Well, you and I use a different definition of abduction. While I’ll give you that some of those people are probably imprisoned wrongly, the majority are there because of their own actions. I wouldn’t fault China imprisoning someone for breaking their laws (even if I disagree with the law), I also don’t fault US for imprisoning people for breaking their laws. Treatment of those prisoners is a different question altogether.
The link 404s for me, so I can’t really look at the details, but more information would be required to establish it as actually being criminal. Saying, and I’m just producing an arbitrary example, “Come here to attend a court case or you will be tried in abstentia (and therefore probably found guilty), which will result in fines that, if ignored, will be satisfied by asset forfeiture in the form of us seizing your shit” is consistent with your description of “asking under threat of harm” while also being an extremely normal thing for a country to do and not a crime.
Now compare that to imprisonment. One is legal action, another is illegal action. One can argue about the morality of that, but the distinction is clear.
The difference between imprisonment and abduction is not, in fact, legality. I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that legality has anything to do with the definitions of those words. Average liberal word salad.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
Well, you and I use a different definition of abduction. While I’ll give you that some of those people are probably imprisoned wrongly, the majority are there because of their own actions. I wouldn’t fault China imprisoning someone for breaking their laws (even if I disagree with the law), I also don’t fault US for imprisoning people for breaking their laws. Treatment of those prisoners is a different question altogether.
GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 6 months ago
Your definition of abduction apparently includes persuading people to go somewhere, so I think there are many lacks in terms of definitions here.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
Asking under a threat of harm is no longer called persuasion, it’s a crime.
GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 6 months ago
The link 404s for me, so I can’t really look at the details, but more information would be required to establish it as actually being criminal. Saying, and I’m just producing an arbitrary example, “Come here to attend a court case or you will be tried in abstentia (and therefore probably found guilty), which will result in fines that, if ignored, will be satisfied by asset forfeiture in the form of us seizing your shit” is consistent with your description of “asking under threat of harm” while also being an extremely normal thing for a country to do and not a crime.
booty@hexbear.net 6 months ago
Here’s the definition I use, it’s quite common
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
Now compare that to imprisonment. One is legal action, another is illegal action. One can argue about the morality of that, but the distinction is clear.
booty@hexbear.net 6 months ago
The difference between imprisonment and abduction is not, in fact, legality. I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that legality has anything to do with the definitions of those words. Average liberal word salad.