When an innocent, nonterminal person is put to death by court order, is it unreasonable or seditious to ask if MAYBE THE LAW WAS MANIPULATED or maybe certain evidence given more weight?
Is it irrational to conclude that something is amiss with either A) the law itself, or B) the magistrates interpreting it, when that very law is turned against the very intent for which it was devised, as expressed in these words by Thomas Jefferson?:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends,["these ends" being, once again, the inherent and inalieable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nonexclusive] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
You d$mn betcha the law was manipulated!!! Statute was amended in 1999 to INCLUDE nutrition and hydration as life support - Terri was the test case.