>but a lot of it was not and clearly ran afoul of laws on the books Though I find this claim to be ridiculous in general, even the US argument boils down to hi

>but a lot of it was not and clearly ran afoul of laws on the books Though I find this claim to be ridiculous in general, even the US argument boils down to him claiming he'll help crack a password that provided no additional data and him saying "curious eyes never run dry." And a "generationally unique case" is the kind used to build precedent, like how locking up foreign journalists critical of the US is OK. Beyond that, you just have a baseless statement that US detention is justified and acceptable while Chinese detention is not.