Most people are more likely to end up in prison in the USA than they are in China
Criticize the US as much as you want (after all, you can do it), and the US government DOES deserve a good deal of criticism, but saying that the countries are somehow equivalent in the consequences for anti-state speech is laughable.
In the USA, the rules are known well in advance. There might be questionable rules, but POTUS cannot decree a rule into existence and put a bag over your head an hour later.
What the US does to non-citizens outside the USA is a messy area. Inside the USA? The rules are far more clear.
As a collective institution there was the whole Edward Snowden thing where he pointed out that the NSA had definitely not been following those rules and no one who knew what they were doing seemed particularly keen on stopping them.
> Inside the USA? The rules are far more clear.
Is false. The NSA was/is carrying out a mass spying operation over a number of years and involving hundreds of people that directly contravenes those rules.
Can you clarify this? As far as I'm aware, the US govt can dispute anyone's citizenship without recourse, even if you're holding e.g., a valid passport.
From 2016: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635...
As far as I know, nothing in this article has changed.
Your cite does not support your claim. If Palma had ever had a US passport (expired or not), his situation would never have occurred in the first place.
They'll just fabricate lies, label you a terrorist or a "Russian spy" and put you in prison.
You mean like this guy, for example? https://www.npr.org/2020/12/11/945565473/u-s-clears-for-rele...
Or the (by now, likely in the thousands) people killed by US drone attacks?
I don't want to play the whataboutism card, but let's not pretend that the US is somehow exceptional here. In fact, I'd consider it one of the more troubling countries, with the kindappings, Guantanamo, and the "grey area" on the borders, where your constitutional rights do not apply.
The world is not a nice place, and the US is no exception, unfortunately.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
"Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States. Over the life course, about 1 in every 1,000 black men can expect to be killed by police."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56834733
According to this ^, the police in the US is 3.5x more likely to kill civilians compared to other developed nations. (It would be interesting to find a world-wide comparison here.)
These soundbytes usually (intentionally) omit half of the story. For example, how many police officers are being killed in encounters with black men?
And how many less lethal (for black men) encounters would there be with black men not attacking officers or third persons but actually complying with police orders?
The greatest danger to a black person's life only second to coronary diseases is another black person.
It's these kind of questions which grievance studies activists and journalists never (dare to) ask.
Unlike your claim that "journalist never (dare to) ask", the numbers of violence against police are well studied, published and easily available with a search. Had you done that, you'd have realized that your basic premise is wrong: violence _by_ police is significantly higher than violence _against_ police.
Indeed, police work is _less_ dangerous than e.g. farming, construction, trucking and sales.
https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf
Edit: if you are interested, check also this https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-23/how-da...
Logging, fishing, aircraft, roofing, recycling, even landscaping is more dangerous than police work in terms of fatalities. Yet you don't hear politicians complain about the dangers of landscaping work, do you? Why do you think is that?