That's a war thing, not a rulership. And how do we know they did NOT rebel after the initial conquest? We don't know the circumstances of their execution, only that the attitudes of the other captives makes their resistance even after capture plausible.

Maybe they don't have a casus belli, but that is a completely different issue. Wetlanders go to war with as little justification.

No, the higher-ups are held to higher standards of justice. An improvement over the other lands, where rank confers immunities to the law. As I said above, you also know nothing of the circumstances for which they were executed, so you cannot call that particular case an injustice. As you cite, it does seem to be an aberration, making it more likely that it WAS justifiable under their rules. Sorry, but an aberration is logically more likely to prove to not be an abberration than it is to be indicative of a pattern of unseen anomalies.

A belligerent people known for casual violence, petty murder, and flagrant disregard of law enforcement authorities WOULD be the best barometer of good rule, wouldn't they? They fled because they have guilty consciences! Look at the reputation the city had back in tFoH & LoC - all your example does is argue in support of the Seanchan's virtues as rulers. You don't see property owners and respectable people afraid to mouth off to high-ranking Seanchan officers and official. But no, the frank speech of Mistress Anan & Bethamin's innkeeper to their occupiers is an aberration - it is the fear of troublemakers and street thugs who truly indicate that the Seanchan are to be feared.

We see bullies who are used to having their own way with the police, in a city whose ruler was afraid to send her forces into certain parts of the city, suddenly appalled because they are confronted with a well-run city! And how do you account for the Tinkers flocking to their rule?