That was the catch though, you say your comment was intended to correct "what you thought was a biased version of the story".....But like the rest of us, you also didn't know what the actual story even was, and was the reason I suggested that a person choosing their sources wisely may serve to nip these debates in the bud from getting off topic in the first place...not to mention the fact that the source you chose would have by proven nature been saying the exact same thing as what was being implied in the first post you say you were trying to correct.
If that was simply a statement of support, an not an effort to spin the judges order into an implication that the guy was being held by the "government" for no legitimate reason, I'm sure we would all agree.