Ghadafis Dead

[White Zetsu]

he was shot today,while surrendering, with no trial. in my opinion, it is murder, since he got no trial, and was just riddled with machine gun bullets, and it also shows that the rebels are no better than he is if theyll kill him without a trial while hes surrendering. it doesnt matter how bad he was, he is a head of state, and therefore needs A. a trial and B. to be interrogated, since he could provide information about terrorist organizations. what are everyone elses opinions

[Hando Craap]

They don't have laws made for the people in Libya.Just FOR the Dictatorship.I'm surprised it took this long.

[White Zetsu]

he still deserved a trial, and an interrogation. he worked with terrorists, UN couldve Damaged the terrorist network had they interrogated him.

[White Zetsu]

*bump*

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by White Zetsu

he was shot today,while surrendering, with no trial. in my opinion, it is murder, since he got no trial, and was just riddled with machine gun bullets, and it also shows that the rebels are no better than he is if theyll kill him without a trial while hes surrendering. it doesnt matter how bad he was, he is a head of state, and therefore needs A. a trial and B. to be interrogated, since he could provide information about terrorist organizations. what are everyone elses opinions

I agree. Interrogate, trial, and THEN shoot him.

This is looking like mob rule...

[Danielle]

It was an atrocious murder. If this is humanity then I wash my hands of it. They are people of God no? Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's. It much applies the same here. At least have the semblance of a trial.

[White Zetsu]

thank yu for agreeing with me

[Kakashi Hatake_Yamato]

He was shot and wounded
And died of his wounds
And ya. I agree that they should hav dragged him out and then stick him in an interrogation room
Heh. Interrogations remind me of Ibiki

[Gamabunta]

Originally Posted by Danielle

It was an atrocious murder. If this is humanity then I wash my hands of it. They are people of God no? Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's. It much applies the same here. At least have the semblance of a trial.

Agreed!

What the hell is this? They are the same breed he is. I would expect a dictator to treat a victim's body with such disdain. They have proven they are just as barbaric.

Can we not all agree that a dead's person's body is something sacred not to be defiled before man or God?

[Gamabunta]

And our precious leaders like Clinton saying: We came, we saw, he died.

Don't joke about another human being's demise! I don't care who he was. No one acted this way when Hitler died. Death is not something you celebrate regardless of how bad the person was.

[Hando Craap]

I never disagree'd with an interrogation, trial, then hang him.But these people lived in fear for 42 years.It was a heat of the moment thing.As far as them letting anybody interrogating him I don't think they would trust anybody to go near him in fear of being let go or "escaping".It has been done before.The good only thing that came out of this isthey no longer have to be terrified.

[White Zetsu]

hando, thats exactly what im saying. but it doesnt justify his murder, as he was a head of state he deserved a trial. Saddam got one, and he was a worse dictator than Ghadaffi.

[Rasen_Chidori]

I find it rather amusing how every time something like this happens, everyone starts arguing about the circumstances surrounding it and how the person concerned should have been given a trial, etc, etc.

Morals say things should be done that way, but logic says that the sooner they're dead, the less chance of them escaping or something else occuring that allows their freedom especially when they have large numbers of followers who may attempt some kind of rescue.

I find there is little point arguing over such things, unless you're in a position to actually do something about it to change how things are done, which most people aren't.

He's dead, there's nothing that can be done about it. Did he deserve to die? Probably not in those circumstances but what's the difference between now and after a pointless trial that the outcome of we already know? I guess you could just call it an atrocity to due process and human rights, etc. But to be honest, it's not something I'm all that interstested in debating about.

[Kreegah!!!]

Originally Posted by White Zetsu

he was shot today,while surrendering, with no trial. in my opinion, it is murder, since he got no trial, and was just riddled with machine gun bullets, and it also shows that the rebels are no better than he is if theyll kill him without a trial while hes surrendering. it doesnt matter how bad he was, he is a head of state, and therefore needs A. a trial and B. to be interrogated, since he could provide information about terrorist organizations. what are everyone elses opinions

It was murder. He didn't deserve a trial, a trial needed to be administered for their benefit. But they decided to take the low path. Heads of state are no more entitled to a trial than anyone else. Why them? Why can't the underlings be given that right as well? There's nothing special about leaders--in fact, most leaders have done far more harm than good.

Originally Posted by White Zetsu

he still deserved a trial, and an interrogation. he worked with terrorists, UN couldve Damaged the terrorist network had they interrogated him.

Most of the UN's constituents HARBOR terrorists. The UN has always been a joke, even when it was the League of Nations or w/e it's spiritual predecessor was called.

Originally Posted by Hando Craap

I never disagree'd with an interrogation, trial, then hang him.But these people lived in fear for 42 years.It was a heat of the moment thing.As far as them letting anybody interrogating him I don't think they would trust anybody to go near him in fear of being let go or "escaping".It has been done before.The good only thing that came out of this isthey no longer have to be terrified.

I agree that the outcome is not surprising, but reacting instead of thinking at such a crucial moment is only going to set the standard for the new era. There has never been a recorded instance where it has been otherwise, to my knowledge.

What the killer did was wrong, and his actions will only bring suffering down on those people. Perpetuation is an ugly thing.

[Kreegah!!!]

Originally Posted by Rasen_Chidori

I find it rather amusing how every time something like this happens, everyone starts arguing about the circumstances surrounding it and how the person concerned should have been given a trial, etc, etc.

Morals say things should be done that way, but logic says that the sooner they're dead, the less chance of them escaping or something else occuring that allows their freedom especially when they have large numbers of followers who may attempt some kind of rescue.

I find there is little point arguing over such things, unless you're in a position to actually do something about it to change how things are done, which most people aren't.

He's dead, there's nothing that can be done about it. Did he deserve to die? Probably not in those circumstances but what's the difference between now and after a pointless trial that the outcome of we already know? I guess you could just call it an atrocity to due process and human rights, etc. But to be honest, it's not something I'm all that interested in debating about.

In his case, everyone knew he was a villain, but stuff like that occurs all the time to people who were actually innocent, or at least not guilty of that particular crime that got them axed. Also, by adopting that attitude, we ignore the character of the irrational menace who perpetrated the so-called justice. It implies he can't check his emotions, and such people are dangerous to have around.

[Danielle]

I don't really care that he was a leader per say, I care that it was filmed and now is being watched over an over.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Gamabunta

Agreed!

What the hell is this? They are the same breed he is. I would expect a dictator to treat a victim's body with such disdain. They have proven they are just as barbaric.

Can we not all agree that a dead's person's body is something sacred not to be defiled before man or God?

Perhaps you should read Antigone?

Originally Posted by Rasen_Chidori

I find it rather amusing how every time something like this happens, everyone starts arguing about the circumstances surrounding it and how the person concerned should have been given a trial, etc, etc.

Morals say things should be done that way, but logic says that the sooner they're dead, the less chance of them escaping or something else occuring that allows their freedom especially when they have large numbers of followers who may attempt some kind of rescue.

I find there is little point arguing over such things, unless you're in a position to actually do something about it to change how things are done, which most people aren't.

He's dead, there's nothing that can be done about it. Did he deserve to die? Probably not in those circumstances but what's the difference between now and after a pointless trial that the outcome of we already know? I guess you could just call it an atrocity to due process and human rights, etc. But to be honest, it's not something I'm all that interstested in debating about.

If you're not interested in debating why are you here?
But whatever. I actually do think that how he died was
probably what he deserved. Or perhaps he deserved worse?
I dunno. I don't think the trial would be pointless. Obviously
we know he's going to be executed anyways. However that
wouldn't be the point of the trial. The point of the trial is that
justice is or really SHOULD be blind. Innocent before proven
guilty. Even the worst of peoples ought to have a trial simply
for the fact of consistency. Because once you give an inch
a mile is taken instead. It's easy to say it doesn't matter
that Qadaffytaffy was gonna be executed anyways so
what's the point? But that's ex post facto justification.
We can't just say he would have been found guilty
and sentenced to die anyways after the fact that he was killed.
If we do then we can do the same thing for anyone else.
Of course I'm not expecting every murderous leader to have
a trial. Such as Osama Bin Laden. He couldn't have a trial since
he put up a fight and the SEALs killed him in response as they should.
I'm not even saying that Qadaffytaffy's death was a bad thing.
But that if possible then all persons good or ill when convicted
deserve their day in court. Then a jury of their peers shall
decide what they deserve after that.

Now before anyone tells me to 'get real' and that justice system doesn't
actually work that way. Yes, thank you. I know. I am speaking idealistically. Obviously things don't work out as well in the real life.
However I think ideals exist for a reason. They are something we
ought to strive for. We may never have perfect justice but why
should we settle for corruption? Not saying that Qadaffytaffy's
murder was corruption btw. Actually I doubt there was much that
could have been done about it. I am just speaking in principle.

Originally Posted by Kreegah!

It was murder. He didn't deserve a trial, a trial needed to be administered for their benefit. But they decided to take the low path. Heads of state are no more entitled to a trial than anyone else. Why them? Why can't the underlings be given that right as well? There's nothing special about leaders--in fact, most leaders have done far more harm than good.



Most of the UN's constituents HARBOR terrorists. The UN has always been a joke, even when it was the League of Nations or w/e it's spiritual predecessor was called.



I agree that the outcome is not surprising, but reacting instead of thinking at such a crucial moment is only going to set the standard for the new era. There has never been a recorded instance where it has been otherwise, to my knowledge.

What the killer did was wrong, and his actions will only bring suffering down on those people. Perpetuation is an ugly thing.

That's what I think.

[Ur Mom]

Did Osama get a trial, I think not

Originally Posted by Kreegah!

It was murder. He didn't deserve a trial, a trial needed to be administered for their benefit. But they decided to take the low path. Heads of state are no more entitled to a trial than anyone else. Why them? Why can't the underlings be given that right as well? There's nothing special about leaders--in fact, most leaders have done far more harm than good.



Most of the UN's constituents HARBOR terrorists. The UN has always been a joke, even when it was the League of Nations or w/e it's spiritual predecessor was called.



I agree that the outcome is not surprising, but reacting instead of thinking at such a crucial moment is only going to set the standard for the new era. There has never been a recorded instance where it has been otherwise, to my knowledge.

What the killer did was wrong, and his actions will only bring suffering down on those people. Perpetuation is an ugly thing.

I agree, plenty of people are taken in by the US without trial, such as those whom they think of potential terrorists. The FBI is pretty good at getting away with that kind of stuff. So this shouldn't be a big deal

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

Perhaps you should read Antigone?



If you're not interested in debating why are you here?
But whatever. I actually do think that how he died was
probably what he deserved. Or perhaps he deserved worse?
I dunno. I don't think the trial would be pointless. Obviously
we know he's going to be executed anyways. However that
wouldn't be the point of the trial. The point of the trial is that
justice is or really SHOULD be blind. Innocent before proven
guilty. Even the worst of peoples ought to have a trial simply
for the fact of consistency. Because once you give an inch
a mile is taken instead. It's easy to say it doesn't matter
that Qadaffytaffy was gonna be executed anyways so
what's the point? But that's ex post facto justification.
We can't just say he would have been found guilty
and sentenced to die anyways after the fact that he was killed.
If we do then we can do the same thing for anyone else.
Of course I'm not expecting every murderous leader to have
a trial. Such as Osama Bin Laden. He couldn't have a trial since
he put up a fight and the SEALs killed him in response as they should.
I'm not even saying that Qadaffytaffy's death was a bad thing.
But that if possible then all persons good or ill when convicted
deserve their day in court. Then a jury of their peers shall
decide what they deserve after that.

Now before anyone tells me to 'get real' and that justice system doesn't
actually work that way. Yes, thank you. I know. I am speaking idealistically. Obviously things don't work out as well in the real life.
However I think ideals exist for a reason. They are something we
ought to strive for. We may never have perfect justice but why
should we settle for corruption? Not saying that Qadaffytaffy's
murder was corruption btw. Actually I doubt there was much that
could have been done about it. I am just speaking in principle.



That's what I think.

No, no man deserves torture, so not worse than death in my opinion. Besides, he did SOMEWHAT help the world, he wasn't totally evil and useless like the Saudi Arabian King is. Those that didn't get a trial in the past before Qadaffi were usually still judged correctly by the psuedo-trialers. In my opinion many trials are unfair in the first place and even twisted, either for more or less consequences. A man in georgia who had obviously killed someone just got scot free. Another Pakistani man that I KNEW as a close friend's dad is being put on trial pretty unfairly where I am. And you cannot really stop human tendencies, not everything in the world can go by law, simply, and the world needs that sometimes, for variety. Still, yes, a trial should be in normal circumstances of everybody done, but it can often not be case, even in politically correct America for that matter. A trial is a privilege, just like freedom is in the first place, freedom is not a right, in the same time it SHOULD be a right, but it's not, in reality, nor is it necessary for happiness on a personal level or the prosperity of the nation as a whole. CORRUPTION and the violations of civil rights is different from just plain taking away freedoms. Anyway, that's off topic, point is, trials aren't necessary to give good justice, AS LONG AS justice is served correctly.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Ur Mom

Did Osama get a trial, I think not

Osama Bin Laden forfeited his own trial when he didn't go quietly.
If you shoot at Navy SEALs you best expect to get shot back at.



I agree, plenty of people are taken in by the US without trial, such as those whom they think of potential terrorists. The FBI is pretty good at getting away with that kind of stuff. So this shouldn't be a big deal



No, no man deserves torture, so not worse than death in my opinion.
Besides, he did SOMEWHAT help the world, he wasn't totally evil and useless like the Saudi Arabian King is.

Admittably I don't enough to decide just how bad Qadaffi was.

Those that didn't get a trial in the past before Qadaffi were usually still judged correctly by the psuedo-trialers. In my opinion many trials are unfair in the first place and even twisted, either for more or less consequences. A man in georgia who had obviously killed someone just got scot free. Another Pakistani man that I KNEW as a close friend's dad is being put on trial pretty unfairly where I am. And you cannot really stop human tendencies, not everything in the world can go by law, simply, and the world needs that sometimes, for variety. Still, yes, a trial should be in normal circumstances of everybody done, but it can often not be case, even in politically correct America for that matter.

This is why I said I was speaking idealistically.

A trial is a privilege, just like freedom is in the first place, freedom is not a right, in the same time it SHOULD be a right, but it's not, in reality, nor is it necessary for happiness on a personal level or the prosperity of the nation as a whole. CORRUPTION and the violations of civil rights is different from just plain taking away freedoms. Anyway, that's off topic, point is, trials aren't necessary to give good justice, AS LONG AS justice is served correctly.

I disagree with you on that. I do think that everyone deserves the
right to a trial. There are however exceptions. Such as Bin Laden
who forfeited his own trial by shooting at Navy SEALs. I mean it's
not like the SEALs are just going to let him shoot at them. But
otherwise if Osama Bin Laden went quietly he deserved to have
a trial and would in all likelihood be found guilty and sentenced to death.
I think justice was served when Bin Laden died. But if a policeman
arrests a convicted murderer and shoots them to death in the back
of their police car then that is NOT justice. That is cold blooded murder.
If we forsake the trial then we're just left with vigilante "justice"
which soon becomes "might makes right". At the same time, the trial
itself is not perfect. It can and does become corrupted. That is why
we need something to counter the corruption that can happen in trials.

I think everyone who does not violate someone's rights deserves the
right to freedom. I think freedom is a right and not a privilege.
I think every slave past, present and future has had their rights stepped
on. By slave I mean anyone who is forced against their own will to
work for another. Usually manual labor. Having a job is not slavery.
I think that as the declaration of independence says that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However I think this applies not to just the United States
but to the entire world. Of course that's not to say these rights are just going to be given to us. Time and time again these rights have been
and will continue to be paid with the price of spilled blood.

[Ur Mom]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

I disagree with you on that. I do think that everyone deserves the
right to a trial. There are however exceptions. Such as Bin Laden
who forfeited his own trial by shooting at Navy SEALs. I mean it's
not like the SEALs are just going to let him shoot at them. But
otherwise if Osama Bin Laden went quietly he deserved to have
a trial and would in all likelihood be found guilty and sentenced to death.
I think justice was served when Bin Laden died. But if a policeman
arrests a convicted murderer and shoots them to death in the back
of their police car then that is NOT justice. That is cold blooded murder.
If we forsake the trial then we're just left with vigilante "justice"
which soon becomes "might makes right". At the same time, the trial
itself is not perfect. It can and does become corrupted. That is why
we need something to counter the corruption that can happen in trials.

I think everyone who does not violate someone's rights deserves the
right to freedom. I think freedom is a right and not a privilege.
I think every slave past, present and future has had their rights stepped
on. By slave I mean anyone who is forced against their own will to
work for another. Usually manual labor. Having a job is not slavery.
I think that as the declaration of independence says that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However I think this applies not to just the United States
but to the entire world. Of course that's not to say these rights are just going to be given to us. Time and time again these rights have been
and will continue to be paid with the price of spilled blood.

Circumstances are circumstances, I guess that's the way it is really :/. Qadaffi's killing may be said to be under the same sort of circumstances that a policeman would be confronted with against a man that has killed over 1,000 people and he's unarmed. I mean, if you think about it this way, it makes it sort of hard to say you shouldn't just kill the killer on the spot. If I know myself, I know I'd (rather unfortunately) not hesitate in shooting the HELL out of the killer. In the same way the rebels think of Gadaffi. But I dunno, my 2 cents

Ya see, I mean no civil rights as in you living in a strict yet nice dictatorship country working for a pay making the overall economy prosper kind of thing. HUMAN rights is a wholenother monster, THAT is a right. CIVIL rights are a privilege in my opinion though. Do you get what I was trying to say earlier now? CIVIL rights and HUMAN rights are completely different. I personally just do not believe Civil rights are necessary to be happy and prosper, but then again, I'm the guy that says Fascism can turn out well and nice, but hey, it's hypothetically possible. Basically, you know how you say "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", I would probably change that to "Justice, Betterment, and the Pursuit of Happiness" if I were dictator