He makes a nice point here on his blog in response to critics:
If you're going to argue that there isn't a problem here because "only" 40 or so innocent people have been killed in paramilitary police raids since 1985, I wonder, what is a good number? At what point do you begin to get concerned? Seems like an odd sort of consequentialism. If we could keep the drug supply down (not that these raids are actually doing that -- which is another matter, also addressed in the paper) by having the government randomly execute one innocent person every six months, and randomly terrorize an innocent family once every ten days or so, would that be okay?Well? Would it?