Look at Julian Assange's situation. He has prominent academics, human rights lawyers and the UNHCHR on his side, and Sweden/UK/US have still basically imprisoned him with no trial in exchange for never breaking a law. China is definitely no worse. I feel safer here in China than in the US with its overbearing corrupt police gangs and litigious gun culture, by far.

Whatever you think of Julian Assange, "imprisonment without trial" has been his choice. If he were to leave the embassy, he fairly certainly would receive a trial.

How can you believe that when they literally forced down diplomatic planes over Europe for just some of the leaks the US are out to get him for? When the whole Swedish bar association is up in arms at the abuse of process and Swedish image related to the farcical charges? When the documents about his police statements there were all leaked and clearly show his innocence from the allegations? To me, your thought process just seems naive.

That's nonsense. He is fleeing arrest by locking himself in neutral territory. That's self imposed house arrest.

Are you suggesting that all criminals should be released immediately after being arrested? Clearly that is false: not all criminals should be released after being arrested (as an extreme example, if a man goes on a rampage and shoots 20 people, clearly he should not be out on bail pending trial). Obviously the judge made a mistake in believing Kevin was a security threat, but there is nothing wrong with the principle of detaining people pending trial.

Meanwhile, in China, you have bookstore owners, bankers, and government officials "disappearing" left and right.

> but there is nothing wrong with the principle of detaining people pending trial.

There isn't if and only if we deliver on the promise of a speedy trial, which we don't.

No. Even if there were no promise of a speedy trial, this principle stands.

Obviously it doesn't because it means allowing the innocent to be jailed without trial, not OK.

It is not obvious. The government has an interest in being able to detain serial killers pending trial.

Yes, it is obvious that allowing the government to jail people an undetermined amount of time before a trial is defacto punishing without trial and unethical. Even "alleged" serial killers deserve a speedy trial because they aren't guilty until proven so. Rights aren't about the governments interest, they're about ours, and allowing detention without trial for years at a time is wrong under all scenarios.

I already agreed that detention pre-trial is OK if and only if there is a speedy trial.

and the principle means effective imprisonment doesn't require a trial.

>Are you suggesting that all criminals should be released immediately after being arrested?

I am not and I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion based on my comment. It's completely reasonable to hold people pre-trial but without the guarantee of a speedy trial you end up with a method for states to hold people indefinitely.

I find it funny(sad?) that this happens, yet we're told that we are innocent until proven guilty. At the same time, there can be a man that stabs a person to death of front of a dozen witnesses, is caught by the police immediately after covered in blood and a knife in hand, with it all caught on tape, and they'll still refer to this guy as an 'alleged' murdered.

Go figure

>Kevin Mitnick spent 4.5 years in jail waiting for trial.

Kevin Mitnick waived his right to a speedy trial. Coincidence, I think not.