They must be scared shitless or high on power.

[Scootaloo]

69. Not really, simply a question of ethical thought.

Here in the US we frame our Bill of Rights in as much an ethical light as a legal one. We see abuses of say, one's right to worship freely as a gross ethical violation. we see someone forced to testify against themselves as an ethical violation. We see forcing a person to provide for their oppressors as an ethical violation. Another thing Americans generally consider an ethical violation? The notion of property and effects being seized and searched, with any accusations or charges coming ex post facto.

Most Americans, though certainly not all, also tend to agree that humans are equal and should all be treated ethically, regardless of where they are.

Bluntly phrased, most Americans think everyone in the world should have the same rights and freedoms we've enshrined in our first ten Amendments, at the least. This is why Americans are affronted by the sectarian targeting of religious minorities in Egypt. This is why so many Americans are up in arms against the way GLBT people are now being treated in Russia. It's why so many are appalled at the child labor practices of India or the slavery in China or the global sex trade.

By your stance that "the law is the law!" even in violation of these ethical precepts most of us hold.. .You're the one making the exception. Britain should be allowed to treat people like this because, hey! It's their law! Or perhaps that Brits and Brazilians shouldn't expect ethical treatment?

Of course this is also an exception among exceptions - I doubt you'd support the application of this bullshit seize-then-justify action to anyone else other than this one person. Furthermore, I imagine you make even MORE exceptions over "hey, it's their law, you have to respect that!" when it comes to say, legal restrictions on Women in Saudi Arabia.