>>>Meanwhile (as you noted), you've got scumbag nations like the govt of Iran ready to stone a woman to death for adultery (even though she might not have done it....and certainly shouldn't be a crime anyway!)
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/05/iran.stoning/index.html?hpt=C1
>>
>>
>>What was this guy crime ?
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maher-arar/the-supreme-court-can-ign_b_628358.html
>
>You have hit on the primary weakness in our judicial system. Everyone can petition the courts all the way up to the supreme court after every conviction at a lower level. However, the Supreme has the authority to decide which cases it will hear....
>
>That has always been a complaint of mine and I find it amazing that it hasn't been changed yet. I guess it is probably that not enough folks are petitioning the Supreme court to hear their case and getting denied for anything to change...
>
>However, it is important to note that the Supreme has the option to state its reasons when it refuses to hear a case and the gentleman did not provide a link or the information provided for their refusal. In this case, the Supreme gave no reason, just refused. It is a travesty.
>
>Also, he received 9.8 million from Canada for the abuse but that is not reason why it should not be heard by the Supreme court here.


If he was tried by supreme court then all other unjustified rendition cases would have to be tried on the same grounds.
As I tried to explain in my message to Kevin, point of me connecting the two was in groups taking the law, life & death in their own hands.

If there is no legal base for doing any of this (hence why US Supreme court refused to hear the case) then extraordinary rendition &
keeping prisoners without trial (with some of them ending up dead) ,is not much different then some Pakistani villagers stonning pure girls to death based on some hearsay.