Assassination is better than a trial?

I am shocked by your editorial stating the death of Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi at the hands of the rebels who deposed him was the best possible outcome and that "had he been captured alive, the nation's fledgling leaders would have been forced to choose between trying him themselves or acquiescing to a war crimes trial in international court, either of which would have given a madman the attention he craved to the detriment of efforts at reconciliation between rival factions in Libya."

In reality, we now know they captured him alive, put him in a car to ostensibly bring him in and blew his brains out in that car. This was shown in cell phone videos to the whole world. So according to this editorial, we have been wasting our time ever since the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, Bosnia need not give up Slobodan Milosevic to the Hague, and bringing in Saddam Hussein for trial was a foolish waste of time. They all should have been summarily shot at the time we caught them, the enactment of the new Barack Obama policy.

You went on to say "it is a validation of the president's decision to reject the ideological foreign policy of the Bush administration (presumably bringing deposed dictators in for trial) and replace it with a supple new pragmatism" (like shooting them in the head immediately). We can now pick who we want to win, help them with air strikes and drone strikes and CIA operatives and assassinate the deposed loser. Oh, how far we have come from the liberal ideologues who would not torture, who agonized over water boarding as torture, who would try terrorists in civil court and now celebrate outright assassination as "supple new pragmatism?" These are your own words and you have made me retch from your hypocrisy.

How far you will go to cover and excuse a failed president and his failed policies?

Joseph Schvimmer, Pikesville

Copyright © 2021, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad