By now everyone is aware that Muammar Ghaddafi is dead, killed by the rebels that overthrew his government after 42 years of autocratic and despotic rule. Two conflicting stories have emerged as to how his life ended. The "official" version is that he was killed in a shootout. (The fate of his Ukrainian nurse is unknown) The unofficial version, supported by actual video footage, is that he was beaten until nearly dead and then shot in the head.
I can't say that I or many others will shed any tears for the monster of Tripoli. Few will argue that the world is not a better place because of his passing and the American government can rest assured that it has one less major enemy in the world.
What is bizarre to me, however, is the reaction from human rights organizations. If various reports I've read are to be believed, they are upset that Ghaddafi was killed by the rebels instead of being arrested, read his rights and then escorted to a comfy prison cell, there to await trial in either a Libyan or international court room.
Are they kidding? Trials are for situations where the guilt of a person, while assumed or implied, is not absolutely proven. Is that the case with Ghaddafi? Here's a man accused of multiple crimes over the years like killing his own citizens, running a giant prison state and aiding international terrorists. But there's a wrinkle: Ghaddafi freely admitted doing all those things. In fact, he took great pride in them. What purpose would a trial serve other than to give him one last platform to spew his venom from before taken off to prison or the gallows?
There is a certain naivete born of liberal idiocy combined with Hollywood idealism that seems to infect these groups. They honestly want to believe that the rebels in Libya are budding democrats seeking to turn the country into a model of social democratic prosperity. In reality the rebels are simply thugs little different from the thugs they've just removed from power with the help of NATO. As a former American president might have said, "they're bastards but they're our bastards".
Except, of course, they're not "our" bastards and the minute it becomes convenient to do so, they'll turn on NATO and treat it as enemy no. 1. Will anyone with their heads crewed on straight be suprised when they do?
Sometimes I wonder if politicians actually believe the pronouncements they make or if they're just going through the motions because that's what diplomacy requires.