You example is so extreme as to be redundant. You are essentially arguing for abuse of human beings, in a wild exaggerated "24" type scenario, that doesn't really exist.
If my rights depend on abusing other human beings, I don't want them. They are worthless, because one day it could be me, or you.
Are you really prepared to give up your rights if law enforcements believes you threaten the rights of others? Would you accept it if you could not challenge that? Really? I bet you just assume it only happens to other people.
Lastly, this notion of every one getting their human rights simultaneously is absurd. As I said, they are only required when things go wrong or are difficult for a public to be reasonable and fair. I don't need my right to not be blown up while a police officer is observing Miranda rights, for example. This suspect's right to a free and fair trial has no baring on my right to not be harassed by government, or be blown up. Its a totally false premise, which makes no sense.
If my rights depend on abusing other human beings, I don't want them. They are worthless, because one day it could be me, or you.
Are you really prepared to give up your rights if law enforcements believes you threaten the rights of others? Would you accept it if you could not challenge that? Really? I bet you just assume it only happens to other people.
Lastly, this notion of every one getting their human rights simultaneously is absurd. As I said, they are only required when things go wrong or are difficult for a public to be reasonable and fair. I don't need my right to not be blown up while a police officer is observing Miranda rights, for example. This suspect's right to a free and fair trial has no baring on my right to not be harassed by government, or be blown up. Its a totally false premise, which makes no sense.