compared2what? wrote:No, no, no. I didn't mean it was a libel issue.
I just meant the tactics we're all decrying the threat of were used on him. That was a political prosecution. I'm totally opposed to that.
Doesn't mean none of the facts brought out by it aren't true, wrt connections, money, etc. Or that they aren't meaningful.
It's basically the flip side of the you-have-rights-or-you-don't argument. The guy was or wasn't doing something the state had a right to put him in jail for. As far as I can see, he wasn't. So it sets a worse precedent than the police using tactical gear does, imo.
Right, but, if he had been knowingly funding terrorism (and not just some tranquil interpretation of "jihad") but the government for whatever reason balked at prosecuting him on that charge, perhaps because of a shadowy can of worms it could open (*cough*PTech*cough*) or because he was indirectly part of some national security agenda, then that could actually be a political non-prosecution, and I would be totally opposed to not prosecuting him.