That's a "false dilemma" fallacy. There are numerous possible explanations, not just two extreme ones from which we are forced to choose.

And that sounds like a rationalization to allow harm to come to others, eg, I don't know the facts - so it is not my concern.

That's as inductive falicy too - isn't it?

We have beem conditioned to hide behind those kinds of reasoning - to not challenge authority - even a benevolent authority demands a challenege from time to time. I am sure the you have rummaged through the paraphrased cliche below:

First they came for the Armenians - and I said nothing because I could not assign an actionable context "for or against" the states justification.

Then they came for the Jews - and I said nothing because I could not assign an actionable context "for or against" the states justification.

Then they came for Drew, and I said nothing because I could not assign an actionable context "for or against" the states justification.

Now they come for me and there is no one to question the actions of the state.

You're human - you can assign a factual context to the actions of the state. It's your duty to do so.

There is no murkiness for me - and you should not allow your humanity to hide behind the "murkiness" of the states justification. Life is short - irregardless of ones propensity for conformity or distrust.

The state works for me - the state works for you - We don't work for it. America is not a coral. America, as New Zealand, is a "home".