The point of an extradition treaty is you beleive the other country has a reasonably fair and just justice system, or at least one roughly comparable to your own. If you force a full trial for extradition, there is no point to treaties like that to begin with.

This is unrelated to the China thing in my opinion. No one sensible is claiming things like "the US justice system will be unfairly stacked against her" or "she won't be properly guaranteed her human right against <X>". In general though I disagree and wish our extradition system worked differently.

It doesn't seem fair to the accused to send them to a country with different (in some cases lesser) protection than our own for various rights for their trial. In fact, doing so seems like a direct violation of human rights and thus (in Canada's case) the charter of rights and freedoms.

It's also not necessary. If we want to save on legal costs, we should simply run a single trial in the extraditing country which complies with both countries standards of human rights, proof, evidence, law, and so on.

Yes and statements by President Trump as noted above throw that whole notion out of the window. There are plenty of other cases out there as well. The US justice system is often used as a tool by corporate interests to bully people and make examples of them. It leaves much to be desired in terms of being a fair judicial system that serves everyone equally.

Even the point of contention is ridiculous. Don't export anything to Iran while we continue to export weapons used to kill thousands and starve millions to Saudi Arabia.

The executive branch is not the judicial branch. Unlike China, the US actually has an independent judiciary. And, in this case, what “corporate interest” is driving this? This is a case concerning Iranian sanctions — American companies would love to be able to sell to Iran (or anyone for that matter.) how does it support US corporate interests to prosecute sanctions violations (involving US manufactured equipment?)

And millions aren’t starving in Saudi Arabia. Saudi’s Arabia is also ostensibly an ally that doesn’t point potential nuclear weapons at its neighbors. Saudi does have plenty of problems, but the Iran situation is one of a hostile regime threatening the region with nuclear weapons. A regime that actually promotes “death to America” and promotes the total destruction of Israel. The Saudis and the Israelis don’t publicly get along, but they tend to leave each other alone and cooperate under the radar, while Iran is a state sponsor of Hezbollah and pursuing nuclear weapons. A state sponsor of terrorism mixed with nuclear weapons? A pretty dangerous combination. There is no comparison with Saudi Arabia.

Your last point is out of context

Trump doesn't control the judiciary.

He controls the prosecution, which is in the executive branch. He could achieve all of those in your parent post without controlling the judiciary.

I am not saying that your parent post is correct, only possible.

Couldn't he pardon her?

Not until after a trial

But everyone knows he can't and the fact that he didn't know she'd be arrested is proof. Making legal matter political is how you get corruption

The prosecution represents the executive branch, they can drop the case at any time. He can tell them to drop the case. He has the power to do so and no one can stop him from doing that. They all in the end answer to him. The judges are independent, but it's the prosecution which brings the charges, and can drop the charges at any time.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/05/president-trump-prose...

Has he been able to do that in the Russia elections issues ?

Trump can pardon a guilty verdict, but he cannot force charges to be dropped.