处境的时候会比较多地侧重在加拿大不敢得罪兲朝一方，其实客观地说，加拿大更不愿意得罪米方。假如米方的确对孟女莫有兴趣鸟，那加拿大给兲朝做个顺水淫情奏比较容易。可如果米国还强烈想要引渡孟女，辣加拿大莫有理由特别要讨好兲朝。孟女究竟不是个淫权斗士或者是个可怜巴巴难民啥的，她有钱有势有墙大的祖国，加拿大实在莫有必要为她声张神马而和米国怼一回。
最后编辑: 2019-01-09
据《环球时报》消息，正在北京举行的中美副部长级贸易磋商磋商8日进行到深夜仍未对外发布消息，双方9日将继续磋商。分析认为，谈判严重超时说明中美两国官员都决心在此次谈判中达成协议。
如果此次谈判中达成协议,你们吵来吵去有个毛用, 在贸易争端谈判重大事情面前, 孟女只能是个小case, 说不定谈判达成协议, 孟女也不引渡了,当堂释放.
如果此次谈判中达成协议,你们吵来吵去有个毛用, 在贸易争端谈判重大事情面前, 孟女只能是个小case, 说不定谈判达成协议, 孟女也不引渡了,当堂释放.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...-to-blame-for-the-meng-wanzhou-mess-china-is/
Our international obligations are clear. Articles 11.1 and 11.2 of the Canada-U.S. extradition agreement specifies that, upon receipt of the appropriate request and an indication of an intention to request extradition, the “requested state” – in this case, Canada – shall “take the necessary steps to secure the arrest of the person claimed.”
Canada’s legal obligation, upon receiving the request of the United States, was therefore to detain Ms. Meng. If Canadian officials had not lived up to this request – if they had deliberately missed her at the Vancouver airport, or had warned her ahead of time – they would have been in violation of this agreement. And if the United States became aware that Ms. Meng had been warned, as would likely have been the case, Washington would have been justifiably apoplectic.
If anyone’s actions prior to Ms. Meng’s arrest should be questioned, it is those of Chinese, not Canadian, officials. It is in fact puzzling that they did not take action to warn her. Chinese diplomats are well-trained and sophisticated; they must have known of Canada’s extradition agreement with the United States, and of the arrest warrant issued for Ms. Meng on Aug. 22 by a New York court. Someone in the Chinese system clearly messed up. So it is puzzling to see these Canadian commentators appearing to line up with the Chinese government in laying the blame on Canada.
Our international obligations are clear. Articles 11.1 and 11.2 of the Canada-U.S. extradition agreement specifies that, upon receipt of the appropriate request and an indication of an intention to request extradition, the “requested state” – in this case, Canada – shall “take the necessary steps to secure the arrest of the person claimed.”
Canada’s legal obligation, upon receiving the request of the United States, was therefore to detain Ms. Meng. If Canadian officials had not lived up to this request – if they had deliberately missed her at the Vancouver airport, or had warned her ahead of time – they would have been in violation of this agreement. And if the United States became aware that Ms. Meng had been warned, as would likely have been the case, Washington would have been justifiably apoplectic.
If anyone’s actions prior to Ms. Meng’s arrest should be questioned, it is those of Chinese, not Canadian, officials. It is in fact puzzling that they did not take action to warn her. Chinese diplomats are well-trained and sophisticated; they must have known of Canada’s extradition agreement with the United States, and of the arrest warrant issued for Ms. Meng on Aug. 22 by a New York court. Someone in the Chinese system clearly messed up. So it is puzzling to see these Canadian commentators appearing to line up with the Chinese government in laying the blame on Canada.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/business/us-china-trade-talks-beijing.html
BEIJING — Three days of trade negotiations between midlevel American and Chinese officials ended in Beijing on Wednesday afternoon with progress in identifying and narrowing the two sides’ differences but little sense of when they might reach a deal.
A United States government official confirmed that the talks had ended but declined to elaborate. Chinese officials had no immediate comment, although the Commerce Ministry is expected to address the negotiations during its weekly news conference on Thursday.
外交部：中美贸易磋商已结束 相关消息会很快发布
外交部召开记者会，发言人陆慷回答记者提问。
问：请问中美经贸磋商是否已经结束？你能否透露下一轮磋商将在何时何地举行？
答：我可以确认，中美经贸磋商已经结束，磋商的结果我相信很快就会发布。至于这里面是否包括下一轮磋商什么时间、怎么举行，也许发布的消息里会有。
问：美方有官员表示，中美经贸磋商进展非常顺利。中方是否认为此次磋商取得了成功？
答：我刚才回答记者提问的时候已经说了，正式的结果很快会出来，大家稍安勿躁，可以等待正式的结果。但我相信，如果是一个好的结果，那么不仅对中美双方都有利，我相信对世界经济也是一个好消息。
外交部召开记者会，发言人陆慷回答记者提问。
问：请问中美经贸磋商是否已经结束？你能否透露下一轮磋商将在何时何地举行？
答：我可以确认，中美经贸磋商已经结束，磋商的结果我相信很快就会发布。至于这里面是否包括下一轮磋商什么时间、怎么举行，也许发布的消息里会有。
问：美方有官员表示，中美经贸磋商进展非常顺利。中方是否认为此次磋商取得了成功？
答：我刚才回答记者提问的时候已经说了，正式的结果很快会出来，大家稍安勿躁，可以等待正式的结果。但我相信，如果是一个好的结果，那么不仅对中美双方都有利，我相信对世界经济也是一个好消息。
当然，如果认定孟是为贸易谈判而抓，是可以这么推演。
可俺从一开始奏否认这种可能性。从时间和方法上来讲，这种手段太不可控，难以想象床铺会用这种方式来给中方施压。这事儿正发生在他主动和中方缓和之际，是他给鸟中方的宽限，是他正在给中方减压之时。他要是想抓个让兲朝感到痛的淫，他至于去抓一个猴年马月都未必会过境米国引渡协议国的孟女吗？偌大个米国境内奏莫有个合适淫选可以抓？习公主不是据说回到哈佛上学乐吗？
床铺现在已经明确表态要在孟女案上要坚持rule of law的原则，rule of law当然不意味着放淫。rule of law只意味着该咋样奏咋样，按照法律办。
俺楼上说乐，床铺曾经想打这张送上门儿来的牌（而且他是还想用放孟女来示好，而不是加压），蛋他现在不想打鸟，而习帝也根本奏不想碰这种牌，所以这种牌只会被放在一边。也许别的政治势力会加以利用：例如中米好战淫士，反华淫士，反小土豆淫士，等等。如果各派兴趣都不大，那奏按着法律程序走呗，估计也不会放。要是放鸟，辣大概是说明政治压力起作用鸟。蛋照你的分析，政治压力现在看来也是减弱鸟。
老背是活在童话故事里出不来了吧？有啥不可能的？照你的说法，反正小国都是要牺牲掉滴，不如引渡鸟再说嘛。俺最稀饭看大国被小国搞得不高兴鸟，辣满足感不是一般般滴，奏像看见小小孙悟空逗弄一个大妖怪一样。
国际政治，政治正确只是一个幌子
其核心是：利益。无论你政治正确还是其它任何幌子，都是为这个核心服务
历史也好，现实也罢，将来亦然，都是残酷的
强国从来就是主宰，弱国只能是被牺牲。中国近现代一直是被牺牲的对象，能否从心理上和行动上完成角色转换
不再以被害者被欺负者的心态，苦大仇深的在世界上硬是要活出个样子来，而是
积极与强者合作，务实的参与瓜分世界的游戏（这个游戏、这个丛林法则不以任何人意志为转移）
真要抓住机会那样的话，现在困扰中国的多数问题，都迎刃而解了
你加拿大、台湾这些，还孙悟空呢，踩得你扁扁的
美国不是踩你加拿大了吗？台湾也一样，明白得很，小心翼翼的看着美国人脸色，不是吗？
如果中国加入这个踩人集团，成为“八国联军”的一份子了呢？你加拿大还不得是“满清”？你还敢捉任何人？
Similar threads
