The movie brought so many parallels to mind on the recent assassination of bin Laden.
We saw that Obama outright lied in his speech to the nation about making the connection with bin Laden to 9/11. Bin Laden was never charged with that crime by the FBI because there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict him. Even in war the Geneva Convention requires that an unarmed combatant be given the right to surrender, and that he be given the right of a hearing by military tribunal if accused of war crimes. But again, so much of our own Constitution and of military code was suspended with the excuse that in a time of war it is necessary. And like with the movie, to also satisfy the blood lust of the people, to make an example and public spectacle of the event merely to appease in the name of political expediency. In both cases, the irony is that wars were fought to preserve the rights of citizens and/or military combatants to be held to a higher standard, and yet we violate that same standard thereby tarnishing the soldiers that gave their lives fighting for such rights.
Another issue in the movie is that shortly after this trial the US Supreme Court required that citizens be tried in civilian courts, not military tribunals. When John Surratt, her son, was eventually caught and brought to civilian court he was released after a mistrial in which 8 jurors voted not guilty. Yet his mother paid with her life for something that her son was accused of doing, and even that could not be proven.