I'm not really sure where I come out on this one. Sometimes writing helps me think, so I might know by the end of this post.
The news reports seem to have rebutted the official Libyan announcement of the circumstances causing Ghadaffi's end. Unlike the official account - that he was killed in crossfire - it appears that he was captured hiding in a drainage ditch. He was apparently beaten, and still alive when one of the captors held his bloody face up by his hair. He is quoted as pleading with his captors telling them that they were wrong and that they were violating Muslim law. Shortly thereafter, he had a bullet in the head.
Some have said that the conduct of the rebels amounts to a summary execution in violation of International law. I don't approve of what was done, but it is hard to conjure up any sympathy when a brutal dictator pleads for mercy. He didn't have much moral authority to tell the rebels that what they were doing was wrong. They probably would not have even had the chance to make the suggestion.
Nevertheless, when one puts a bullet through the head of one who is unarmed and restrained it is far from an heroic act. The way the rebels ended Khadaffi's life brought them a bit closer to his character instead of establishing a new way of running the country.
From a purely pragmatic, standpoint, the immediate elimination of the Libyan butcher might have ended up saving some lives. The old establishment forces no longer have a figurehead to fight for. It is quite likely that the immediate demise of Khadaffi will diminish further resistance against the new government. Can the brutal death of a brutal dictator be justified as advancing the common good?
I don't know.
Regards,
D-Ray