Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
This guy was denied the rights that the U.S. believes he should have.
|
Well, apparently not. Why? From a legal point of view.
Anyways, why the heck are the Legalists accusing the Moralists from being moral?
It's no-one's fault here that this has gone this way.
So, rather than holding to account the other person for making moral mentions or telling people at the start of the thread to put your morals and ie your humanness aside is fascinating, to say the least.
And before the legalists say that the moralists, as soon as being moral about any of this, are supporting this guy or saying that he should be let off, well, that's crap too.
So what are you basing your arguements on, that someone can't be moral about this story, apart from "it has nothing to do with this case"?
If you want to hold someone accountable for this then look at your own Supreme Court.
And surely the Court didn't just quash the appeals because Bush overstepped his authority on this.
I'm googling as i type this, to find out why the court made a decision such as this, and furthermore what they base their decision (s) on.