Muammar Gadaffi is dead. We all know that, except for the conspiracy theorists who believe him to be alive and well and planning his comeback. We saw the tape, and the pics of him on display in a meatlocker, and don't really think he will be booking Beyonce for a concert again.

The people of Libya have spoken - or more accurately a group of animals turned on one of it's own. As well as 53 Gadaffi loyalists who were bound and killed, and whose bodies have been rotting in a hotel in Sirte for the past week. So much for burying the dead in 24 hours.

We shudder to contemplate how this will translate out as the new leadership consolidates power. They have already declared that their system will be sharia based. We're having a hard time seeing how replacing a repressive system with a more repressive one is an improvement.

President Obama has been given the honor of yet another victory lap on this one. It was hard to see a connection in the initial reports - a NATO strike took out Gadaffi's convoy (French, maybe the Brits) and he was dragged out of hiding by an angry mob of Libyans who then killed him and desecrated his body. There didn't seem to be any American fingerprints on this at all (except for the American money paying for all of this). Then word comes out that the NATO strike was really a Predator Drone strike, and we don't let the Europeans play with those particular wartoys. We're kind of selfish that way.

The mainstream media has been hyperventilating about how how our current President now has more kills than his predecessor on "valued targets". Therein lies the problem, and the dilemma. First, President Obama does not have more kills, He has killed no one. He has just delivered more orders to kill. Credit for bagging this particular thug belongs to an intelligence analyst who put together the pieces, and the drone operator who blew Gadaffi's convoy to pieces. The rest of the credit goes to a mob who then tore Gadaffi himself to pieces.

The dilemma is a moral one. A pattern has emerged over time that the preferred weapon of choice in dealing with unpleasant people that we don't like is to kill them and send them to meet their virgins. Osama bin Laden comes to mind. The SEAL team strike went off through the skill of the SEALs involved over the problems encountered during the mission. Reports of the mishaps have varied, but losing a stealth helicopter and having the Chinese inspect it were among them. Still kudos to the SEALs for fulfilling their mission with a bullet in it.

The powers that be have since modified a battlefield weapon to deliver justice to a select few. The Predator drone seems to fit flawlessly into a no-risk way to get the job done. There have been literally hundreds of badguys dispatched since we figured out how to do it - mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also in Yemen and Somalia.

Under normal circumstances we have no problem with it. It is the same theory as using nuclear weapons in WWII rather than invading Japan - it saves the lives of those serving in our armed forces during wartime. Our guys are under attack? Send in a little air power to take care of the problem. It's a valid military tactic on the battlefield.

The moral problem is using this type of technology to hunt down and target someone off the field of battle, and then killing them with it. It was done a few weeks ago in the case of Awlaki, who was an American citizen. We shared our disapproval for the execution in Another Inconvenient Truth . It was done this past week in the case of Gadaffi, with whom we were not even technically at war. We were just providing NATO with intel for it's war with Libya. We were only "assisting" in a "kinetic military action."

This type of thing has been frowned on since the Carter Administration, which put in place the executive order barring assassinating foreign heads of state, regardless of how much they annoy you. It was an order that was even supported by George W Bush, who after his questionable foray into Iraq did not execute Saddam Hussein in his spiderhole, but handed him over to the authorities for a trial. For all of the talk about how this was a personal thing for W, because of Saddam trying to kill W's father, he still managed to deliver him to the Iraqi government and legal system in one piece. Then we got him a barber and a nice suit of clothes.

Of course you could always argue that WE didn't kill Gadaffi. They did. We didn't actually shoot him in the head, as we did with OBL, or kill him with the drone itself, as we did with Awlaki. We just made sure that he was available and softened up for the crowd. We were helping out, and "leading from behind". That phrase keeps taking on new meaning everyday.

Which is bringing up a troubling pattern. It is looking more and more like the preferred method for dealing with "unsavory" characters around the globe is summary execution. We shared with you the Reuters story put out after the Awlaki hit about the unnamed council of advisors who reviews and recommends who is "targeted" to the President. After all, there are some people that you can't try in a civilian court, due to security concerns. And you can't just let them wander around making plans to kill Americans. So they need to be killed.

Or, you could open a military prison to segregate and try the accused in a more secure format to assure that justice was being delivered. You could open it in say... Guantanamo Bay? Bush's orders were to capture and interrogate them. Not to send in a SEAL team to pop a cap in their heads. Or to send them an exploding gift from 50,000 feet up. While we're at it, you might want to give these guys clean facilities and clothes, korans, prayer rugs, special food to accommodate their religious views, and a balmy tropical climate with a view of the beach.

If language means something, there has been a subtle twist that is very telling. American decision makers have shifted from the Bush vow to "capture or kill bin Laden", to the Obama promise to "kill or capture bin Laden". The phrasing indicates a change in what the best outcome is seen as. Listen when the Administration speaks - be it Obama, Hillary, Panetta or whoever - "kill or capture Gadaffi" was the mantra for the last two weeks. The next time they can just insert the name of the most troubling bad guy left on the list. He'll be the one with the drone over his shoulder.

We find it disturbing that their is a council of advisors whispering in the ear of the President that certain "troublemakers" need to be "targeted". We find it more disturbing that the President of the United States of America seems to be okay with this and feels comfortable in the role of judge, jury and executioner. That has traditionally been the role of kings. We don't do kings here.

We know that many of you may disagree with us on this one, as you did in our piece on the Awlaki hit. The Predator drone is a useful weapon on the battlefield in the preserving lives of our troops, and in rolling back harm to them. It is not a six-shooter in the hands of some paladin to deliver justice on a case by case basis.

This is especially true when the target is an American citizen under the protection of the Constitution (regardless of whether or not he respected it), or a foreign head of state (though in dispute) that was not at war with us, who presented no threat to us, and who we didn't even care about until the French got their panties in a bunch.

Summary execution is not justice, not legal, and a terrible tool to place in the hands of a man who seems all too eager to use it. It should not be the method of choice in singling out inconvenient troublemakers. We wore the role of policeman for the world uncomfortably. It should be all the more uncomfortable to be the hitman for the world. So says Common Sense.

RLB