Gaddafi Captured and Killed.....

It was clear, I believe, that the entire binLaden compound was fortified, and those inside of it were prepared for a fight. To assume his wives, who no doubt heard the fighting as it came toward them, were armed and dangerous is not far-fetched considering the manner in which binLaden et al had fought their war. Did the US allow binLaden to determine the rules of a shoot out? Hardly. They responded the way they had to respond. If he’d surrendered, which I do not believe he would have ever done, and been shot, that would have been murder. If there was a doubt within those seconds whether he would charge or escape, then the US did the right thing by taking him out.

I’m not sure why there’s a question about whether this was a battle, or how it could be considered an unlawful criminal act, but then we had this discussion before and, while I respect your view and try to see it as you do, I simply cannot and do not agree.

I do still see a clear distinction between the way bin laden and Gaddafi were killed. And I still believe one was justified and the other was not.

i worry for libya
i really do

firstly:
doesn't executing him make the rebels no better than him?

secondly:
let's see what the new libyan democracy turns out....,my best guess...it'll have the term sharia in it somewhere

thirdly:
all that oil can't help...can it? absolute power corrupts absolutely...and crude is the world currency...that'll make Libya 100% open to corruption.....Libya will need to be careful of not getting drunk with power

I think that sometimes legal standards and the protection of individual rights are not of the highest importance.  While laws are supposed to protect a person's ability to have a trial, it is not always practical or safe.  For example, when a police officer's life is threatened or in the case of self defence, more immediate actions sometimes need to be taken.  This is not anything to be ashamed of. If Gaddafi had not started ordering the killing of his own people he might have been able to survive the uprising/conflict and retire to Italy.

I think you are mixing up two issues here, Donna. Of course there are laws which allow self defence. A policeman who is attacked can defend himself like any other person. Some nations have laws that allow to kill a citizens after the person was tried in a court of law. However, a government cannot just kill a person with no trial only because it is more convenient. If we allow this idea, this will be the end of due legal process. There will always be a "reason" why a trial is unsafe or inconvenient. In Lybia we had a war and there are universal rules that a prisoner who is not armed and not fighting any longer cannot be killed. What will happen to mankind if such killings are sanctioned by a hateful and revengeful global public?

I think that many people would not even be so appalled if we had not seen the bloody mobile phone pictures. I bet the estimated 2400 men, women and children who have been murdered by predator drones under peace bomber Obama did not look very pretty as well but we did not see the pictures. Who has the moral qualification to blame the Libyan fighters who killed Gaddafi? Certainly not the European leaders who cooperated with him, the NATO with their illegal bombings or the US government which is leading in illegal killings. Looks like the global village is walking away from basic humanity quicker than we thought it is possible.

Donna13 wrote: "I think that sometimes legal standards and the protection of individual rights are not of the highest importance.  While laws are supposed to protect a person's ability to have a trial, it is not always practical or safe.  For example, when a police officer's life is threatened or in the case of self defence, more immediate actions sometimes need to be
taken.  This is not anything to be ashamed of. If Gaddafi had not started ordering the killing of his own people he might have been able to survive the uprising/conflict and retire to Italy."

I don't think anyone is arguing against self-defense. If anyone's life is threatened (forget a police officer), that person has a legal right to use reasonable force, which may require them to kill the attacker. However Gaddafi wasn't killed in war or in self-defense. He was executed, and as as such, I don't think it matters whether he had killed his own people.

[b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/b] It was clear, I believe, that the entire binLaden compound was fortified, and those inside of it were prepared for a fight. To assume his wives, who no doubt heard the fighting as it came toward them, were armed and dangerous is not far-fetched considering the manner in which binLaden et al had fought their war. Did the US allow binLaden to determine the rules of a shoot out? Hardly. They responded the way they had to respond. If he’d surrendered, which I do not believe he would have ever done, and been shot, that would have been murder. If there was a doubt within those seconds whether he would charge or escape, then the US did the right thing by taking him out. [/QUOTE]

I’m not sure why there’s a question about whether this was a battle, or how it could be considered an unlawful criminal act, but then we had this discussion before and, while I respect your view and try to see it as you do, I simply cannot and do not agree.

I do still see a clear distinction between the way bin laden and Gaddafi were killed. And I still believe one was justified and the other was not.

===================================================
I really do respect you from many discussions we had on this board, therefore I try to convince you:-)

Firstly, we would have to agree that the rule of law cannot be abandoned in individual cases only because one individual has committed (allegedly!!) horrible crimes. It has been pointed out that Israel needed more than  15 years to hunt down and capture Adolf Eichmann, the main figure in executing the Holocaust. Eichmannn killed about 6 million people - he was captured and tried in a court of law. He had legal representation and the right to defend himself.  Please do not tell me that the mighty USA did not have equal means to capture and try Osama Bin Laden in an allied country - Israel caught Eichmann in Argentina which was not an ally.

Instead of catching Bin Laden and putting him on trial the US government chose to send a killing team. There are no witnesses, no protocol, no photos, nothing. You have to believe what your government tells you. Bin Laden did not surrender? How can you know that - he surely did not expect the Navy Seals that night but they tell you that his wives wore suicide belts? This is really hard to believe. I was in England when Bin Laden was killed and the English tabloids claimed he was hiding behind his wife and using her as a protective shield - that does not sound like he was much of a threat for the highly armed specialists. The problem is: when you send soldiers into another country to attack a private house - there is no legality at all. You cannot claim any rules whatsoever in your favour when you attack a house in such mafia manner.

The alarming aspect of such acts is the pseudo-legality used by the government. They speak about a "war" against terrorism and  "illegal combattants" in order to camouflage the illegal activities when in fact there are clear rules stated by the UN when we have a war and what the rules in a war are. The CIA in fact has "lawyers" who create "memos" to justify the killing of "illegal combattants" (and their families if necessary) by remote-controlled drones without seeing that the CIA people are illegal combattants themselves in an undeclared, non-existing war. If you think about it: CIA "lawyers" make a case and send drones to execute the suspects - is that the rule of law you want your country to follow? You can find  pseudo-legal language in any terror regime - they have "courts" as well.

[QUOTE]

[QUOTE][b] YourValentine wrote:[/b]
I really do respect you from many discussions we had on this board, therefore I try to convince you:-) [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

lol. I do appreciate the effort. :-)

However...
First, I would never say the US didn’t have the means to capture and try bin Laden. “Means” was never an issue. The Navy SEAL mission, in fact the mission all along, was to capture or kill him. In this case, the SEALs entered the compound, fought their way through and, according to their account – which I have no reason to doubt – reacted in a manner best suited to the conditions. Bin Laden said he’d never be taken alive by the US and so he wasn’t. The thought of his surrender is about as real to me as the prospect of him having met up with 72 heavenly virgins.

Second, I see the war on terror as a true war. A different war than any we’ve fought, but no less dangerous to fight or vital to win. I see failures in US policy and do not believe my country is 100% right in its actions. I do, however, believe the Navy SEAL account of their moments in the bin Laden compound.

You have dismissed his wives as being a possible threat. I believe everyone in that compound was a threat and the SEALs did what was necessary to ensure an end to that fight.

For the record, the SEALs did not say the wives wore suicide belts. They said they – the SEALs – thought, at that moment, the women did. To think they were wired, to believe his family, his guards and the rest of those in his compound would protect him in any way possible, including blowing themselves up, is not at all far-fetched.

About him hiding behind his wives… We heard the same rumor here, but it was just that, rumor. He did not hide behind them. If he did, he would have been taken into custody the minute the women were out of the way. I have no cause to believe otherwise since there is nothing my country would have liked more than to see an image of him alive and painfully aware of being a US prisoner in body irons.

As for the legality of the mission… Despite the public face of shock and disgust the Pakistani government put on, I cannot believe there was a lack of cooperation between the two countries in this mission. To protect themselves from the hardliners in their country, the Pakistani government publically denounced US actions. The uproar would not have died down as quickly as it did if the Pakistani’s were not somehow involved in or aware of the planning of this mission.

You mentioned the “rules” of war here when before you stated that this cannot be a war because it is not between sovereign countries. And yet now you say one side is expected to abide by the rules of war in this non-war. Just as in Vietnam, tactics have to be adjusted to fight the enemy on their terms. Bin Laden and his minions had no qualms about targeting innocent civilians. US troops and drone attacks targeted specific homes and people. War sucks and innocent people get caught in the crossfire. I don’t excuse it. I find it disgusting. However, I also find it disgusting that the US is blasted for the deaths of innocents when it’s the terrorists themselves who’ve chosen to hide among them.

I am not pro-war, I do not excuse all that has gone on and, as I’ve stated before, I do not think my country is right in all areas. However, I still cannot see the death of bin Laden in any way the same as the murder of Gaddafi. Some of your points are valid – well, they all might be, but I only agree with some ;-) – but on this, specifically, I fear will we never agree.

I can live with not convincing you, although I am sorry:-)

But one thing I want to add: in all your posting you equal the federal government of the USA with individual criminals or terrorists. I think that is the most basic disagreement. It is all well and fine when you say "we, the USA act exactly as the terrorists do - we kill without prior legal process and when innocents are killed - well, tough luck". This is just something I cannot accept: in a democracy the government should not act like a terrorist. Just imagine the following situation: an Iranian lawyer comes to the conclusion that  John Smith from  Wisconsin programmed the Stuxnet virus and helped infecting the Iranian power plant. They send a killer squad and shoot him in his home. They say they had no other choice because there is a "war" between Iran and John Smith and the USA would have protected the guy. They say that Iran did nothing to provoke anyone to plant a dangerous virus into their power plant and they have to defend themselves. What would you say? That Iran has every right to get the terrorist because there is a "war"? Or would you say that  there was no proof that John Smith actually programmed the Stuxnet virus? Or would you say that the Iran has no business whatsoever to kill a US citizen for whatever reason? What will happen to the international community when democracies do not respect the most basic legal procedures?

I simply can't stand in support of these turds.  Come on - they shoved a knife up his arse.  Seriously?

[QUOTE] YourValentine wrote:
I can live with not convincing you, although I am sorry:-) [/QUOTE]
You tried, I tried. Alas, some things are just not meant to be. :-)

[QUOTE] But one thing I want to add: in all your posting you equal the federal government of the USA with individual criminals or terrorists. I think that is the most basic disagreement. It is all well and fine when you say "we, the USA act exactly as the terrorists do - we kill without prior legal process and when innocents are killed - well, tough luck". [/QUOTE]

For the record, I never said "we, the USA act exactly as the terrorists do - we kill without prior legal process and when innocents are killed - well, tough luck". The US does not act like the terrorists in that we do not target innocents for the biggest bang nor do we kill illegally - though I realize that is a point on which we disagree. Also, I said, in war, there are deaths of innocents but I did not say tough luck, I said I find it disgusting and do not excuse it. I see a huge difference between my senitments and the quote you attributed to me.

[QUOTE] Just imagine the following situation: an Iranian lawyer comes to the conclusion that  John Smith from  Wisconsin programmed the Stuxnet virus and helped infecting the Iranian power plant. They send a killer squad and shoot him in his home. They say they had no other choice because there is a "war" between Iran and John Smith and the USA would have protected the guy. They say that Iran did nothing to provoke anyone to plant a dangerous virus into their power plant and they have to defend themselves. What would you say? That Iran has every right to get the terrorist because there is a "war"? Or would you say that  there was no proof that John Smith actually programmed the Stuxnet virus? Or would you say that the Iran has no business whatsoever to kill a US citizen for whatever reason? What will happen to the international community when democracies do not respect the most basic legal procedures? [/QUOTE]

In your scenario, I'd have to know how John Smith has behaved. Has he released audio and video tapes detailing how he wants to detroy the Iranian power plant or Iraian people? Did he keep videos of training camps where the people there praised their death missions as being in the name of their god? Did they capture an Iranian power plant worker and behead him on film to make a point of how serious they are about their mission? Would there be video of him laughing and celebrating as the virus was spread and people suffered and died? If so, then I'd say the scenario you describe would not even be an issue because the USofA would willingly capture this John Smith or, at least, cooperate in his capture.

Whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with the way Gaddafi and Bin Laden were killed is completely beside the point. The fact (I repeat: fact, i.e. not a debatable point) remains that both were killed extra-judicially. In the elimination of Bin Laden, the United States were conducting military operations on foreign territory without explicit permission from the government in question, which is automatically a war crime, or more specifically a "crime against peace" as defined after WWII by the United Nations, a binding legal concept. Disregarding this for a moment, Bin Laden was a non-combatant (he was not a soldier) in a civilian area, who did not conduct offensive acts of aggression at the time of the assault (and thus he wasn't an illegal combatant). This makes any force used against him legally questionable at the least and probably illegal. The military just isn't allowed to kill anyone who isn't fighting them without (at the very least) a court-martial. And rightly so - if this weren't the case, genocide like the kind occurring in Syria right now would be legal. The U.S. committed numerous war crimes of this type in Vietnam, and in the Middle East, they seem to have found a bit of a loop-hole by having mercenaries (because that's what Blackwater and the likes are) do the dirty work.

The murder of Gaddafi was just that - murder.

Incidentally, I would like to point out that when nations start employing private 'security firms' such as Blackwater as mercenaries, they are using illegal combatants and are thus no longer different from terrorist organizations like Hamas in any legal sense.

I know this thread is supposed to be about Gaddafi, but I will say this once more and then stand down - there is no proof that the US did not have the permission of the Pakistani government just as there is no proof that it did. The 'evidence' for me is the reaction of Pakistan and the swift way in which their "shock" and "anger" dissolved.

Clearly, opinions lean toward the US being guilty of atrocities in the War on Terror, a war that some - too many, IMO - consider to be a false/unjust/illegal war. Opinions and facts often conflict.

In addition to the investigation into Gadhafi's own death, human rights groups are calling for investigations after they discovered the bodies of 53 people, believed to be Gadhafi supporters, in a hotel that was under the control of anti-Gadhafi fighters.

But we're dodging that issue here, right?

Sorry, but if you're gonna make this a one-sided political argument, you must at least be aware that BOTH sides are doing some pretty crappy things.

I'm not up on the latest details of Gaddafi's death and after reading some of the comments here maybe that is a story I might not be glad to have read.  I had read an early account on BBC.com about how there was shooting from different sides when they were taking Gaddafi from his hiding place and then later that there was confusion about how he died.  But my comment was about the danger of capturing someone alive in certain situations (and I was actually thinking of the Bin Laden situation) in order for them to stand trial.  If there is a safe method to capture alive a most wanted type, who is likely armed and dangerous, then of course, that is a good idea.  

Anyway, I would imagine that anyone with the good intention of bringing Gaddafi to trial might have been outnumbered or overpowered.

@ magicalfreddie - I wish you were right with the idea that the USA would punish someone who releases a virus into Iran's nuclear power plant but that is really wishful thinking - it would never ever happen. Remember that actual murderers - the famous helicopter team whose film was released on WikiLeaks was never tried in a court of law. I admit that they did not behead someone but they laughed and cheered while hunting unarmed civilians with machine guns. Instead the whistle blower has been kept in solitary confinement ever since (no trial as yet) and congress members actually asked that Julian Assange must be executed!

@microwave - I totally agree with you: the murder of Gadaffi and his son and other presumed Gadaffi supporters by the troops of the new government is a horrible crime against humanity and has to be condemned. There are no excuses - all human beings know that it is a crime to shoot an unarmed person.