No.
The problem is using a system designed for something else in pursuit of an objective (justice) that is consequently going to be unsuccessful.
I think it supremely foolish to act as though letting obviously guilty criminals go free somehow demonstrates lofty principals and makes us look noble in the eyes of the world. It doesn't. We just look stupid, and stupid ain't a lofty principal (even though it's often practiced as one in P&N).
Fern
This is one of the more confusing parts of the anti-court argument. Without a fair and impartial trial, how do you know that someone is "obviously guilty"?
It also seems to me that, unlike many in this thread, you DO seem to care about "lofty principles" and "looking noble in the eyes of the world"...you just think that trials for terrorists aren't the way to do it. Fair enough, so what's a better approach here? If we're going to go around telling everyone we're a beacon of light for the world, it seems to me like we should ACT like it. If this isn't the way, then what is?
