(January 22, 2016 at 2:41 am)Divinity Wrote:(January 22, 2016 at 2:25 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And on the other hand, if you wish to justify the abrogation of principles on the grounds that 137 creeps were caught, that's great.
Me, I think the government should abide by the laws they enforce. What do you have to say about that?
So you're in general against undercover police?
No. I'm against the police breaking the law in order to enforce it.
Are we clear on that point now, or do you have any more strawmen awaiting deployment?
(January 22, 2016 at 2:41 am)Divinity Wrote: I mean there's all sorts of justifications for breaking the law. You can commit any number of crimes to prevent a greater harm. And you just have to (within reason) believe that you're preventing a greater harm by doing it. If the FBI thought that they were preventing a greater harm by leaving the website up rather than taking it down, then they were-- in my opinion-- justified. I think "Police should always obey the law!" is a bit black and white. That's my two cents.
The problem with your logic is that if you or I broke the law to prevent a greater evil, we'd have to justify ourselves in front of a court of law.
Has that happened here?
Breaking the law on the street in the heat of the moment by a private individual in order to prevent a greater evil is different that planning to break the law behind closed doors in order to present 137 arrests as a victory.
Law enforcement authorities are rightfully held to higher standards of accountability, and expected to exercise better judgment. If their judgment doesn't take into consideration the law itself, how true are they?
Call me crazy, but I expect law enforcement officers to obey the law.
