Because we are supposed to have guaranteed rights as a person accused of a crime.
They weren’t held any long period of time.
And that makes it OK? Should the police in the USA be allowed to round up people here with no credible evidence, and as long as these people are not held for a long period of time, it is OK?
Bringing suspects in for questioning multiple times is not unheard of here.
There's also a huge legal difference between the police simply asking questions, and arresting someone and throwing them in jail. The most notable thing of course being that if the police have to talk to someone, it is because they lack the evidence necessary to make an arrest.
As far as credible evidence goes, the statements made by the perps was plenty credible.
First, if this was the case, why wasn't anything made of the "evidence?" Secondly, in most western jurisdictions, a confession alone is not strong enough to win a conviction, any confession must also be tied to other hard evidence that links the suspect to the crime.
Wouldn’t have bothered me if they had beat the truth out of them
I'd have no problem with that approach if these people were terrorists who had knowledge of a terrorist act that is about to take place, but these are suspects in a crime that has already been committed. That sense of urgency simply isn't there. And of course in the USA, if a cop lays a hand on a suspect, the suspect walks.
“no credible evidence”
How much evidence do you require to call it credible? There was video, statements from the killers,and physical evidence. If they’d found the corpse and it gave a statement would that have been enough for you? You weren’t on the OJ jury,were you?
“but these are suspects in a crime that has already been committed. That sense of urgency simply isn’t there”
Tell that to the family of the girl in Peru