You've decided this unilaterally for everyone else, including the families of the unarmed service members who were murdered?
All executions should be public if not for transparency's sake.
All executions should be public if not for transparency's sake.
Edit: OK, apparently I can’t make a prescriptive statement without getting piled on with people saying that’s not how it actually is. Noted.
The general public fucking loves watching executions. It used to be regular entertainment. They were massive events.
It was like going to the circus. You would bring your young children and goad them to cheer when the trap door opens.
Sating their bloodlust regularly will do nothing to undo their simple-mindedness.
We are barely literate and naked apes. We love violence.
The people who wanted to see this guy dying will thoroughly enjoy it, and teach their children to enjoy it. They will teach them that this is "Justice". They will feel fulfilled and heard and represented. They will literally feel safer, now that a "Bad guy" got solved just like in the movies and other stories.
Do you not realize how goddamned popular the torture porn of "24" was? Including to the Heritage Foundation which paid for the cast to come run a panel at one of their conventions? Including a supreme court justice who explicitly pointed at "24" as justification for allowing torture?
This isn't solely in conservative circles either. Right now you have lots of people who usually vote democrat showing that their only complaint about this administration's stupidity and crimes and crassness is that it isn't being used to oppress the specific rich people they want to watch die in agony.
Seriously though, you aren't the only person in this comment section taking this position, and I just cannot fathom how some of you missed this in every single part of history we know about. It wasn't subtle.
Executions used to be public because people love watching bad people die. You might not like it because of some Englightenment-era idea to the contrary, but it's an inescapably true facet of human nature. The only reason Britain and France stopped holding public executions is the crowds eventually started to get too rowdy and governments needed to move them indoors.
The moral-outrage excuse was invented afterwards.
You seem to be overly optimistic about the average person's moral compass. It's entirely driven by mob mentality and an authority figure.
Certainly that can also occur at the ballot box or in any of the processes leading up to it but that's far from a given.
How the resultant situation appears to any given minority will again vary. Regardless, appearance is not reality.
As to the response of the general public to any given enforcement action, no that can not typically be described as mob mentality. That's precisely why the situation of a public execution as a spectacle being discussed here is noteworthy. It is very much the exception.
In parting I will note that I don't think the term straw man quite means what you appear to think it does.
I'll also note that describing democracy as "two armies" is specific to the dysfunction that has developed in the US. It's not an accurate description of most modern democracies.