Also in response to this being "pragmatic".
I would have less of a problem with this if he was tried in absentia and all this evidence that "proves" he was a threat was actually revealed to us. I would still have a problem with it but I could kind of see the "being pragmatic" argument.
There is no argument in defense of what happened here. A man was killed based on evidence that does not exist in my mind. A big part of evidence is that you have to use it to prove something, "We have evidence but its secret" doesnt fucking fly. All they have to do to kill anyone now is say "we have evidence but its a secret". People have said that he could have turned himself in, imagine if he DID.
Imagine the fucking Kafkaesque scene as a man is prosecuted with non-existant evidence. The jury is shown Exhibit A: a locked breifcase containing Exhibits B-Z. The jury cant see inside the briefcase but the fact that it most definitely contains evidence is enough to sway them.
IT SOUNDS LIKE A COMEDY SCENE UNTIL YOU REALIZE THATS WHAT HAPPENED. They didnt even have a trail to show this imaginary evidence. They just declared him guilty based this evidence they cant show anyone. They declare him guilty then they kill him.