How would US citizens would feel if another country, say China, wanted to extradite a US citizen because he allegedly violated Chinese copyright law?
Dotcom is absolutely right in saying that US is playing world police.
International crime can be a tough problem to solve. Who gets to decide what is a crime, how it should be judged and punished?
Probably how Swedish citizens felt when China 'extradited' Gui Minhai. At least in US you have due process?
See also https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/230000-policing-expan....
> US is playing world police
NZ and US have a bunch of shared laws, trade and extradition agreements and stuff. It's not like US dropped in and snatched Dotcom without any NZ cooperation. Not world police, just boring international justice.
This is underlined by other US excesses, ie [1] or the fact that US prisons are have many citizens of other states, but there are very few US citizens detained elsewhere (in democratic systems, not used for some political deals).
[1] "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody. The antithesis of fairness and basic human equality rights.
Americans commit exceedingly little crime internationally. Even in ultra-low crime countries, US citizens rank below native citizens per capita. That is probably why.
I applaud the USA for fiercely defending its citizens' rights, even against the governments of other countries.
Relatively recent, though involved diplomatic immunity too: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/us-declines-uk-extra...
If those two things are present... well, then it is what it is. Now, I doubt China would be able to provide the fair trial part, but if we're trying to compare your situation to what Kim Dotcom is going through, it's a question we have to answer. I'd much rather take my chances in a US courtroom than a PRC courtroom.
Hmm, excellent question. And for context, America is going to give Kim Dotcom a functional life sentence in what Americans like to call "pound-you-in-the-ass prison". For sharing files. He'll be given more years than harsher than most murderers.
Dragging a foreigner (especially) into the country to be put into a metal cage for violating copyright is disgusting.
Unlikely. He'll probably be sentenced to a minimum/low/medium-security prison facility/farm. Over 80% of American federal inmates are in a facility meeting one of those classifications [1].
The federal sentence (using that for comparison since the federal government carries out IP law in the US) for first-degree murder in the US is either life in prison or death by lethal injection. Dotcom is exceedingly unlikely to spend the rest of his life in prison and is obviously not eligible for the death penalty. He'd probably be looking at a decade or two at most. Obviously, that sucks for him, but your assertion that he'll be treated worse than murderers and be SA'd regularly in a prison housing violent inmates is simply not true.
[1]https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_sec_l...
So, no, what you said isn't absolutely true.
That is how Dotcom wants it characterized. Everyone else sees a fly-by-night website run by an eccentric millionaire making money by playing fast and loose with the law. It is one thing to be an outlaw subverting oppression by distributing free bread to poor people. It is another to be a bootlegger selling vodka under the table and then throwing huge invite-only parties with the profits.