It is hard to feel much sympathy for Col Muammar Gaddafi, despite the fact that his end was gruesome even by the brutal standards of the Arab world. Now that the Libyan dictator has been laid to rest in his anonymous Saharan grave, we can safely discount the interim government’s initial assertion that he was killed by crossfire when his captors came under attack as they made their way to a hospital in Misurata. The grim truth is that Gaddafi was murdered in cold blood, after his captors had indulged in an orgy of violence against his defenceless person, including sexual assault. So much for the brave new world of democracy that David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy promised us once he had been removed from power.  Given Gaddafi’s well-documented support for international terrorism and his savage repression of his own people, the instinctive response of many of us will be that he had it coming. Moreover, the vengeful justice meted out by his captors means that we will be spared the discomfiting spectacle of Gaddafi standing trial for war crimes at the Hague, where embarrassing questions were sure to surface. Mr Cameron has had much sport at Tony Blair’s expense over his dalliance with the Libyan despot. But only last November, the Coalition sent a high-level military delegation to Tripoli to negotiate an arms deal: among the numerous items on Gaddafi’s shopping list were high-velocity sniper rifles.  Gaddafi’s demise is convenient for all concerned. Western leaders can sleep secure in the knowledge that their indiscretions will not be exposed, and the newly liberated Libyans can get on with the business of rebuilding their country, free from his baleful shadow. Who now cares that the killing of Gaddafi amounts to a war crime, and that the perpetrators should be brought before the International Criminal Court? That, after all, was the fate that awaited Gaddafi, had he survived the chaotic journey to Misurata, after his summary executions of anti-government protesters earlier this year.  Last night, the country’s new rulers suggested that Gaddafi’s killers would be put on trial. Let’s hope they’re as good as their word. For apparently, we find that the rebels have conducted their own summary executions. Apart from murdering Gaddafi and his son Mutassim, the rebels are accused of killing 53 loyalist fighters whose bodies were found in Sirte with their hands bound behind their backs and a single bullet wound to their heads. There are fears that hundreds more may have suffered a similar fate. Yet no one in London or Paris is making any serious demands that the perpetrators be called to account. All that really matters is that Gaddafi’s regime is history, and that the task of rebuilding Libya can now begin in earnest.  A similar disregard for the norms of international justice was evident last May, with the assassination of Osama bin Laden. The testimony subsequently provided by the team of US Navy Seals that carried out the daring raid on his hideaway in Pakistan demonstrated unequivocally that they had no interest in capturing the world’s most wanted man. From the moment they landed at his Abbottabad lair, they had a single objective – to kill bin Laden. As with Gaddafi’s death, no one questioned whether President Obama, who personally sanctioned the “kill” mission, had acted illegally. What counted was that bin Laden was no more, and the world was a far better place without him.  Another example of the West’s growing appetite for extra-judicial killing was evident in the recent drone attack in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda mastermind behind a number of plots, including the infamous underwear bomb in Detroit in late 2009. On this occasion, questions were raised about the mission’s legality, not least because the victim happened to hold American citizenship. But the human rights lobby’s assertion that Mr Obama had broken the law by ordering the assassination of a US citizen made little headway against the majority view that a significant threat to America’s national security had been eliminated.  Indeed, so long as human rights activists seem more concerned with upholding the interests of terrorists at the expense of governments trying to protect their citizens from attack, public support for such extra-judicial killings will only increase. In Britain, the Home Secretary was recently forced to release two British Taliban suspects after they were apprehended by an SAS team in Afghanistan. The two were accused of planning bomb attacks against Britain, but were released when human rights lawyers threatened to challenge the Government’s actions in the courts. Theresa May had no alternative other than to let them go.  Cases such as this make the argument for increased drone strikes against terrorist targets all the more attractive. As one senior security official told me: “What’s the point risking your life to capture these people, if they’re going to be set free within a few days?” The public’s tacit support for summary justice is reflected in its unquestioning acceptance of the killings of pariahs such as Gaddafi and bin Laden.  Sadly, it could also lead to more trouble in the years to come. As we know from Guantanamo, the failure to observe proper legal procedures can become a gift horse for the human rights lobby, with a number of former British detainees having recently become millionaires as a result of their detention.  When it comes to taking out the bad guys, I fully support the heroic efforts of all those involved in tackling terrorists and rogue dictators. But I also want us to make sure that all the actions we take are legally justified. Otherwise, we are storing up a multitude of problems for the future.
Actions against dictators and terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden should be    legal or we risk the consequences.