Saturday, October 22, 2011

Gaddafi's end

As with the killing of Osama bin Laden, the shooting death of Moammar Gaddafi raises questions about capture and trial of these tyrants vs killing them in the act of capture or while in custody.

Apparently, Gaddafi was wounded in an attack but then was killed by a gunshot wound to his head after he had been captured. The Libyan Information Minister says that it could have been a random bullet fired either by rebels or by loyalists in battle. Other reports suggest that is highly unlikely. Probably he was shot by his captors after they already had him in custody.

A video of the capture has voices in the background shouting, "Don't kill him ! Don't kill him. We need him alive."

If it was a command decision, it was presumably made by the Lybians themselves, not by Americans on the ground or back in the situation room in the White House. But did they communicate with American or NATO commanders before the actual shooting? One report says that Gaddafi was first injured by a predator drone attack (which would likely be a U.S. controlled attack).

Do these tyrants deserve a fair trial? It would allow a full airing of their crimes and would give the semblance of justice being done. On the other hand, it would give the tyrant and his loyalists a platform to continue spouting their rhetoric.

Are we justified in killing someone not actively engaged in a battle, but cowering in a drainage pipe and pleading for his life? Is planned assassination ever justified?

This is a difficult question for me, given my firm opposition to the state imposing a death sentence on anyone convicted of any crime. However, I reluctantly support the killing of someone to prevent the imminent death or maiming of others. The principle is whether you can stop that person's actions any other way than killing him.

Another problem is that the definition of "in battle" has become murky in today's kind of war. In the case of both bin Laden and Gaddafi, it was not a question of their personally being about to kill others; but they led a movement that was continually doing so and would continue to do so.

So, for me, this is not a settled question. I think the world is better off without bin Laden and Gaddafi. Would I pull the trigger myself? No. I would choose capture and trial instead.

Do I plan to go out and demonstrate against our government's involvement in freeing Lybia from tyrannical rule? No. And I praise Obama's "leading from behind" in this instance, which has now proved successful and wise. Not one single American killed in Libya and only a fraction of the expenditure of money if we had invaded. It was not cowardice, as McCain and his ilk claim, but prudence and acting in the best interests of our nation.

Ralph

2 comments:

  1. As another well-known Atlantan was widely quoted after the 'celebration' of Osama bin Laden's death,

    "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for that reminder, Alan.

    King's statement is the position I also endorse.

    ReplyDelete