What you are trying to do is expand the scope of the debate, to bring scrutiny as to whether or not the elected leaders of the countries on Earth today are better or just as worse as the dictators that they have vanquished. THAT is a political argument and not appropriate here, for we are discussing a fictional sci-fi TV series. If you wish to debate that, then bring this up in the Miscellaneous or the Neutral Zone. Sometimes people become so desperate to be right that they alter the debate context to try fitting it to their argument. Your persistent clinging to the premise of Khan being a civilized leader is to then cite how the democratically elected leaders of today are no different from dictators, that they have been responsible for the deaths of millions as well; thus in comparison, Khan remains civilized and you win your argument. This... is a cop-out. Khan, with respect to the Federation high officials depicted in Star Trek, is not a civilized leader, and definitely a man that does not believe in equal rights for human beings. He was unjust and uncivilized in his brutal attempt to commandeer the Enterprise, and there was NO GOOD GROUNDS FOR IT EITHER. He and his followers weren't being held in restraint nor being ascertained for possible crimes committed in the past. In fact, the Enterprise SAVED THEIR LIVES. The repayment of being a good Samaritan was to be threatened with death. This is not civilized in the world of Star Trek. And this is why the fundamental question was raised, "Why Let Khan Live?"