If you don't want to hand over your citizens at the whims of other countries, why should you expect any other country to behave the same way?

Because I'm not a citizen of those countries. Because we don't have muppet courts. Because we have bigger guns. International relations aren't symmetric.

Strangely, I think it's only the guns that matter because you're not asking for anyone else's opinion on your courts.

That's not true. We regularly cooperate with the justice systems in peer countries.

You support the USA forcing extradition of foreigners, and you've said that extraordinary rendition isn't a crime, so really it's your turn.

I don't support this at all, but I'd let you be taken because you do. That'd end this sooner than your double standard.

I don't understand why you think countries like India should be treated with the same standards as countries like the U.S. It's foolish to think you can have bilateral, equal relationships between countries who don't share basic values. There is much to criticize about the American justice system, but there is even more to criticize about India's justice system, and until they come up to our level we should treat them with a double standard.

In different contexts, I don't think such double standards would be controversial. For example, certain European countries refuse to extradite to the U.S. who might be sentenced to the death penalty, even though they expect the U.S. to extradite people to them who might be on trial for say fraud. I would argue that the double standard there is totally justified too.

"Up to our level" of holding prisoners, many not captured anywhere near a battlefield or with evidence of fighting the USA and leaving them in prison without trial. Of bombing whoever, whenever, wherever, without a trial, and without review.

Our level of persecution of whistleblowers? Or is that optional?

Oh, you mean basic values like the belief in perpetual copyright.

And your example isn't a double standard, the prisoner being accused of something that's a crime in both jurisdictions and the punishment not being unconscionable in the destination are the basic assumptions of extradition. The double standard is the USA playing political games with trade tariffs, etc to get someone who hasn't committed a local crime.

Is not the fault of Americans if other countries are willing to do whatever they are told.

So if I take you into a small room and return with your wallet, its a defense that you, ultimately broken and bleeding, handed it to me to make the pain stop?

But the analogy is bad because in cases like this no force is used. Rather, they are willing to do the USA a favor because they are expecting some other type of favor. So still, the countries' fault for doing whatever the USA wants. If they negotiated bad terms is not the USA's fault.

No, no force was used right here, but the USA routinely uses force where it's politically handy, like chasing Osama into Iraq.

So it's more like me having extracted your friend's wallet and turning to you with bloody knuckles and asking politely for your wallet. No violence. To you. Because you're not going to say no.

Your example shows why context is important. You, of course, forgot to mention what OBL was responsible for and that he continued to incite violence after 9/11.

I think you meant Pakistan not Iraq or am I mistaken?

No, I mean Iraq. Bush lied about an Osama connection to justify a war with Saddam.

In an inter-personal context? No. In an inter-national context? Yes.

No, he wants to blame the US for his country turning him over. If they get a free pass why wouldn't they turn him over?