I was reading an article this morning discussing the ICC's investigation into the death of Muammar Qaddafi, the late Libyan dictator. Qaddafi was killed a month or two back a midst a bloody civil war that concluded with the rebels prevailing. As the rebels slowly gained more and more land, Qaddafi retreated to his hometown of Sirte. Qaddafi was eventually forced to flee as the rebels started to gain control of the city. While trying to flee, Qaddafi's convoy was hit by NATO airstrikes. While the stories differ at this point, Qaddafi survived the air strike but was eventually beaten and killed.
The ICC currently is pushing for the new Libyan transitional government to undertake a full blown investigation as it suspects war crimes were committed. While I understand the sentiment, I think this brings up a very interesting question about the concept of war crimes.
War is by nature a brutal thing. While some 'rules' exist, the only sort of authority to enforce them is the ICC which lacks both precedent required to enforce laws as well as the force to ensure compliance. The ICC routinely seeks to prosecute current dictators such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe or al-Bashir in Sudan but those leaders would never turn themselves in and there isn't any ICC police force to go after them. So the court is mired with an inability to act.
Aside from the ICC, the concept of rights awarded to brutal dictators is a tough idea to wrap your head around. Take Saddam Hussein as an example. During his time in power, he was responsible for the deaths of countless innocent people and torturing even more. No one needed to be convinced that he was guilty. After the US captured him during the invasion, Hussein was given a trial but his fate was all but sealed. Hussein was going to be executed, the trial was just procedural. While this act was important in laying the foundation for a new judicial system in Iraq and bringing closure to a dark time for the Iraqi people, the trial was not a trial in the truest sense of the word, it was mostly for show.
Qaddafi was as brutal if not more brutal than the worst of them. For over 30 years, he ruled with a iron fist and quelled any opposition. The stories of hardships caused by Qaddafi are numerous, and this brutal treatment of his people were what eventually brought about the revolution and his eventual demise. The capture of Qaddafi by the Libyan rebels represented the end of a repressive era and the dawn of the new day. While I would have preferred Qaddafi had a trial to help establish the new rule of law, I do not think I have any right to tell Libyans what they should and shouldn't do with him. Did Qaddafi deserve to die for the crimes he committed, probably. Was there any chance he would be found not guilty in court, no way! Qaddafi was guilty and he was going to be executed, it was only a matter of time.
I'm okay with the way Qaddafi's life ended. It was brutal, violent, and lacked dignity which is exactly how he ruled the country and how he should leave this earth.
