Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Frankly, here's my admittidly extreme take on it: If i had my way, as long as the evidence gathered is irrefutable,

Prove that - at court, under monitoring and witnessing of the public.

That's what courts are for, you see.

the problem you outline, btw, is not so much - or not only - a problem with the Geneva Convention, but the Hague Conventions from 1899 and 1907. In a conflict where one side does not apply to the rule of having it'S combatants in uniform, the side following the Hague Conventions unilaterally always is at a disadvantage that could decidce the outcome of the military fight. This affects practically all so-called asymmetrical conflicts (and may explain why we find it so very tough to win such wars, and only rarely, if ever, do). It makes little sense indeed to obey moral rules basing on the Geneva or Hague Convention, if these conventions get ignored and ridiculed by the other side, so that our morals get turned against us and kill our fighters. In that situation, the protection of innocents can be the only valid argument - to some certain degree - to still follow the conventions. wehre you declare that an imperative for acting, you probably have already decided your own defeat. But there you have to make a loss-gain-calculation, in other words you need to calculate how much risk to your soldiers or limitations of options or how many innocent lives saved you can justify in the face of either accepting even higher losses in innocent lifes in the long run, or allowing the enemy combat advantages. at present, public opinion tends to always favour the small short term wins in protecting lives even at the cost of much greater losses of life in the future. The debate imo is very irrational, and dominated by dangerous illusions about the nature and essence of war.