"Everybody has the right to leave the US"

Like all generalisations (even this one) that is completely incorrect. I believe there are a lot of people in US custody who are denied that right?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be where they are, or that they should have the right to leave, but your blanket statement is wrong.

Also see Dmitry Sklyarov for an example of when stepping on the wrong corporate toes can get you into all sorts of trouble in the USA.

"I believe there are a lot of people in US custody who are denied that right?"

Like in every other country? This is pretty much a given, so I generalized within obvious constraints.

"Also see Dmitry Sklyarov"

Yes, that's very bad

So everyone can leave except the people we say can't leave?

I know, and I know that it's (societally speaking) a necessary tool. But many see the rate of incarceration in the US as a massive problem itself.

Note that I in no way compare the DPRK with the USA, I just think that talking in absolutes or framing them as opposites doesn't really help. We got a lot of problems in the west too...

Oh well, that's just because US thinks it owns every other country.

Just see what they tried to do with Assange and Kim Dotcom.

They could've done that countless times with less public people.

I suppose having an extradition treaty with another country implies ownership, now. Thanks for having an enlightening discussion!

The treaty only work when their actions constitute a crime on their resident country. In both cases this is not true.

This didn't stop US from bullying NZ and UK. NZ police even acted unlawfully because of this bullying.

> Everybody has the right to leave the US

that's not true, both in terms of citizenship and geographical position

Bullshit. Who would let them in? How can they even afford to get out, if anyone would let them in?