Resolved: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial

My argument can be stated simply:1. Muammar Gaddafi's death was either unavoidable or it was not.2. If Muammar Gaddafi's death was unavoidable, then it was justified (not prohibited by international doctrine).3. Even if Muammar Gaddafi's death was avoidable, there may still have been justification, but there may not have been.4. Killing Muammar Gaddafi when his death was avoidable, and without justification, would have been a crime.5. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.6. No one has been charged or convicted of the crime of killing Muammar Gaddafi.7. Ergo, until the status of #6 changes, then we must either conclude that Muammar Gaddafi's death was justified (either unavoidable or some other form of justification).1. Muammar Gaddafi's death was either unavoidable or it was not.This statement is a simple enumeration of logical possibilities. It is done to be explicit and to demonstrate that no middle is being excluded (no false dichotomy). If we were to represent "Muammar Gaddafi's death was unavoidable" as A, then this statement could be rendered as: "1. A or not-A" This is the Law of the Excluded Middle, one of the foundational laws for logical thought.2. If Muammar Gaddafi's death was unavoidable, then it was justified (not prohibited by international doctrine).In any armed conflict, many people die without a "fair trial." In light of the fact that all individuals deserve a fair trial, what are we to make of this? Are all soldiers participating in an armed conflict guilty and should, themselves, be tried? War itself is not illegal, given that there are explicit laws of war that govern how it should be engaged (or, at least, place limitations on how it can be engaged). It would seem that getting killed in the due course of the war is not, in itself, illegal. It is, in fact, justified in accordance with the justification of the war itself. If the war is justified, then all causalities not in explicit contradiction to the laws of war are also justified, if they could not be avoided. That is, that we inflict no more casualties that are necessary or reasonable to bring about the end to the war. If Muammar Gaddafi's death was such a death (a casualty of war, either deliberately or accidentally), then it was justified.3. Even if Muammar Gaddafi's death was avoidable, there may still have been justification, but there may not have been.Admittedly, #2 is not likely to be the case. Video evidence has shown that Gaddafi was captured, alive, making his death through the course of combat only a viable outcome if he escaped or was killed during some engagement involving his captors. The latter has been suggested, proposing that Gaddafi was killed in a crossfire (1). However, even if it isn't the case, that doesn't automatically make his death unjustified. There are innumerable reasons that could justify his death after capture, such as resisting or otherwise endangering the lives of his captors. Or, perhaps it was entirely accidental. While there is plenty of footage showing Gaddafi alive and dead, none, if any has been independently verified, and no footage depicting the death itself has been shown. This point is not to propose any actual justification for such a death, but to demonstrate the existence of possible explanations which, as of yet, are not impossible. This is nevertheless important.4. Killing Muammar Gaddafi when his death was avoidable, and without justification, would have been a crime.This statement almost goes without saying; it is the entire point on which this debate hinges. It is included for completeness. "Justified" here has been defined in accordance with international doctrine, i.e. Law. Thus, to say that his death was justified or not is to say that his death was a criminal act or it was not. Having outlined the possibilities regarding it being justified (and not a crime) the only thing that remains is that it was not justified (and, thus, a crime).5. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2):“Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."Another crucial element of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I'm sure my opponent agrees with. Though it explicitly addresses those who have been charged, it stands to reason that this presumption of innocence extends to those not yet charged with any crime. 6. No one has been charged or convicted of the crime of killing Muammar Gaddafi. As of this writing, I am not aware of any individual that has been charged with any crime involving Gaddafi's death. Thus far I am only aware of people calling for investigation, a preliminary to any formal charges.7. Ergo, until the status of #6 changes, then we must either conclude that Muammar Gaddafi's death was justified (either unavoidable or some other form of justification).From the above premises (#1-#6), I assert the conclusion (#7) follows. No one has been charged, tried, or convicted of the crime of killing Muammar Gaddafi. Ergo, in accordance with international doctrine, we can only reasonable presume innocence with regards to such an event. Since the justification of Muammar's death turns on its legality, and since its legality must be presumed until demonstrated otherwise, we can only reasonable conclude that A) his death was legal and, therefore, B) it was justified.I understand that this conclusion may not sit well. I will attempt to forestall possible objections.a. The presumption of innocence applies to people not to the fact of the matter of whether or not a crime occurred, only who committed it.This is true. There can be events which are treated as crimes with no convicted criminals, and even no suspects. However, such a determination depends on the circumstances in which accident or other non-criminal explanations can be ruled out, or at least judged less likely than a crime. The precise nature of Gaddafi's death is unknown, which is why people are calling for investigations not criminal charges as of yet. No official ruling has been made with regards to the death. Thus, in line with the spirit (if not the letter) of the presumption of innocence, we should not presume a crime has occurred at all unless the evidence suggests that it has.b. A debate should be about the actual state of affairs, not assumptions about unknown states of affairsOn the whole, I would agree. However, I would add the caveat that this applies only when it can. Again, the only people that know the actual state of affairs of Gaddafi's death are those who were around him at the time. From them we have unverified reports, and none of them are actually participating in this debate.So, while on the surface this may appear to be a debate regarding how we should judge a known event, this is, in fact, impossible, because the event in question is not known. Certainly we know that Gaddafi did die, but we do not know how. This leaves us in the unfortunately position of necessarily talking about assumptions, and justifying which of those assumptions are either A) most likely or B) most reasonable to adhere to. I have taken the latter route and, using international doctrine and rudimentary logic as a base, have concluded that, at this point in time, it is most reasonable for us to conclude that Gaddafi's death was justified.[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://www.un.org...