But back then, it looks like USA and its allies did not
care about legality.
Tony Kushner's dialogue sparkles with colourful 19th - century slang (it's time for «shindy» and «flubdub» to come back into fashion), and he doesn't shy away from disquisitions on the legality of Lincoln's tactics, thus boggling our minds with the concept of a president who would
care about the legality of anything.
That's, of course, a sliding scale because the greater the incompetence, the more the conduct moves into the unethical even if it is «only» because the context suggests the actor doesn't
care about the legality or illegality of the conduct but just its effectiveness for the purpose desired.
Not exact matches
Whether or not YOU
care about something does not change the
legality or illegality of that something.
Amazon truly does not
care about safety or
legality.
Or is that true, but simply irrelevant because everyone
cares about the de facto situation and the
legalities have no teeth anyway?
Intermediaries often had the benefit (to the regulator) of being large, stable and solvent — and they often
cared about their reputation for
legality and good citizenship.