|
So if the police capture a suspected criminal, say a possible mass murderer, and drag in his family, neighbors and friends, and torment them for years with waterboarding, slapping them around, confining them in small boxes with things that are known to terrify them, etc., without charge and without access to lawyers or courts, you'd be perfectly ok with that? You wouldn't expect the community to go up in arms about police brutality because, after all, eventually one of them might crack and give up something that may turn out to be useful.
It's the ends that matter, not the means, right?
You're perfectly fine with that?
If not, why not? What differentiates that scenario from what our government and its agents have been doing to suspected terrorists and their friends, family and neighbors? Is it the potential number of victims? Is one life, or 20, or 100, not as important to protect from the alleged mass murderer as the potential hundreds or thousands threatened by the alleged terrorists? Is it a quantity issue to you?
|