What is the judge supposed to do if the only evidence is testimony from people who were lying under oath?

If the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and all you have is testimony of people who have been objectively proven to have lied in court during the same trial, then no, that's not enough.

I’m not trying to achieve much — just add to and balance the conversation a bit. The U.S. Military has done a lot of bad things, but in this specific instance it appears that they're trying pretty hard to avoid civilian casualties.

I’d really like to see your source. The Syrian network for human rights said 252 civilians as of December (compared to 20,000 fighters). A 1:100 ration doesn’t seem like it’s happening “every time" — not even close.

Really? Every time?

The Irish weren’t slaves, and never had it nearly as bad as black people in America, but it is important to acknowledge the centuries of suffering they endured at home, caused by the British (culminating in a genocide by starvation that saw Ireland forced to export enough corn to feed its population 4 times over).

This is happening because every criminal defendant has a right to confront their accuser (ie cross-examine) and a right to represent themselves. Two very important rights that, unfortunately, are creating a bad situation here.