smartascarrots said:
Who's to say that being complicit in covering up torture wouldn't cause the loss of innocent life? The (unconvicted and possibly wrongly-identified) suspect's?
If the security organisations have nothing to hide, they've nothing to fear.
There is also a saying in the law "Bad cases make bad law" and I think that is apt in these situations. It is not the "fault" of the judicial system that they have to make otherwise unpopular decisions or ones that some may perceive as weakening national security.
If policy makers and intelligence agencies do not like the oversight of the judiciary that is otherwise called for under the then-prevailing system, then they have 2 "simple" choices:
1. Effect legitimate systemic change in the government (for example in the US an appropriate amendment to our Constitution to exempt certain actions or policies from the prohibitions elsewhere in the Constitution---something that our founders purposely made quite difficult to do) or
2. Conform their actions and policies to the then-existing Constitutional requirements and applicable law.
This is the essence of the rule of law. Indeed, it is precisely in the more difficult circumstances that we must rely on and trust in the rule of law. If we are unwilling to act lawfully in the difficult situations, then we really are not a nation of laws but rather are one of situational ethics where anything can be justified and rationalized if the circumstances are sufficiently "extreme" (as interpreted by those who intend to violate the rule of law).