The Libya thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Hammer of Los » Fri May 27, 2011 8:34 am

The latest news is that the attack helicopters are going in. No fly zone indeed.

William Hague is making me want to vomit.

They have no care for loss of life.

They seem to be able to act with impunity.

nordic wrote:I wish I'd voted for McKinney. At least I'd have a clear conscience about my vote.


That's the awful thing, isn't it?

I voted for Blair once.

And now I voted for the Lib Dems, who are in this government waging a new war to depose Muammar Gaddafi. Although to be quite honest, I never liked or trusted Nick Clegg. So there you go.

More fool me for voting.

Liberal interventionists are they? Who could be stupid enough to believe that rubbish? How are liberal values served by the use of mass murder as a political tool? I guess they are extremely liberal in their use of force. First, do none harm, not first, initiate a massive bombing campaign.

It's very good for the defense industry though;

http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2011/0 ... -to-libya/

Of course, the fact that the West clearly has an immediate need to demonise Gaddafi in pursuit of foreign policy objectives, does mean that the accusations from the usual channels of propaganda and disinformation (basically the entirety of mainstream english mass media, but especially the BBC), ought to be viewed at the very least with some suspicion. I am not suggesting Gaddafi is an angel, in fact I would suppose he was a murderer. So is William Hague, Cameron, Clegg, Obama, Sarkozy and all the rest of them with blood on their hands from needless escalation of conflict by use of mass bombing campaigns.

Anyone who supports escalation of western military intervention in Libya is a fool or worse.
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Nordic » Fri May 27, 2011 3:10 pm

I guess they are extremely liberal in their use of force.


GREAT line!

Where's the emoticon for "dark cynical laughter out loud"?
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Laodicean » Sun May 29, 2011 1:31 pm

Anatomy of a Murder: How NATO Killed Qaddafi Family Members
by Cynthia McKinney / May 28th, 2011

How many times must a parent bury a child?

Well, in the case of Muammar Qaddafi it’s not only twice: once for his daughter, murdered by the United States bombing on his home in 1986, and again on 30 April 2011 when his youngest son, Saif al Arab, but yet again for three young children, grandbabies of Muammar Qaddafi killed along with Saif at the family home.

Now, I watched Cindy Sheehan as she bared her soul before us in her grief; I cried when Cindy cried. Now, how must Qaddafi and his wife feel? And the people of Libya, parents of all the nation’s children gone too soon. I don’t even want to imagine.

All my mother could say in astonishment was, “They killed the babies, they killed his grandbabies.”

The news reports, however, didn’t last more than one half of a news cycle because on 1 May, at a hastily assembled press conference, President Obama announced the murder of Osama bin Laden.

Well, I haven’t forgotten my empathy for Cindy Sheehan; I haven’t forgotten my concern for the children of Iraq that Madeleine Albright said were OK to kill by U.S. sanctions if U.S. geopolitical goals were achieved. I care about the children of Palestine who throw stones at Israeli soldiers and get laser-guided bullets to their brains in return. I care about the people of North Africa and West Asia who are ready to risk their lives for freedom. In fact, I care about all of the children — from Appalachia to the Cancer Alley, from New York City to San Diego, and everywhere in-between.

On 22 May 2011, I had the opportunity to visit the residence of the Qaddafi family, bombed to smithereens by NATO. For a leader, the house seemed small in comparison, say, to the former Clinton family home in Chappaqua or the Obama family home. It was a small whitewashed suburban type house in a typical residential area in metropolitan Tripoli. It was surrounded by dozens of other family homes.

I spoke with a neighbor who described how three separate smart bombs hit the home and exploded, another one not exploding. According to the BBC, the NATO military operations chief stated that a “command and control center” had been hit. That is a lie. As anyone who visits the home can see, this home had nothing to do with NATO’s war. The strike against this home had everything to do with NATO adopting a policy of targeted assassination and extra-judicial killing — clearly illegal.

The neighbor said he found Saif Al-Arab in his bedroom underneath rubble; the three young grandchildren were in a different room and they were shredded to pieces. He told of how he picked up as many pieces as he possibly could. He told us that there are still pieces there that he could not get. He asked us to note the smell — not the putrid smell of rotting flesh, but a sweet smell. I did smell it and thought there was an air freshener nearby. It smelled to me of roses. He asked me why this was done and who was going to hold NATO accountable.

Muammar Qaddafi was at the house. But he was outside near where the animals are kept. It is a miracle that he survived. From the looks of that house and the small guest house beside it, the strike was a complete success if the goal was to totally and thoroughly demolish the structure and everything inside it.

NATO wants us to believe that toys, items and clothing, an opened Holy Koran, and a soccer board game are the appointments found in military command and control offices. I wonder if we could find such articles in NATO’s office in Brussels.

The opened Holy Koran seemed to be frozen in time. In fact, there was a clock dangling from its cord — dangling in space. And indeed, for the four young people in that house at the time of NATO’s attack, time had stopped.

The concussion from the bombs were so great that eerie tile on the walls and floors of the home had been knocked from the walls. Black burn marks scorched the walls. The force broke a marble or granite countertop. The bathtub was literally split into two parts. Shards of the bomb were everywhere. I wondered if the place was now contaminated with depleted uranium.

The Qaddafi home is a crime scene — a murder scene. The United States prisons are full of men and women who are innocent — even on death row. I wonder where the guilty who are never prosecuted go.

Now, if the International Court of Justice were really a repository of justice, it would be investigating this crime. Instead, it is looking for yet another African to prosecute. We in the United States are familiar with this: on our local news every night, we are saturated with photos of Black and Brown criminals with the implication being that White people don’t commit crime. The moment the face of someone arrested is not shown, then we know that the culprit is White. It’s the unwritten code that we people of color all live by wherever in the world we might happen to be. Global apartheid is alive and well and exists on many levels.

I left the house sick in my heart. As I was about to depart, the neighbor begged me, asked me over and over again, why had this happened? What had they done to deserve this? He seemed to not want me to leave. Honestly, I think I was his little piece of America, his little piece of President Obama and I could help him to understand why this course of action was necessary from my President’s point of view. He said NATO should just leave them alone and let them sort out their problems on their own.

I did leave his presence, but that man’s face will never leave me.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”

In response to my previous article, I received the following quite about Buddha from Shiva Shankar who excerpted Walpola Rahula’s What The Buddha Taught:

… The Buddha not only taught non-violence and peace, but he even went to the field of battle itself and intervened personally, and prevented war, as in the case of the dispute between the Sakyas and the Koliyas, who were prepared to fight over the question of the waters of the Rohini. And his words once prevented King Ajatasattu from attacking the kingdom of the Vajjis. …

… Here is a lesson for the world today. The ruler of an empire publicly turning his back on war and violence and embraced the message of peace and non-violence. There is no historical evidence to show that any neighbouring king took advantage of Asoka’s piety to attack him militarily, or that there was any revolt or rebellion within his empire during his lifetime. On the contrary there was peace throughout the land, and even countries outside his empire seem to have accepted his benign leadership. …


Please don’t allow special interest press and war mongering gatekeepers of the left to blot out the tragedy unfolding in Libya. Please don’t allow them to take away our chance to live in peace throughout our land and with countries inside and outside our hemisphere. Congress should vote to end NATO’s action in Libya and barring that should assert its Constitutional prerogatives and require the President to come to it for authorization of this war. And then, Congress should heed the wisdom of the people of our country who are against this war and vote for peace.


http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/05/anato ... y-members/
User avatar
Laodicean
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:39 pm
Blog: View Blog (16)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Hammer of Los » Mon May 30, 2011 12:22 pm

Cynthia McKinney wrote:In response to my previous article, I received the following quote about Buddha from Shiva Shankar who excerpted Walpola Rahula’s What The Buddha Taught:..



Walpola Rahula’s "What The Buddha Taught" was one of the first of many books I bought on Buddhist thought.

I got it from a second hand book store, old copy, rather nice. It's a very succint summation, lucid. I would very much recommend it as an introductory text.
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby 8bitagent » Mon May 30, 2011 6:27 pm

I see both African/Islamic country dictators and the NWO Western elites who go in and bomb them as evil. Almost always the dictators were propped up/financed/backed/business partners by and with the Western powers...then turned on when no longer useful or when oil companies/Israel/Saudi Arabia want the US to go in there. All under the false auspices of "democracy". But it's the people that suffer. I love how Malalai Joya speaks out against both the US government/NATO and the Taliban. To me it's like gang members shooting eachother, I don't see this or that country as innocent. I see a lot of history revisionism and white washing in parapolitical circles when it comes to the attrocities in Bosnia/Balkans 92-02, but people forget that MANY nations commit widespread unspeakable acts.

Iran hangs gays and shoots protesters, and still has terrible rights for women on a number of levels. I'd like to see all these regimes toppled, but you'll never have an organic non CIA/globalist orchestrated coup. It's always going to be by proxies or Islamist proxies of the deep state
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Tue May 31, 2011 8:52 am

According to Al-J There are westerners on the ground in Egypt, fighting with the rebels:


Armed westerners have been filmed on the front line with rebels near Misrata in the first apparent confirmation that foreign special forces are playing an active role in the Libyan conflict.

A group of six westerners are clearly visible in a report by al-Jazeera from Dafniya, described as the westernmost point of the rebel lines west of the town of Misrata. Five of them were armed and wearing sand-coloured clothes, peaked caps, and cotton Arab scarves.

....

In April, William Hague announced that an expanded military liaison team would be dispatched to work with the Benghazi-based Transitional National Council, which is positioning itself as a democratic alternative to Gaddafi's rule.

The foreign secretary said the team would help the rebels improve "organisational structures, communications and logistics" but stressed: "Our officers will not be involved in training or arming the opposition's fighting forces, nor will they be involved in the planning or execution of the [transitional council's] military operations or in the provision of any other form of operational military advice."

There were unconfirmed reports at the time that Britain was planning to send former SAS members and other experienced soldiers to Libya under the cover of private security companies, paid for by Arab states, to train the anti-government forces.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/western-troops-on-ground-libya

(Thanks to smiths in another thread.)
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Nordic » Tue May 31, 2011 2:54 pm

Don't worry, they're just "advisors".
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby semper occultus » Tue May 31, 2011 7:36 pm

How Goldmans cost Gaddafi a $1.3bn fortune

After losing the cash in just a handful of complex trades, the bank was told it had to offer some sort of compensation

By Alistair Dawber
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
www.independent.co.uk

Goldman Sachs managed to lose nearly all of the money it had been given to invest by the Libyan government, which eventually led the giant Wall Street bank to offer shares as compensation that would have effectively made Colonel Gaddafi one of its largest single investors.

The Libyan Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund worth tens of billions of dollars into which the Gaddafi administration poured the money it made from oil sales, handed over $1.3bn to the bank in 2008 with a mandate to invest in foreign currency markets and other structured products. The deal was struck months before the onset of the financial crisis, and sources close to the bank yesterday claimed that the LIA had initially been uninterested when Goldman told it that the value of the investment had lost several hundreds of millions of dollars.

But by early 2009 Goldman Sachs had lost 98 per cent of what it had been given, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. It is believed that senior Goldman Sachs officials were then summoned to Tripoli, and were told that, after losing the cash in just a handful of complex trades, the bank would need to offer some sort of compensation. The bank alleges that its officials were physically threatened during meetings in Tripoli, but denies that it hired bodyguards for its staff.
<..>
Such was the scramble to mollify the LIA that talks on how Goldman should appease Colonel Gaddafi's government were held at the highest level of the bank – including the bank's CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, and Michael Sherwood, its leading executive in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. An offer was eventually made to the regime in Tripoli to take preference shares, a complicated financial instrument that pays a fixed dividend, but which does not necessarily give the holder an equity stake in the bank.

According to sources at Goldman Sachs, talks about how to recompense the Gaddafi regime lasted for more than a year and culminated in a meeting at Goldman Sachs' London headquarters on 23 June last year. Those sources, who declined to be named, said that the bank has had no contact with the Libyan regime or representatives of the LIA since that meeting.

Goldman Sachs and other companies that have LIA holdings could come under pressure to release the Libyan assets to the National Transitional Council, which a number of countries, including France and Qatar, have recognised as the legitimate government in Libya.
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby lupercal » Tue May 31, 2011 9:53 pm

The bank alleges that its officials were physically threatened during meetings in Tripoli. . .

You know I like this guy more every day. :D
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Nordic » Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:57 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13589783

RAF to get 'bunker busters' for Libya mission

The Royal Air Force is to get 2,000lb "bunker busting" bombs to boost its mission in Libya.

The Ministry of Defence said the Enhanced Paveway III bombs were capable of penetrating the roofs of reinforced buildings.

The MoD said this would enable the RAF to attack command centres and communications nodes in Libya.

Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox said: "We are not trying to physically target individuals in Gaddafi's inner circle."

The MoD said the bombs had been prepared and could be used in Libya in a matter of hours and would help to protect civilians from being targeted by Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

Dr Fox said: "The introduction of Enhanced Paveway III bombs is another way in which we are developing our tactics to protect civilians and achieve the intent of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

"We are not trying to physically target individuals in Gaddafi's inner circle on whom he relies but we are certainly sending them increasingly loud messages.

"Gaddafi may not be capable of listening but those around him would be wise to do so," Dr Fox added.

The RAF's arsenal already includes Enhanced Paveway II, Paveway IV, and Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone bombs.


So, if you live in Tripoli, you don't count as a "civilian".
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Laodicean » Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:27 pm



Cynthia McKinney and the Dignity delegation visit victims of US/NATO bombings at a hospital in Tripoli, Libya, June 4, 2011.
User avatar
Laodicean
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:39 pm
Blog: View Blog (16)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby StarmanSkye » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:36 pm

"The MoD said the bombs had been prepared and could be used in Libya in a matter of hours and would help to protect civilians from being targeted by Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime."

What unmitigated, outrageous shiite. The MOD and US Secretary of State must commune together and rehearse lessons in psyop duplicity.

So much for the 'concern' over civilians, as the west continues to shadow-embrace and covertly encourage the antics of Georgia's lunatic rightwing bullyboy President Mikheil Saakashvili as he authorizes police goons to seriously beat (not occasionally to the point of death), shoot and increasingly 'disappear' opposition-party protesters. The 'Libyan Liberation' is such a bloody-awful sham farce so superficial its just several electrons thick. Shame on the 'left' (Ha!) for cheerleading-on the Corporate Plutocracy's warmongering bullshit.
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby vanlose kid » Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:30 am

Gaddafi regime fails to fool media over injured child

Journalists taken to see 'bomb victim' in Libyan hospital find out child was hurt in road accident

Xan Rice in Tripoli
guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 June 2011 13.18 BST

The Libyan government's attempts to show how Nato bombing is harming civilians backfired when a hospital worker revealed that a seven-month-old "air strike victim" had been injured in a car crash.

Foreign journalists in Tripoli were taken by bus to a hospital on Sunday night to see the seven-month-old girl, Nasib, who lay unconscious. Media handlers claimed she had been hurt when a bomb exploded in a field near her house on the eastern edge of the capital a few hours earlier.

But a member of the medical staff slipped a note written in English on hospital stationery to a reporter, which was seen by Reuters, that said: "This is a case of road traffic accident. This is the truth."

Journalists' suspicions had already been raised during an earlier visit to the bombsite in the suburb of Tajura where the girl was said to have been injured.

Talking to journalists, Mohamed Elounsi, the son of the owner of the field, described how a black and white dog and a dozen or so chickens and pigeons had been killed in the evening strike, but said nobody had been injured.

Elounsi said: "I lost my birds, one dog and my cows nearly died." Shockwaves from the blast destroyed a room in one house and shattered numerous windows, he said. "My message to Obama is, 'Why do you send this [bomb] to my father's farm.'"

Residents gathered around the crater, measuring two metres by one metre, chanting pro-Muammar Gaddafi slogans. Initially, none of them mentioned any civilian casualties and there seemed little real anger. It was only shortly before the bus departed that one neighbour said his four-year-daughter suffered cuts when a glass door shattered.

At the hospital, Gaddafi's aides directed the media to Nasib, whose bandaged foot was hooked up to medical equipment. A man introduced as her uncle said she had been injured in the Tajura missile strike.

A second man, presented as a neighbour and a member of the health ministry, ranted against Nato and shouted "God, Muammar, Libya, and that's all".

This man, who gave his name as Emad, was mysteriously present once more when journalists were taken to another suburb at 1am on Monday. This time, a "bomb" had landed in a back garden at about midnight "while the family were having lunch", according to a man presented as a spokesman for the family.

The two metre-long bomb had fallen from the sky, he said, implying it came from a Nato jet. It had not exploded, however, and appeared less like an example of cutting-edge warfare than a remnant of the cold war. Closer inspection showed there was Russian writing on the bomb.

That fact was put to Emad, who had since admitted he was a member of Gaddafi's media team, while still insisting he was also a neighbour of the seven-month-old girl. Emad's story of the midnight bomb suddenly changed: Nato must have struck a nearby military compound, triggering an explosion that caused this missile – a piece of Gaddafi's own arsenal – to shoot off into a nearby garden.

On Monday, during a visit to complex of state buildings that were bombed overnight, deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim denied that the regime was deliberately trying to mislead the media.

"We want to be as credible as much as possible. If there was a mistake it was not from the government."

He suggested that civilians angered by Nato's campaign might have been to blame.

The government says that 700 civilians have died in bombing raids, but have offered little evidence to support the claim. The majority of the airstrikes in Tripoli appear to have been so precise that life in the city has carried on largely as normal, with people out on the streets well into the night, when most of the bombing takes place.

Kaim's comments were the first by a senior government official on any topic since last Wednesday. He strongly criticised the bombing of the government buildings, which included the offices of the foreign affairs parliamentary committee and the attorney general, saying they had no link to the military.

He also said that Gaddafi, who has not appeared in public or on television for a week, was in "very good" health, and in direct contact with the government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... fool-media


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:45 pm

.

David Swanson with a really marvelous, must-read summary of the many mostly opaque layers of contradicting, overlapping, deceptive and even self-deceiving authorizations and orders, interpretations, laws and powers that fail to define the legal-illegal status of the NATO war in Libya...

Actually, I'd like to see an attempt to chart the following in graphic form. Relevant elements he describes include:
- US Constitution vests power to declare war in Congress (which has not done so since 1941).
- War is banned by Senate-ratified international treaty except as response to attack, which is the law of the land according to the Constitution.
- War is banned in UN Charter.
- UN-SC Resolution 1973 is questionable under UN Charter.
- NATO operations in Libya don't conform to UN-SC Resolution 1973.
- War Powers Act of 1973 by its letter can't apply to NATO operation in Libya.
- All parties agree War Powers Act should apply to Libya.
- War Powers Act has yet to be applied, although the deadline passed. Is the war now more or less illegal?
- Pending Defense Authorization Act funds the war but also explicitly says it contains no authorization for a war in Libya and prohibits use of ground-troops there (while also suggesting what these prohibited ground troops should do once they get there).
- Pending Defense Authorization Act also contains separate provision allowing President to wage any war anywhere without further authorization.
- President is against the latter provision! (Possibly: In the same way Shakespeare's Caesar, while in attendance at a packed arena, once, twice and thrice refused the offer of a crown?)
- Obama won't veto the whole DA Act but may write a signing statement objecting to the all-war-powers provision. ("Thanks for the gift, I'll keep it and always cherish it, but it's a terrible thing you gave me, ya know?")
- Admin insists it's not a US but a NATO war, see? So who's got authority over those, anyway? Let's pretend nobody does!
- There is a pending resolution advanced by Kucinich that must be voted on (legally anyway) to de-authorize US action in Libya, which the DA Act (after that passes) no doubt will have funded.

Swanson riffs on all this to draw up possible scenarios and ask reasonable questions about what's legal or not that end up sounding like bizarroland Zen koans.

"You got to, you got to stay on your toes, stay on your toes there son, I say." - Foghorn Leghorn


http://counterpunch.org/swanson06032011.html

June 3 / 5, 2011

Bombing Libya
Is That Even Legal?


By DAVID SWANSON


If the U.S. Constitution says one thing, a treaty ratified by the United States says another, a law passed by Congress yet another, and another law passed by Congress another thing still, while a signing statement radically changes that last law but itself differs with an executive order, all of which statements of law conflict with a number of memos drafted by the Office of Legal Council (some secret and some leaked), but a President has announced that the law is something completely different from all of this, and in practice the government defies all of the above including the presidential announcement . . . in such a case, the obvious but possibly pointless question arises: what's legal?

The above theoretical example of legal confusion sounds extreme, but it is not far off the actual situation with regard to some of our most important public policies. Take the example of U.S. warmaking in Libya. Is that legal?

The U.S. Constitution says Congress must decide where and when to make war. Congress has not declared a war since 1941. Since that date Congress has put up a gradually diminishing pretense of involvement. In the case of Libya, Congress played no role whatsoever in launching the war. Is the law what the Constitution says, how the Constitution was interpreted for the first two-thirds of our national history, what presidents have gotten away with in recent decades, or what a president can get away with today? Wait, don't answer that!

The Constitution also says that ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land. Does that include treaties passed almost a century ago, largely forgotten, and almost never discussed on television? Does it include only treaties that have been duplicated in U.S. statutes? Does it include only treaties the government is inclined to comply with? In this regard, we might wish to recall that theoretically the Kellogg Briand Pact is still one of our many supreme laws of the land. In 1928, the U.S. Senate ratified this treaty, which states:

"The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another."


The Senate tacked on a couple of modifications to the treaty, a practice of debatable legality itself. One reservation the Senate added was for cases of defense. The other was to clarify that the United States was not obliged to enforce the treaty by going to war against its violators. Since nobody has even claimed that Libya attacked the United States, and since the United States voluntarily went to war, the exceptions do not seem relevant. War is illegal. Period. At least if we go by Kellogg Briand. And why not? Aren't ancient laws recalled and put to use when we need to expand corporate power or discriminate against gays or advance any other political agenda? So, why not Kellogg Briand? Because it's been violated? What kind of reason is that?

The United Nations Charter, too, makes war illegal, with very limited exceptions that do not seem to apply. But the United Nations passed a resolution that the U.S. Justice Department, in a leaked/published memo, relies on heavily to justify the war. Does that resolution make the war in some way legal, even if the memo isn't and the Constitution is still violated? And what if the war, in various ways, violates the resolution? The resolution was for a humanitarian intervention, a no fly zone, a cease fire, an arms embargo, and a ban on foreign ground troops. It was immediately used to bomb civilians, introduce arms, and employ foreign ground troops, not to mention drone bombings and an apparent assassination attempt -- both practices of highly dubious legality. Is a war legalized by a resolution even if it violates the resolution, and even if it violates numerous other laws in doing so? Or is it internationally legalized while remaining domestically unconstitutional?

A U.S. law passed in 1973, the War Powers Act, if you read what it actually says, would have applied only if Libya had attacked the United States, which no one has ever claimed. But everyone pretended this law applied anyway. The War Powers Resolution requires that the President report information to Congress within 48 hours of launching a war, which Obama did -- except that he didn't include most of the information he was required to report. The War Powers Resolution also puts a 60-day limit on unconstitutional war, and that clock has expired. So is the war illegal because it violates both the Constitution and this weaker law? Or is it legal because there's been such a pretense of complying with the law, to the extent of sending Congress a polite note when the 60-day clock ran out? And is this law somewhat less legal than other laws because it was passed over a veto and because some, but not all, presidents since its passage have declared that they object to it and hold it to be unconstitutionally strong -- as opposed to being unconstitutionally weak, as the law appears to be?

Last week, the House of Misrepresentatives passed numerous amendments to the "Defense Authorization Act of 2012." One amendment made clear that passage of the bill did not authorize war in Libya. (Arguably, the failure of Congress to fund any war in Libya also makes the war -- you guessed it -- illegal.) Another amendment prohibited the use of U.S. ground troops in Libya (unless employed through a department other than "Defense"). But another amendment required that, upon completion of the war, the U.S. military dig up and bring home the bones of U.S. sailors buried in Tripoli during an earlier war in 1804 (which Congress did not declare but authorized). How exactly is that going to happen unless the U.S. military gains control of Tripoli? And what is accomplished by refusing to authorize a war that is already underway, with another 90 days just announced by NATO, and with not a glimmer of a threat of holding anyone accountable for it? Is the idea to make a war "illegal" but watch it roll along?

Another section of the same bill (an amendment to strip it failed to pass) effectively gives presidents the power to make wars. This section (#1034) conflicts with the War Powers Act and the Constitution. It might also conflict with a congressional resolution ending or prohibiting a specific war. The President claims not to want this power, and a generous interpretation of a statement from his administration holds that he has threatened to veto the bill over it. While a veto strikes me as extremely unlikely, a signing statement seems somewhat more likely, if this amendment gets through the Senate. Here's a situation in which the fundamental question of who has the power of war could have several answers. The Constitution will continue to say Congress, while the War Powers Act says mostly Congress, but this new legislation says presidents, and a signing statement says something different.

Why would President Obama signing-statement away more presidential power? Well, he probably won't. But think about why he avoided asking Congress to declare or authorize war in the first place, when it probably would have. And why did he avoid asking Congress to declare or authorize war within 60 days? Why does he insist that the war is fought by NATO, rather than the United States, even though NATO and its role in the war would not exist without the United States? The goal seems to be expanding presidential power. NATO answers to the president but its abuses, as in Afghanistan, cannot be investigated by Congress. Asking Congress to play a role, even if it plays the desired one, means having to ask Congress again the next time. And allowing Congress to legislate that Congress has no role would mean that theoretically Congress could unlegislate that again. So, Obama could object to Congress having the gall to believe itself empowered to crown him king.

We could end up with a war illegal under the Constitution, legal and illegal under laws and treaties depending which we choose to consult, and illegal or legal under a signing statement depending how we try to make sense of it, but legal under the Justice Department's memos. What's legal?

A resolution to end the U.S. Libya war, HCR 51, will have to be voted on in the House by the week after next at the latest. If the vote is not held, in violation of the law, or if it is held and passes (and then passes the Senate too), will the war be thereby made even more illegal than it was, or illegal for the first time? What if the "Defense Authorization Act" passes the Senate and is signed into law with Section 1034 intact before the House holds its vote on ending the Libya war, or after? Can the crime of having violated the War Powers Act be retroactively treated to immunity? Can the same Congress legislatively and unwittingly deprive itself of the power to end a war it tries to end? What if Congress, frustrated in its effort to vote the war over, votes to ban the use of any dollars to fund the war? Then (and only then?) would continuation of the war be truly illegal? And what if a new memo or presidential decree in the meantime claimed the right to fund the war by other means, Iran-Contra-style or otherwise?

Or what if all measures went against the war's legality? What if Section 1034 is rejected by the Senate, both houses vote to end the war, both houses vote to defund the war, the United Nations declares the war illegal, and so forth, but the war continues? Can a war be illegal and roll right along, like warrentless spying, procedure-free imprisonment, or assassination squads?

The White House/Pentagon is planning a secret briefing for Congress on the Libya War. Those who attend should be aware that the war in Libya appears to be a crime and that failure to report crimes that one witnesses is a felony. In this situation, can a Congress member be prosecuted both for revealing the contents of the meeting and for not doing so?

The only thing that seems clear here is that Thomas Paine's notion of the law as king in this country isn't holding up very well. Obviously the law is only king if we're clear on what a law is and our government obeys it. If a law is any bill freely passed by Congress and signed or passed over a veto, provided the courts do not reject it as unconstitutional, and if the highest law is the Constitution and our treaties, then clarity might be possible. But then executive decrees and orders and lawless claims of secrecy and immunity would not be laws, signing statements would not be laws, and blatantly unconstitutional laws would not be laws. Persuasive arguments in secret meetings, and the whole regime of threats and bribes that the White House uses to manipulate the Congress would not be part of lawmaking.

Getting from where we are to there could be tricky. The Constitution itself proposes a way to do it that does not seem applicable. The tool that the Constitution provides the Congress is called impeachment, but obviously that cannot be discussed in this situation, since President Obama is not known to have been having sex with anyone.


David Swanson is a writer in Charlottesville, Va.

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:10 pm

.

Very hard not to post this here.


http://counterpunch.org/cockburn06102011.html

June 10 - 12, 2011

Tinpot Bombardiers

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

The alleged purpose of UN Security Council resolution 1973, passed on March 17, was to seek to protect Libyan civilians from violent attacks by both sides. In NATO’s eager hands, cosseted by uncritical Western press coverage, it has rapidly mutated into an overt bid to destroy Qaddafi’s regime, specifically to murder Qaddafi, by missile or bombardment with land-based teams of Special Force assassins doubtless deployed in the desert, assigned the same task.

NATO says more than 10,000 sorties have been flown over Libya since operations began. This includes 3,794 ‘strike’ bombing raids across country. In the heaviest strikes yet, concentrating on attacks in Tripoli, NATO launched 157 strike missions on Tuesday, more than three times the previous daily average.

In fact, NATO's first thirty days they flew about 5,000 sorties. Since then, nearly another two months, they have flown another 5,000, so despite the trumpeting about intensifying the campaign, the tempo of operations has actually been falling over time – which as one seasoned observer remarks -- is “not a surprise, considering what we know about readiness, spare parts inventories, and the capacity to ramp up spares production.”

Pierre Sprey, one of the design team that produced the F-16 and A-10 remarks acidly that “the flea bites inflicted on Qadaffi's army by the all-out efforts of the entire NATO air armada are a lovely demonstration of the fruits of our overarching strategic principle of pursuing Unilateral Disarmament at Maximum Expense.”

Sprey continues, “Libya also provides empirical verification of the most expensive component of the Principle of Unilateral Disarmament at Maximum Expense: bombing the enemy's homeland lengthens every war in which it is attempted. There have been no documented exceptions in the hundred years since Sottotenente Giulio Gavotti's heroic first bombing of a Libyan oasis in 1911 *. Clearly, 2011's equally heroic bombing of Tripoli is no exception.”

It is clear that despite Homeric paeans by Western journalists to their zeal and prowess, the rebels headquartered in Benghazi are an ineffective rabble, whose prime activity is to complain that NATO is not fighting the war hard enough on their behalf. Qaddafi faces NATO’s tinpot bombardiers acting with no legal mandate and with barely a whisper of criticism in the Western press about the absurd pretense that they are operating within the terms of UN Security Council Resolutions. The rebels have been unable to make any effective military showing.

On June 6 the independent International Crisis Group, stocked with well-informed regional experts and former diplomats, issued a report “Making Sense of Libya”. It stated forthrightly that NATO was in the business of “regime change” and was strongly critical of NATO’s refusal to respond to calls for ceasefire and negotiation, a stance which the ICG says is guaranteed to prolong the conflict, and the tribulations of all Libyans.

The ICG then address the topic of Qaddafi’s alleged “crimes against humanity”, even genocide. Remember that the relevant UN resolutions that led to NATO’s current onslaughts were rushed through the Security Council powered by fierce rhetoric about Qaddafi’s “massacre of his own people”, aand his “crimes against humanity”, even genocide. The diffuse and mostly vague allegations were usually studded with adverbs like “reportedly”.

On the issue of Qaddafi’s alleged war crimes the International Crisis Group notes reports of mass rapes by government militias, but declares that at the same time,

“much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no real security challenge. This version would appear to ignore evidence that the protest movement exhibited a violent aspect from very early on….there is also evidence that, as the regime claimed, the demonstrations were infiltrated by violent elements. Likewise, there are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term ‘genocide.’”

In this context, since the International Criminal Court’s record of ductility to NATO’s requirements is one of near 100 per cent compliance one can view with reasonable cynicism its timing in issuing accusations of mass Viagra-assisted rape against Qaddafi’s militias immediately in the wake of NATO bombing onslaughts on Tripoli on Tuesday.

On the issue of systematic mass rapes, Amnesty International said on Thursday that its researchers in eastern Libya, Misurata and in refugee camps along the Tunisian border, “have not to date turned up significant hard evidence to support this allegation.”

A hundred years down the road the UN/NATO Libyan intervention will be seen as an old-fashioned colonial smash-and-grab affair. There may even be a paragraph or two about the collapse of the U.S. left, in mounting any powerful show of protest.

*A footnote here from Sprey: “Amateur historians and think tank pundits love to quote Hiroshima as the first and most obvious exception. Far from being an exception, the nuclear bombing of Japan actually confirms that bombing lengthens wars. The historical record shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Truman and Byrnes deliberately delayed the acceptance of the urgently-proffered Japanese surrender offer (and of the Potsdam Peace Conference) by at least a month in order to make sure the war would not end before we had impressed the world (mainly the Russians) with the power of a nuclear bomb unleashed on Japanese civilians. Thousands of American soldiers, sailors and airman died unnecessarily because of that profoundly stupid--and profoundly immoral--strategic blunder.”
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 176 guests