You know, the remark was over-the-top, but let's also not trivialize the corruption of two governments for the purposes of destroying one man's life by comparing these acts to, say, someone cutting you off in traffic.
The fact is that Cisco appears now to exist outside – above? – the law. I don't have a good, clean answer for how you deal with that. Bloodshed doesn't seem the right answer but it's not like you can trust a civil action to go anywhere when the puppet master has his hand so far up the assholes of so many bureaucrats.
> But we're not in the third world here... legal remedies exist
Tell that to the guy who was legally fucked over for a year. At least in the third world, corruption is acknowledged. Here, despite three pages of detail, you maintain a belief that the same legal mechanisms that allowed this guy to be nearly disappeared will also bring the appropriate wrongdoers to justice.
That strikes me as a little unrealistic. So while I don't agree with murder as a remedy here, I can sympathize with the sense of defeat that inspires it.
I do have faith in the legal system as a whole. Corruption like this should be exposed and eliminated, within the context of that system. Not by murder.
But I don't think that, after reading a story like this one, it's even remotely out of line for others to have such faith escape them. It's hardly a productive discussion, but I'm intrigued by the notion that you can see the system utterly compromised yet still trust it to function. In the end, I'm in the uncomfortable position of finding your view to be as much or more preposterous as the bloodthirsty parent we're responding to.
Put another way: I'm not okay starting the dinner course of a meal in a restaurant that just served me an appetizer including a garnish of rodent droppings.
I wouldn't necessarily start out by going to the DOJ on this... your restaurant analogy I think applies there. But has any other part of the legal system demonstrated corruption in this case?
Even if the corruption were localized to a single chunk of the government, the old trope about a fish rotting from the head seems like it would find reasonable application here. The justice system is an intricate, interconnected component within a much larger interconnected system. But let's see:
"As the case moved through the courts, Adekeye attempted to return to America to participate. He was denied entry. He tried unsuccessfully for months to get back into the US but was continually refused."
There's Customs and Immigration compromised.
"'The US Secret Service issued a criminal complaint after nearly two years of investigation alleging that Mr. Adekeye violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in 97 distinct instances, and as a result a federal judge signed an arrest warrant for Mr. Adekeye...'"
There's Treasury.
"The authorities sprang into action, calling the Canadian government and urging it to use extraordinary powers to arrest Adekeye. Within hours, federal prosecutors were before British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Peter Leask seeking a warrant, painting their dire picture of a nefarious suspect and conjuring a burning sense of urgency. But Canada had been duped."
Don't you need the State Department for something like that?
This strikes me as a clear-cut case of "I have a shitload of money, be a good government and do as I say."
Then we have a government whose powers are so great, and restraints so feeble, a single group of bad actors can manipulate its machinery to deprive an innocent man of his rights in the furtherance of a private agenda.
Boy. That fills me with so much faith in the legal system. ;)
Yeah, we should probably have a government where every person distrust what every other person does and verifies every fact, taking nothing on faith. That'll be efficient.
/s