Peering at a Blackberry, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exclaimed, “Wow! Huh.”
This was her unguarded response— before quickly composing herself for the official one—to the news that Muammar Gaddafi, brutal leader of Libya for 42 years, had been killed in his hometown of Sirte.
Details of Gaddafi’s Oct. 20 death have been sketchy and vary from the initial claim that he’d been shot fleeing after being dragged from his hideout in a drainage pipe, to subsequent reports that he was taken alive but died of injuries later.
Libya’s interim prime minister claimed that shooting broke out as the vehicle carrying Gaddafi left the scene of his capture and he was shot in the crossfire, dying en route to hospital. Ambulance driver Ali Jaghdoun reported that Gaddafi was already dead when he arrived to retrieve the body. According to Libya’s chief pathologist, the cause of death was gunshot wounds to the head and abdomen.
The initial global reaction to news of the dictator’s demise was reminiscent of a scene from “The Wizard of Oz,” everyone rejoicing with the same tune.
U.S. President Obama exclaimed, “The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted.” Prime Minister Harper stated, “With the shadow of Gaddafi now lifted from their land, it is our hope that the Libyan people will find peace and reconciliation.”
But as they spoke with dignified restraint, you could almost hear giddy Munchkins and marching bands just off camera, jubilantly joining in song: “Ding dong, the witch is dead.”
In Libya, there were celebrations in the streets—a carnival in Tripoli with an inflatable castle and cotton candy for the kiddies. Then, the party poopers began to raise questions about the manner in which Gaddafi died. The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International called for an inquiry.
So, what’s the big deal? Why should it matter if Gaddafi was shot in the leg, in the back or in the temple?
What difference does it make if he was killed running from rebels or in their custody? Well, from a human rights perspective, it makes a big difference.
Under international law, prisoners of war must be treated humanely and protected at all times, even given medical attention if needed.
Acts of vengeance against them are prohibited.
Gaddafi’s regime was notorious for violating human rights; slaughtering undesirables, enemies and its own citizens; making its own rules. If it’s true that the former leader was executed while in custody—without an opportunity to be defended in a court of law and without the protection afforded him as a prisoner of war—then how is the new regime different from the old?
No government, military or individual should be permitted to decide whose rights are worth respecting and whose aren’t. Isn’t that what led to the terrors Libyans have endured for decades?
We can argue that the killing of a homicidal dictator by Libya’s provisional government forces is not a comparable crime to those allegedly committed by Gaddafi, but it is a violent violation of human rights.
And this government is yet in its infancy.
What else may it have in store in the future for those it considers its enemies?
A clue may be found in the decaying bodies of 53 Gaddafi loyalists, discovered in the garden of an abandoned hotel in Sirte on Oct. 22. Some had their hands bound behind their backs. Spent rifle cartridges littered the bloodied grass around them.
If an investigation proves that Muammar Gaddafi was the victim of extrajudicial execution, a war crime, then Libya’s post-revolution future doesn’t look promising. When the ding-donging bells fall silent, Libyan citizens may see that the “witch” is indeed dead, but there is no shortage of goblins to carry on his legacy of tyranny and terror.
