> I'm criticizing the false equivalency you made of taking someone through a rule-of-law process and treating them fairly in adjudicating whether a crime was committed, vs. execution in political retaliation
Dude if you can't see that the Meng process was 100% political chess moves then I am not sure what more I can say. Yes it's "rule of law" - "laws" passed specifically to facilitate this chess game. By the USA. You keep on accusing me of all sorts of apologetics and false equivalency and bad faith but that is just not true. I guess I can only give my personal word on that. I am a dispassionate outside observer for all of this shit and have no dog in this race.
Your point about the high conviction rate in China is naive. This is an asian thing. Police in China (and elsewhere in Asia) talk out cases before making an arrest, trying to solve problems extrajudicially. It's not comparable to the West. When they do charge someone, it's because they are absolutely certain - Japan's is also 99%. That does not mean the system is corrupt. It is a different approach.
> they could just as face execution
Let us make a bet, you and I, as to whether Mr Airsoft is executed. $1000 says no. You in?
> Dude if you can't see that the Meng process was 100% political chess moves then I am not sure what more I can say.
I already said the process was initiated for political reasons.
> Yes it's "rule of law" - "laws" passed specifically to facilitate this chess game. By the USA.
Incorrect, it's Canadian law passed by Canada. It's a bilateral extradition treaty, of which they have 30 with countries including Cuba, but of course it's an open conversation [1]. The rules are simple. Countries can request extradition on the grounds that a crime was committed, so long as it is a crime in both countries. Canada won't extradite you to America for marijuana possession, for instance, because it's not a crime in Canada. Meng could have been high off her face and the Americans wouldn't have been able to extradite her on those grounds, even if the US had evidence of marijuana possession within the US. They couldn't extradite her for sanctions violations either. Fraud is a crime in both countries, so they can -- but only if they convince a Canadian judge that there's reasonable evidence to suggest it happened and that they're doing so honestly, and within a short period of time.
> Your point about the high conviction rate in China is naive. This is an asian thing. Police in China (and elsewhere in Asia) talk out cases before making an arrest, trying to solve problems extrajudicially.
They may do that but China is not a rule of law country (as indicated by your comment on extrajudicial punishments). People are detained and charged with crimes for political reasons not matters of fact. Even the NPC admitted the system isn't particularly fair or functional [2]. If you think all 99.93% of people convicted by Chinese courts were guilty I've got a bridge to sell you. Naturally the US State Department concurs, but of course, they would.
"Such problems were on full display in 2011 when a Henan Province farmer named Zhao Zuohai was released from prison after serving 11 years because the woman he was convicted of murdering was actually very much alive and living at home."
Sounds like the conversation went well! But of course anecdotes don't mean much, I just thought it was funny and relevant.
> I already said the process was initiated for political reasons.
That is absolutely not the tone of your first response to me. You are moving the goalposts. My whole point was that all these actions - Canada's, China's - were part of a game, a game that in this case America started! You then carry on for 200 lines about the virtues of Canada's independent, unimpeachable judiciary - before admitting that yeah, in this case it was deployed in aid of america's sabre-rattling. I think we kind of agree?
> They may do that but China is not a rule of law country
Look man. China is big, and it is different. I would agree it is less bound by the rule of law than somewhere like Canada but that doesn't make it anarchy. Yes, Police in China have a lot more discretion and they try to solve problems before they hit the courts. There is no "sue your neighbour" - they will drag everyone down to the station and force them to talk it out and come up with a solution. It's just different.
Yes there is corruption. Yes certain "golden people" will never get in trouble. It's worse than in the west but only by degree. You honestly think rich people in Canada get sent to jail at the same rate as others? Rich, connected people are always treated differently. Can you deny this?
Once again I hate to come across like I'm defending China. I hate China! But can you just zoom out and be fucking fair and impartial across these countries you're judging.
Dude if you can't see that the Meng process was 100% political chess moves then I am not sure what more I can say. Yes it's "rule of law" - "laws" passed specifically to facilitate this chess game. By the USA. You keep on accusing me of all sorts of apologetics and false equivalency and bad faith but that is just not true. I guess I can only give my personal word on that. I am a dispassionate outside observer for all of this shit and have no dog in this race.
Your point about the high conviction rate in China is naive. This is an asian thing. Police in China (and elsewhere in Asia) talk out cases before making an arrest, trying to solve problems extrajudicially. It's not comparable to the West. When they do charge someone, it's because they are absolutely certain - Japan's is also 99%. That does not mean the system is corrupt. It is a different approach.
> they could just as face execution
Let us make a bet, you and I, as to whether Mr Airsoft is executed. $1000 says no. You in?