Yes, I almost added an addendum pointing out that China probably had the legal right to detain the Michaels under Chinese law (China is not always great at foll

Yes, I almost added an addendum pointing out that China probably had the legal right to detain the Michaels under Chinese law (China is not always great at following its own written laws). In this whole business, let's just say that I have far more confidence in the fairness of the Canadian justice system than I do in the Chinese one. I also agree that the U.S. most likely took advantage of the Canadian legal system to push a political agenda. That does not mean that the Canadian justice system did anything wrong. An extradition request was received, and so the process has to be followed in order to give a fair outcome under Canadian law. It is possible that extradition would have been refused and Meng Wanzhou would have been released. A big part of the reason that it dragged on for so long is that it was not an obvious straightforward case like most extradition hearings (though coronavirus certainly didn't help). As for the claim that the Michaels actually were spies, well, I will keep an open mind, but I have not seen any credible evidence of that. EDIT: Nevermind that Canada had legally right to drop extradition if case is sufficiently politicized as well. But laws are subservient to politics. You are seriously misunderstanding the Canadian legal system and the rule of law if you believe this. Laws generally are not subservient to politics except to the extent that Parliament can change the law. The law applies to everyone, politicians included. Yes, extradition can be refused if the motive for the request is determined to be political, BUT the court case must play out in order to determine this. Yes, the foreign minister can block any extradition if they believe there is a good reason to do so, but this would be a highly unusual thing to do as politicians avoid interfering in the legal system. It would be a very controversial thing to do.