That is that there are only 2 options (in the trial case it was the cops tampered or he was guilty, when it may have been they tampered AND he was guilty).
For the war, the debate is nuclear bomb or invasion. OK why an invasion? Russia was a long term enemy, the IJN was done, etc. They could have been contained until they were forced to convince their people that surrender was an acceptable option.

I've been thinking about this a long time and I have a couple of other comments:
First, war should never be carried out against a civilian population. Is it easier? Yes, but if we are going to go for the "ends justify the means" argument we might as well join the right-wing.
Second, the U.S. was far from the "innocent victim" in the whole Pacific theater. We helped Japan militarize and convinced them to wage war on China as our surrogate. It is all detailed in the book "The Imperial Cruise" by the same guy that wrote "Flags of Our Fathers".
OK a third, to say we had to do it to save American lives smacks of the kind of American exceptionalism that corrupts the right. If we can't decide that all people have worth, again we might as well join the right. The "Imperial Cruise" book shows how we had an attitude that only we were sophisticated enough to understand democracy and had to govern over lesser groups until they were deemed "ready". You can see how this attitude is still guiding our acceptance of the imperialistic wars we are now engaged in. If the public would drop this attitude, it would be easier to see the actions of our leaders for what they are.
Our actions have long-term consequences, we need to live up to the true American ideal.