Wouldn’t the same set of laws that made killing him illegal make revolting against him illegal?
It’s like football, you can knock the shit out of each other in bounds. But once a player is out of bounds, game off, stop, you can’t hit him anymore - even if it was legit just moments earlier. If it happens once, ok fine, but over and over, you gotta throw the flag. I don’t care if the other team is the Raiders and notorious for playing dirty. It’s still a penalty.
The winners will not prosecute themselves. Nor do they even think it’s wrong. The ICC can prosecute, however. They have jurisdiction over the Libyan armed conflict. If the rebels were doing (and I have no idea) Gadhafi type stuff (like executing captured loyalists with a pistol shot to the head), then the ICC will care about that. Because that’s exactly what Gadhafi was doing.
How many divisions has the Pope?
Unfortunately, the ICC doesn’t have much in the way of a police force to make arrests and/or enforce any judgments they might make. They can try to get NATO or somebody to do it, but it seems unlikely.
According to this reporthe was sodomized with a bayonet after being captured, already severely injured and pleading for his life. The story links screen shots from cell phone video that would seem to support that claim.
I don’t think there was ever the slightest hope for him to leave the scene alive. The autopsy has already concluded and the coroner wouldn’t answer questions about the head injury (e.g. was it fired from close range or far away, rifle or pistol, etc.) Despite calls for further investigation it appears the Libyan interim government would like to call it case closed and move on.
Additionally the bodies of 53 Gaddafi loyalists were found in a nearby hotel in Sirte, many with their hands bound and gunshot wounds to the head. It is hard to imagine that crossfire and fog of war somehow killed all 53 of them in one hotel room. Human Rights Watch is calling for an investigation, but that will probably lead to as much new information as the coroner’s report did.
His executioners and any member of the the interim council that try to cover it up should be charged with war crimes. Plain and simple.
The US + NATO should spearhead and push this as best they can. I think it is disgraceful that we have used our resources to help put war criminals in power. There was ample evidence that war crimes were being committed by the rebels throughout the entire civil war, and this was basically overlooked for who knows what reason.
This crap is downright insulting to the Libyan people. Where the hell were they during the last 4 decades of abuse from this man?
If the Western world wants a kangaroo acquittal for the sake of self-righteousness, fine, but what jury is going to convict?
:rolleyes: Why stop now?
Yeah, I made reference to some of that earlier. (It’s also being discussed in the Pit thread.) No, I have no idea what those people experienced under his rule and during the rebellion. I also know that once you start getting into the specifics of what happened and particularly as it moves down the chain of command, it sounds less and less like understandable revenge and more like sadistic torture.
Ooh, that’s gotta hurt!
As much as I hate to waive away violence, this was not nearly as bloody as many revolutions have been. Libyans need to find a way to pull together and build a country out of almost nothing. I fear that a civil war there would be worse than the revolution was, many times over.
This is all absurd. The madman’s death in this manner was a foregone conclusion if he was captured in battle. Like the Orient Express, everyone there had a hand in his death. Prosecuting soldiers of a revolutionary army in a lawless land would not serve the interests of justice, and prosecuting officers who could not control such soldiers would be equally devoid of justice. Justice was served in this case, even if the process of justice was not. From that time further these issues become important. But the death of a cruel murderous dictator at the hand of rebels is not worth dissecting for moral determination.
The transitional government took power around March and it’s been in control of essentially the entire country for a while. The Battle of Sirte was the end. So Libya is not supposed to be a lawless land, and prosecuting the guilty instead of stabbing and shooting them after capture is one of those things you do to make sure the rule of law takes hold.
I agree 100% with Marleys post above mine. You cannot dispose one evil tyrant and say you oppose what he stood for at the same time as condoning your own doing torture/executions. I just want to add, if it was only Gadhafi that was executed, it wouldn’t be on my personal radar, it was the seemingly systematic killing of loyalists both in Sirte and in other NTC controlled areas after battles. Yes he was a bad man, yes he should have died, but bloodthirsty is bloodthirsty no matter the side.
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
I’m not sure there is any law under which they can be charged. What happened was essentially a revolution. Arguably, there was no law in existence at the time of the alleged crime. My understanding is that Libya intends to set up a new legal system–unfortunately, one which will be based on Shariah law. I have no idea how Libya views the matter, but I have a real problem with prosecuting someone under a law that took effect after the alleged crime was committed.
[/QUOTE]
While I think that Gaddfi’s killers should be celebrated, not punished, I do have one issue with the bolded part. In what country anywhere, at any time, is murder legal? Technically no law existed at the time, but that shouldn’t mean murder is ok. No civilization can function where the angry can simply kill wantonly without punishment
Ideally yes, but the transitional government doesn’t have that kind of control over the whole country or the revolutionary army who put them in charge yet. I would suspect none of the people directly involved in the killing had any inkling that what they were doing was wrong, nor did those in charge of them have the capacity to enforce that level of discipline. I don’t believe it’s moral, I just don’t believe it is realistic to prosecute under these circumstances. If Saddam had been found by Iraqis (aside from his family and friends) the same would have happened to him, and he was prosecuted and killed in a process that did nothing to serve the process of justice either. Ceauşescu was executed after a show-trial that did nothing to elevate the process above a summary execution. We didn’t prosecute the French who took revenge on Nazi’s at the end of WWII (allegedly). There should be reasonable expectations of what will happen in these circumstances. That is not a justification for the act, but it is a reason not to pursue prosecution.
The Law pretty much takes cover and hides during a revolution. After the shooting stops, The Law cautiously pokes its head up to see which way the wind is blowing. Whatever side wins, The Law says whatever they did was just hunky dory. Whoever lost, The Law says are traitors and criminals.
Put another way…“the law” here is whatever the side with the most guns says it is. I strongly suspect that law is going to turn out to be “it was perfectly ok to sodomize an ex-dictator with a bayonet and then shoot him in the head during October, 2011, but doing so from now on is really bad.”
The idea that there was no law against murder at the time is nonsense. Does anyone really believe that if some guy shot his neighbor because he owed him money, that he’d skate off scott free?
It also appears that on of Gaddafi’s sons may have beenexecuted after being captured as well.
Just to clarify…
If the Iraqis had found Saddam and killed him, you’re ok with that?
And if the US soldiers that found him had executed him on the spot, would that have been ok? If not, why is one murder acceptable and the other not?
When all of this is over, will someone rather like our President have something rather like the power to grant pardons?