Let's try the same general principle in a different context. Should civilians have a say on how military personnel are deployed? While i think most civilians wish to be able to have an ability to choose, how many are willing to put their own life, income and career on the line ? is the concept of risk equal to a civilian's ability to conceive the reality that they have no personal risk or physical bodily accountability from ? a body of their peers, whom decide what is legally just for military deployment ? peers = the armed forces thoughts ... ? TL : DR : advocacy is meaningless (hopeless? A farce?) to the degree there is no independence between judicial, martial and legislative assemblies. While any sort of critical political thought inevitably attracts opposing dialects, engineering a solution that foists to the opposition nothing more than "the only thing you need to know is that anything you think or say on the subject has no value" would be a good introduction to the college of applied Stalinism.