Gadhafi's Burial Delayed for Investigation

[JerryNumbers]

Gadhafi's Burial Delayed for Investigation

I agree, and investigation is in order, no matter who it is, there is a judicial process, and if someone, or even several have broekn the law they need to be punished.

There is no sense in having any laws if your going to pick when to obey them, and not obey them, according to who it is, & or the crime or crimes they've committed. Yet I understand when it comes to these type of people, Gadhafi & Osama bin Laden's, the law means nothing to many. They say its OK to hunt them down like a mad dog, & if you happen to capture them, kill them on the spot. Even many professing Christians will defend those that do this type of evil.

[Invicta]

Gadhafi's Burial Delayed for Investigation

I agree, and investigation is in order, no matter who it is, there is a judicial process, and if someone, or even several have broekn the law they need to be punished.

There is no sense in having any laws if your going to pick when to obey them, and not obey them, according to who it is, & or the crime or crimes they've committed. Yet I understand when it comes to these type of people, Gadhafi & Osama bin Laden's, the law means nothing to many. They say its OK to hunt them down like a mad dog, & if you happen to capture them, kill them on the spot. Even many professing Christians will defend those that do this type of evil.

I don't recall these people making that fuss over those thousands that Gadhafi killed.

[John81]

"One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic." Joseph Stalin

He should know considering he is responsible for over 20 million deaths.

[Seth Doty]

Gadhafi's Burial Delayed for Investigation

I agree, and investigation is in order, no matter who it is, there is a judicial process, and if someone, or even several have broekn the law they need to be punished.

There is no sense in having any laws if your going to pick when to obey them, and not obey them, according to who it is, & or the crime or crimes they've committed. Yet I understand when it comes to these type of people, Gadhafi & Osama bin Laden's, the law means nothing to many. They say its OK to hunt them down like a mad dog, & if you happen to capture them, kill them on the spot. Even many professing Christians will defend those that do this type of evil.

On the other hand the USA wasn't directly involved in his killing, and the "International Criminal Court" is a flawed and illegitimate concept. In short, a gang of thugs killed another bad guy they didn't like. Did they kill him in cold blood in a sort of mob/vigilante justice? Most likely, but that is their business. That isn't the way our nation is set up or is supposed to do things, but gadhafi's killing is a internal affair of libya and the manner of his killing is of no great concern to the rest of the world.

[John81]

On the other hand the USA wasn't directly involved in his killing, and the "International Criminal Court" is a flawed and illegitimate concept. In short, a gang of thugs killed another bad guy they didn't like. Did they kill him in cold blood in a sort of mob/vigilante justice? Most likely, but that is their business. That isn't the way our nation is set up or is supposed to do things, but gadhafi's killing is a internal affair of libya and the manner of his killing is of no great concern to the rest of the world.

I would agree with this if the USA were not directly involved and if the USA didn't have it's nose in the internal affairs of Libya.

The internal war in Libya was almost at an end when Obama decided to join with other nations taking sides and an active role in the internal affairs of Libya. It was America arms, munitions and logistics more than anything else that turned a revolt that was near it's end into a several month long bloodbath across Libya.

Even after America offically took a "back seat", it was most America supplies and intelligence that made further interference in Libya possible and effective.

With the killing of the Colonel, it was an America drone that spotted his convoy leaving town and French fighters were called in to strike the convoy.

This was not, as the media and government is trying to paint it, a successful uprising of democracy loving citizens who toppled an evil leader. This was the overthrow of the government of a soveriegn nation by America and a few other countries.

As a few countries have righty pointed out, this action has set a precedent for nations who don't like the leader of another nation, taking military action to topple them in the name of democracy. How long before this precedent is used to say any unpopular government is a legitimate target?

[ThePilgrim]

He undoubtedly got his just desserts, but I would like to have seen him live to talk. I think there is a lot about our government and American corporations that we would have learned. Is it just a bunch of out of control rebels behind his death or did the orders come from higher up. There are to may opportune deaths in these troubled times.

God bless,
Larry

Edited October 22, 2011 by pilgrim1938

[Seth Doty]

This was not, as the media and government is trying to paint it, a successful uprising of democracy loving citizens who toppled an evil leader. This was the overthrow of the government of a soveriegn nation by America and a few other countries.

Well I agree the "winners" are not exactly "democracy loving citizens" but the fact that the rebels could not have won without NATO's help doesn't mean america overthrew their government. After all America would have had a difficult time winning our american revolution without the navy of the french crown, who helped us because they did not like England. Such things are commonplace in history.

[John81]

Well I agree the "winners" are not exactly "democracy loving citizens" but the fact that the rebels could not have won without NATO's help doesn't mean america overthrew their government. After all America would have had a difficult time winning our american revolution without the navy of the french crown, who helped us because they did not like England. Such things are commonplace in history.

No doubt such happens, but what was going on in Libya was a totally internal matter and yet America and other nations determined they had some right to interfere.

Remember that during the American Civil War the Lincoln Administration went to great lengths to tell other nations that as they saw this as an internal matter no other nation had a right to interfere.

Interestingly the Chinese reminded America of this with regards to what they consider to be internal matters.

However it's looked at, what was going on in Libya was an internal matter that other nations interferred in for the express purpose of toppling the Libyan leader.

What happens when America finds itself with great internal strife and other nations join together to aid the uprising for the sake of democracy? Their own past actions will be used as justification.

[JerryNumbers]

Its always amazing when people disagree with something, its an illegitimate concept. And its amazing how many American, especially Christians agree whole heartily at times that the laws can be thrown out when dealing with certain people.

Its all about respect of person.which we should never have for any person no matter how good & or bad the person may be.

Up until lately the Americans always played by the law in war. If someone was captured without being killed, we would protect their life, & only kill them when they were convicted in a court of law & or a military tribunal.

This has become a nation that loves vengeance, that celebrates when vengeance is carried out, with many Christians calling vengeance a very good thing & love it when certain bad persons are murdered in cold blood.

Sorry to say, but many are calling evil good on this matter. This is not the same United States of just a few years ago.

Plus, on this matter I did not say this country had anything to do with this, yet they did have everything to do with the cold bloodied murder of Osama bin Laden. So this country is no better than those who captured Mr. Gadhafi alive, them murdered him.

Now, if Mr. Gadhafi had died fighting them, them this would be a whole different story. And I stated the same thing about Mr.Laden, if Mr. Gadhafi was fighting bad against them, & he got killed, & our military had not murdered him in cold blood, that would have been a whole different story.

And I would not have a problem if both were captured, them given a fair trial & convicted of murder & sentenced to death, them the execution carried out.

[Seth Doty]

Its always amazing when people disagree with something, its an illegitimate concept.

If you are referring to my comment about the "international criminal court" being a illegitimate concept then feel free to explain why you think otherwise. BTW I think the UN is a illegitimate concept too. Other than Gods law nations are the highest form of government I recognize as legitimate. Nations can make/break treaties with one another, but the idea that there is any kind of legitimacy to some overarching "International law" , to which all nations and people are subject, is foolish.

[John81]

I don't agree with the UN or what it stands for. With regards to international law there are some things of common interest that most countries can agree with and is beneficial, such as free and open sealanes. However, beyond such things much of what is contained within the realm of international law is beyond what anything other than an actual world government could rightly impose or hope to enforce.

It's a shame to see America play the hypocritical game of international law. When they think it's to their benefit, or gives them a legitimate reason to complain, America demands others abide by international law. However, when America sees a benefit to ignoring international law they proclaim this or that circumstance gave them the right to break international law.

It's a shame to see all this two-faced hypocricy going on. Yes, I understand the governments are filled with lost men acting according to their flesh being guided by the world and the devil, but it's sad to see that especially when it's your own country acting in this manner.

What was going on in Libya should have been nothing more than an internal matter. None of the countries that interfered had any right to do so. America especially should not have been involved given her Constitution and historical foundation of staying out of other nations affairs.

[Alimantado]

On the other hand the USA wasn't directly involved in his killing, and the "International Criminal Court" is a flawed and illegitimate concept. In short, a gang of thugs killed another bad guy they didn't like. Did they kill him in cold blood in a sort of mob/vigilante justice? Most likely, but that is their business. That isn't the way our nation is set up or is supposed to do things, but gadhafi's killing is a internal affair of libya and the manner of his killing is of no great concern to the rest of the world.

From the description of the situation, it sounds like his death was down to an out-of-control mob rather than any dictate by the state. But if the authorities in Libya had managed to get hold of him alive, would it have been of 'no great concern' to the world? There is no over-arching law that requires it, but many countries have agreements about extradition, and people in the UK wanted Gaddafi to face questions about Lockerbie.

If I killed a lot of people in the US, evaded capture and got back to the UK, should the US then have no great concern about what happens to me?

[HappyChristian]

Extradition would have been in order, for him to answer re: Lockerbie. But that's the only instance of any law outside Libya that MG would need to answer to. He was Libyan, and so subject to Libyan law, not international law. Where is scripture to support the idea of international law? Zero....

An investigation by Libyans might be in order. It was an Iraqi court that condemned Saddam, as it should have been. So, too, in MG's case (other than, as I said, extradition for Lockerbie) should an investigation be done by Libyans.

[John81]

To be open, the court that tried Saddam was stacked and the outcome predetermined, so while he was tried in Iraq, it wasn't a fair trial.

As to the Libyan Colonel, he said he wanted to die fighting in Libya. He more or less got his wish. Considering some of the behind the scenes stuff that had gone on, especially since the Colonel made nice with the West while Bush II was in office, it's unlikely either England or America would have wanted him to stand any public trial.

[Alimantado]

You're probably right, John. Revelations about how close a relationship the Ministry of Defence had with Gaddafi have already been slightly embarrassing for HM gov. Some commentators have said his death is convenient for the west.