I have two problems with his current response: firstly, that I feel he's largely ignored the substantive point (morality) in order to hammer on nonsense again (can it be done). Also, he's said that he considers some exceptions to be acceptable, but hasn't enumerated them. I want a list. I also want to talk about substance, not nonsense.
You specifically asked m52 if he believed it was immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?
m52 responded that when evaluating the morality of such an action, it must be taken on a case-by-case basis (hence his comment about exceptions). When he wrote that it can be "necessary" to break the law in some situations, he was speaking of not just practical necessity, but
moral necessity, because the debate assumes that the practical and moral purpose of government is to protect its citizens. This is an unquestionably valid response.
You then asked specifically if the government could break "any law" in the interest of protecting the public. While this is arguably just a rephrasing of the original question, m52 answered it anyway, saying that it was "most likely" that for each law there would be "reasons why it would make sense to break it." In other words, it is most likely true that for every law there is a hypothetical situation where it is more moral to break the law than to follow it.
I find nothing wrong with m52's responses, but I would ask you to please reevaluate your reading comprehension.