[Deleted for OP’s sake]
I’m an atheist, and a staunch believer in secular government. I have absolutely no love for enshrining Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism …) in law or government.
That being said, it’s important to be fair here: It is entirely possible to give Shariah law a role in a government without creating a regime akin to the Taliban. Malaysia, for example, affords Islamic law a special role in its courts. Now, you might argue that Malaysia doesn’t do the best job of protecting the civil rights of its citizens, and I’d agree with you. But I believe Freedom House describes Malaysia as a “partly free” country, and that’s about right - there’s a vigorous press, independent courts, women can participate in public life, and so on. The Malaysian government isn’t the Taliban; even if religion is enshrined in the Libyan state, there’s no need for the new government there to be the Taliban, either.
That’s a good idea, so I’ll make it a formal instruction. Please start a new thread to continue that discussion.
May Allah bless you!
I don’t want to know that badly. Thanks anyway. 
I’m not buying it. But it might be enough to not have a trial for an unknown killer.
I haven’t seen his corpse dragged around the street. I’ve seen a bunch of stuff before he died, beaten stabbed, kicked. I see a bloodied, but alive, Gadhaffi being put in the bed of a truck. At some point after that, I agree he was shot in the head (and chest). I agree he was shot in the head and chest before he died of his other wounds (which autopsy confirmed head was the cause of his death). You try and cloud that with why’s.
I said in another thread it would take the killer coming forward. Apparently, and it’s too soon for me to believe it, but his (unidentified) killer has come forward and said he shot Gadhaffi in the head and chest because some other rebels “wanted to take Gadhaffi away.” No getting around that.
Much of Israel’s legal system is based on the Ottoman system. That’s why, amongst other things, they don’t have Civil Marriage and why the religious authorities have such prominence and everyone is supposed to belong to one of the recognized religious communities.
There was just a landmark case in the Israeli Supreme Court where a man after years and years of fighting was finally recognized as “a Jew of no religion”.
Shariah Law, like western common Law, is constantly evolving and means different things in different places.
That’s why there’s such a dramatic difference between how the law is applied under the Taliban versus how it’s applied in say Morocco or Jordan.
I’m not sure there is any value in debating whether Gadhafi was murdered or not. The question is, should there be a trial if it is determined that he might have been?
And I do agree with Oaky that the victors write the history books, and there is good chance that this will just end up as part of that process with no action taken. But again, what should happen? I’m sticking by my statement, above, that a general amnesty is best to allow the country to move on and deal with the difficult problems facing it. I will freely admit, however, to being largely ignorant of Libyan culture and whether that is a practical course of action there.
Apologies.
I didn’t see this until after I’d posted.
Would it be possible to move CP’s question and my response to the new thread?
The problem being that it may not be an unknown person.
He’s not unidentified. He gave his name as Senad el-Sadik el-Ureybi. I see there are other statements that Gaddafi may have been shot by one of his own guards so he wouldn’t be taken alive, and possibly that killed him later.
And I say again, yes there should be. If they have any intention of prosecuting loyalists for atrocities committed they best do at least a token show of prosecuting the former rebels who committed war crimes. Otherwise the issues will fester and tribal fallout could happen. I consider it a mending rather than a division to do so.
I see no practical benefit in prosecuting someone for accomplishing what was arguably the main purpose of the revolution. All that would do is piss off a segment of the population/revolutionary council/whatever, possibly leading to more violence.
There’s no purpose served by prosecution unless the soldiers who killed him were violating their orders from revolutionary commanders, and then it is the commander’s call. It’s just the fog of war. Besides, I think he was resisting arrest.
Gadhafi should have been tried and strung up, this sped it up, I am in agreement. I am not however in agreement with your entire statement. It was far more than the 7k loyalists currently in custody that supported his regime. If the new government wants to keep tribal loyalty and not risk infighting they will appease the Warfalla tribe, at the same time as making sure Al-Awaqir tribe is content. There has already been infighting between tribes before the liberation of Libya. You do not need that to fester.
Many residents of former loyalist held cities are outraged enough already because even those who evacuated as asked came back to looted/destroyed property. You must heal those wounds before you move on. Starting with at least a token attempt at punishing all those who have committed crimes.
It is wrong to kill a surrendered prisoner who is not an immediate threat to you. In places where the death penalty exists, it should exist with a fair and just legal system.
That said, SOP in these situations is for the new government to issue a whole bunch of pardons. They will probably also be issuing some pardons for people in the Gadhafi regime who did some horrific stuff. Countries need to move on sometimes.
I don’t have a problem with charging his killers with the appropriate degree of homicide, either common law or statutory. And I don’t have a problem with punishing someone if found guilty, aside from my usual revulsion of the death penalty. Civilization as a whole benefits from the rule of law and the punishment of personal vengeance. I realize that the Nuremberg trials are now considered quaint and that Goering’s view has generally prevailed, but I tend to agree with Jackson.
If this guy was acting alone and the rebels/this rebel group was not executing Gadhaffi forces after they had clearly surrendered and were in custody; don’t charge with a crime (even though clearly a crime). One time mistake because the detainee was a monster.
If you find out this wasn’t a one time deal because it was Gadhaffi, but it was widespread and “lesser” loyalists were executed, then this rebel hero goes down. You can’t overlook summary executions like this. It’s not civilized, no matter how bad Gadhaffi was.
One of Gaddafi’s sons - also a beast, apparently - was also killed in the course of those events and I don’t think it’s clear what happened to him either. If there have been reprisal killings, Gaddafi’s is arguably the least important. I can understand the mob getting swept up in the moment after everything he’d done to the country and the brutality with which he supress the rebellion. On the other hand, if a lot of people who were (for example) linked to his tribe were executed, that’s a bigger problem.
Well…that’s another thing about war…particularly civil wars/revolutions. They aren’t civilized. It’s pretty much anarchy until some person or group is able to take charge, usually by force of arms. Under the old law, the revolution itself is a crime. New law doesn’t exist yet. Really not seeing the winners prosecuting themselves for winning.