Do Despotic Rulers Still Have Human Rights of their Own?

I listened to a radio interview this evening on Radio 4 where Robert Colville from the UN (wikipedia) was insisting that a full independent investigation needs to be carried out to determine the true facts surrounding the death of Colonel Gaddafi.  He went on to state that there were at least four versions emanating from Libya on how the death occurred!

Let me save them, the UN, some time and OUR money*:  Some put upon Libyan who, or some member of his family had probably suffered at the hands of the regime at sometime, over Gaddafi's 46 years in power, found him cowering in a hole, dragged him out threw him in the back of a pick-up and put a bullet in his head, end of story, now what is there to investigate?

He went on to say that there was a human rights element to this and "lets not forget this is an elderly man in his late 70's", I mean can you believe the crap these people come out with.  As if his age had anything to do with it, it didn't stop him sending his secret police out to arrest, imprison, torture and kill his own people, now did it. And what about their human rights over the last 46 years.. While that talking shop in New York debated, Libya, Iraq and all the other states ruled by people of that ilk who gave no consideration to their own peoples human rights, what makes them think that those same people who suffered were going to give one thought to his, if he was caught, and they didn't, and so what!

The interviewer asked him, if they did find evidence that conclusively pointed to him having been 'executed', "what action would the UN take".

"Oh let's not get ahead of ourselves on that one", he replied.  Well why not, if you are going to put in place an investigation, there can only be three outcomes to it surely?

1. No evidence to support he was murdered
2. Evidence to support he was murdered 
3. Or (as we have in Scotland) a not proven verdict 

Now I suspect if the investiagtion does find in favour of 2 above that absolutely nothing will be done by the UN or anyone else, SO, I ask again what is the bloody point of holding the investigation in the first place.

It's a bit like their investigation into Bin Laden's death what is the point.  Another UN chappie who goes by the name Navi Pillay, a top UN human rights official,  is reported to have said at the time, "all counter-terrorism operations must respect international law".

Forgive both my ignorance and naivety here, but to the general law abiding populace of the world, to which I admit to being one of that many, but I, like they, believe that as terrorists, or every day commonal garden criminals for that matter, do not respect our human rights, why should we worry about theirs.

It's not as if David Cameron or Barrack Obama are going to send a special forces hit squad after us for penning another blog calling them a bunch of plonkers, again, (well at least I hope not or I may well be moving up the list with the UK government at least). So, I really do not understand this propensity by these dunderheads in the UN calling for investigations into these killings, when the majority of people do not give a damn as to how they have met their end.

And let's face it, in reality, since 1945 when Human Rights issues were first enshrined in  various laws and when the UN came into being to replace the League of Nations, it has been the biggest waste of space adding to the 'greenhouse gas problem' talk, talk talk, without actually doing what it was set up to do, which in layman's terms was to bring all the countries of the planet to the table to talk and to prevent armed conflict, well that worked out well then for the rest of us, didn't it!

Finally, let's have no more talk about a UN investigation.  If Gaddafi had remained alive, do not think for one moment that the Libyans would have given him up to stand trial in the Hague, cos if I had been a Libyan, that would have been the last place I would want him sent, to pontificate and pronounce for years to come about how misunderstood he was and that everything he did was for the good of his beloved people and it was just that they were to stupid to understand the he knew better than them (much like our own politicians in that respect then),. No, if he had remained alive he would have been put on trial, convicted of crimes against his own people and sentenced to death, in the same way as that other numpty from Iraq, Saddam whatshisname.

This way, it is done, it is over, and the Libyans can get on with rebuilding their country, their economy and their LIVES.  UN get over it and find something useful to do, like turn off the lights in that very ugly building in New York, send all the hangers on back to their own countries, and leave the talking to the respective governments directly  and then each country can stop paying the massive bills for an organisation that really does appear to be a complete waste of money.

And as for their Human Rights - they are not entitled to be treated the same as the rest of us, they gave up that right when they set the rule of law aside and tortured and murdered their own peoples and aided and abetted in the murder of other nations citizens through financial funding or terrorist training camps or supplying arms to other terrorist groups around the world.


*Yes we pay, and the last time I can find what we paid, although the more astute of you will no doubt find more up to date data, was over £300 million in 2005, so extrapolating that, we in the UK have probably paid about £2 Billion since thenUN (website)