> There's nothing unjust about imprisoning drug traffickers, organised crime bosses and those that seek to put out hits on their enemies. There is when the sta

> There's nothing unjust about imprisoning drug traffickers, organised crime bosses and those that seek to put out hits on their enemies. There is when the state breaks its own principles and rules, that is the point. It is literally unjust, and the states behavior must be beyond reproach. > Particularly that last part. Sorry if that offends you. I am not offended, I asked my questions, which you dodged, in good faith. I agree with you that murder for hire must be treated seriously. Part of why I find this unjust is that he should have been tried on that charge first and foremost. Yet it looks like it was primarily used to harm his character, and it was not formally brought and successfully won by the state. If the guy did, he should not escape trial for an explicit charge, do you disagree? > You can moralise and equivocate all you like, he is not being held for his views or his politics, he is not being held for political activity, but for his clear criminal actions, which include attempts to have people murdered. That's not 'political'. Are you asserting that the drug war, isn’t political? Are you furthermore asserting that assassinations aren’t inherently political in that context? Political isn’t a get out of jail free card, and I am not equivocating. I firmly believe he still should stand trial for the murder for hire charges, don’t you?