|
farraday posted:That's extraordinary! I believe the NYT had an interview piece with him. He basically said that he understood the American position at the time, forgave the Americans, and denounced al-Qaeda as their "global" war had no place in the goals and aspirations of a free Libya. He also said the revolution was a collective movement and no group or ideology should attempt to take credit. Interesting read.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
An observation I made in the D&D thread. It's pretty sad/funny how everyone from the CIA,PLO, Idi Amin, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega,and the Bush Admin have in some way or form supported Gaddafi. If anything it's pretty amazing how Gaddafi's been able to move from one ideology to the other over the past 30-40 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:An observation I made in the D&D thread. When maintenance of power is your ruling ideology you can be very flexible in your friendships. You could question if that sort of extreme pragmatism which could carry over from Qaddafi regime holdovers into the new state would be helpful in maintaining Libyan sovereignty in the face of presumed Western Imperialistic designs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Tortilla Maker posted:I believe the NYT had an interview piece with him. He basically said that he understood the American position at the time, forgave the Americans, and denounced al-Qaeda as their "global" war had no place in the goals and aspirations of a free Libya. He also said the revolution was a collective movement and no group or ideology should attempt to take credit. Interesting read. Is this it? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/africa/02islamist.html?pagewanted=all NY Times posted:In Bangkok, Mr. Belhaj said, he was tortured for a few days by two people he said were C.I.A. agents, and then, worse, they repatriated him to Libya, where he was thrown into solitary confinement for six years, three of them without a shower, one without a glimpse of the sun. There's more in the article, where he does denounce Al Qaeda and says he doesn't want anything to do with them, and that he understands the West's reaction considering the 9/11 attacks. Very good read, although it'll be interesting to see if it's just lip-service to keep the bombs dropping or if he actually means it. quote:When maintenance of power is your ruling ideology you can be very flexible in your friendships. You could question if that sort of extreme pragmatism which could carry over from Qaddafi regime holdovers into the new state would be helpful in maintaining Libyan sovereignty in the face of presumed Western Imperialistic designs. Sort of like you implied with your previous post, it seems like one of the primary means that dictators use to hold onto power is by focusing their people's attention outward rather than inward, which explains why people like Kim-Jong il are constantly talking about how The West is gonna get you unless you support Great Leader. It really does hinge on how well the NTC can keep its word, if it can turn the general attitude of the people from "Other nations are potential enemies" into "other nations are potential friends as well." Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Sep 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
farraday posted:Actually I'm pretty sure this is entirely valid. The problem is more that since the NTC won, they have every reason to say "gently caress you" to the sides which supported Qaddafi. Diplomatically it won't be a closed door, but the international economic/political call to support one side or the other has to factor in the consequence of doing so if your side loses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Chronojam posted:I didn't think NATO was giving weapons to the man murdering his subjugated subjects, which is what China was doing. So "well they supported the rebels" is a dumb defense for "you caught us supporting the madman." "How dare you arm a dictator!" is not something I find it possible to argue on any major powers behalf with a straight face. One of the reasons I'll never be a lawyer. The idea the arms embargo only applied to the government and supplying arms to the rebels was perfectly within bounds is similarly not something I find credible. Fully recognizing from the outset that arms were going to be supplied by the West to the rebels, taking umbrage that someone was going to similarly provide arms to Qaddafi is a hypocrisy I choose not to participate in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
I'm more bothered morally than by whether or not it may have violated the UN arms embargo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
farraday posted:"How dare you arm a dictator!" is not something I find it possible to argue on any major powers behalf with a straight face. One of the reasons I'll never be a lawyer. Whether you choose to accept the fact or not, the UN arms embargo applied specifically to the Libyan government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Whether you choose to accept the fact or not, the UN arms embargo applied specifically to the Libyan government. No it didn't, the idea that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya applies solely to the government is rather undercut by the fact both 1970 and 1973 refer to events happening "in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" clearly referencing it as a location not a government. It would be like arguing the United States of America referred to the government and not the country. Further, the suggested bypass to allow arming the rebels that 1973 modified 1970 to provide for doing things to prevent the loss of civilian lives would inherently provide as much legalistic cover to someone claiming to arm Qaddafi to protect civilians from the depredations of NATO and the Islamist rebels. The point would be decided on victory in the field, which obviously has gone to the anti-Qaddafi forces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
farraday posted:No it didn't, the idea that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya applies solely to the government is rather undercut by the fact both 1970 and 1973 refer to events happening "in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" clearly referencing it as a location not a government. It would be like arguing the United States of America referred to the government and not the country. Actually that point is still the subject of much debate and depends on interpretation, but as the resolution was drawn up specifically as a result of the Qaddafi regime targeting civilians (and not the rebels) and was further modified to that effect I lend credence to the theory that it refers to the Libyan government. As for further arming the government (currently massacring civilians) in order to protect civilians from the depredations of the rebels and NATO you would first need to substantiate that NATO and the rebels were targeting civilians and that your arms would somehow be a benefit. Otherwise you'd just look like horrible monsters giving more weapons to a madman in front of the world. Which is why the parties involved instead ostensibly agreed to the embargo, then covertly arranged arms deals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Actually that point is still the subject of much debate and depends on interpretation, but as the resolution was drawn up specifically as a result of the Qaddafi regime targeting civilians (and not the rebels) and was further modified to that effect I lend credence to the theory that it refers to the Libyan government. Bullshit. "Recalling its decision to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011..." "Reiterating its concern at the plight of refugees and foreign workers forced to flee the violence in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, welcoming the response of neighbouring States, in particular Tunisia and Egypt..." "Expressing concern also for the safety of foreign nationals and their rights in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya..." "Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya..." There is absolutely no-loving-way this refers to anything but a country, not a government. But hey lets continue. "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory" Benghazi, under the control of the NTC for weeks, is referred to as being inside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. "Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians..." Again, clearly referring to the country. "...vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya..." Again, the country. I could do this all day but I hope that isn't necessary. Further the idea covert arms sales to Qaddafi are a signal they are obviously illegal runs ashore on the fact of covert arms shipments to the rebels. If they aren't illegal why were they covert? Finally Resolution 1973 calls for nations "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" The wiggle room the coalition included to justify themselves in their implicit desire to remove Qaddafi works as well from the other direction unless the claim is the NTC and NATO never threatened civilian populated areas. In point of fact both groups rather obviously did. Legalistic quibbling in this matter is entirely moot since the final justification for all sides was victory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
When the United Nations wants to refer to a country they use whatever name is in the List of Country Names prepared by the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEGN%20WG%20Country%20Names%20Document%202011.pdf "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is the UN's official way of referring to the country of Libya as of this May. Presumably this will change soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
In al-Akhbar's new english edition, there's a good series called Uncovering Syria. http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/uncovering-syria-i-tales-spying-state http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/uncovering-syria-ii-we-are-all-baathists
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
farraday posted:
Whether or not arms sales to the rebels was "approved in advance by the Committee" is debatable, but really the loophole is that arms sales are illegal in Libya unless they're not. The quibbling might matter later when China wants to do something and this gets trotted out as "proof" that China doesn't respect the UNSCR's authority, etc., etc., etc. And again, I'll make mention of my earlier discussion of what constitutes "legal" in the confines of international law: it's whatever is deemed legal by the nation-states that end up enforcing the resolution or the body that authorized it. The UNSC is the most powerful diplomatic body in the world and its imprimatur is more or less carte blanche legally since there are no higher bodies to challenge or appeal any legalistic determination it makes. That would mean China won't even get a slap on the wrist because it'll just veto any mention of such, but it conversely means that NATO will just say it's legal and will politely inform you into which orifice you can stuff differing interpretations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:...NATO will just say it's legal and will politely inform you into which orifice you can stuff differing interpretations. As an organization representing democratic institutions I insist that they would give you your choice of orifices into which you could stuff your differing interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
farraday posted:Bullshit. You can do it all day if you choose, but it won't make you correct. The resolution was directed at the government of Libya in response to attacks on the civilian population by said government. It was not directed at the rebel forces which were arguably civilians in the first place and at the time either trapped or retreating. I would really love to hear how you believe arms sales to Quaddafi would have qualified as "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", because unless you remove all context from that statement or have some stunning insights into rebel/NATO attacks against civilians it really doesn't leave much room for support of the government forces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 03:24
|
|
|
quote:(The Committee in question being the UNSC as a committee of the whole, or in more practical terms, NATO.) Wrong, they are definitely not identical. Most unsc states didn't participate in the Libyan campaign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:You can do it all day if you choose, but it won't make you correct. The resolution was directed at the government of Libya in response to attacks on the civilian population by said government. It was not directed at the rebel forces which were arguably civilians in the first place and at the time either trapped or retreating. I'm sorry, but as Mad IRL explicitly showed, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is the way the UN refers to the country of Libya. Exactly what makes you think your bizarre interpretation is right? I especially note that in making the territorial integrity and national unity of Libya a point, it is entirely impossible to pretend any such resolution referring to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya applies to only part of Libya. Your complaint about me believing arms sales to Libya by China are perfectly fine is further nonsense since my position is clearly that they could justify them under the exact same logic as any country which decided to send arms to the rebels. The simple fact is a direct reading of the resolution could be used to justify arms sales to the government because of the incontrovertible fact that both the rebel forces and NATO were attacking civilian occupied areas. Civilian occupied areas being intentionally designed to extend the internal logic for intervention it inadvertently provides a reverse justification. And Xandu I'm pretty sure kwo is right on the committee. To quote from 1970 in reference to the committee authorized by 1970 quote:24. Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a Committee of the Security Council consisting of all the members of the Council (herein "the Committee"), to undertake to following tasks: Edit// Unless I'm misunderstanding your objection? farraday fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Sep 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 03:37
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Wrong, they are definitely not identical. Most unsc states didn't participate in the Libyan campaign. farraday posted:As an organization representing democratic institutions I insist that they would give you your choice of orifices into which you could stuff your differing interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:It's not my mind you have to change, I'm pointing out that trying to fashion this legal argument about how NATO is wrong, wrong wrong is not merely futile but within the legal framework of the UN, a complete nullity. They can't be wrong because there's literally no legal mechanism to prove it. I'm actually not sure we disagree at all, legally right and wrong are not really applicable given the structure. I've tried to use the term justification since I think that's probably the accurate way to consider state actors working under an umbrella of inherently faulty international law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
farraday posted:I'm actually not sure we disagree at all, legally right and wrong are not really applicable given the structure. I've tried to use the term justification since I think that's probably the accurate way to consider state actors working under an umbrella of inherently faulty international law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:The active participants of the Committee are gonna be NATO and in any event it was going to be whatever the veto powers says. Farraday saved me the trouble of pointing out the wording but the larger point of course is that the de jure formalism of the resolution is going to yield to the reality of the workaday politics of the body. The issue is that countries like BRIC and South Africa would not agree to arming the rebels, whereas NATO would. So while in practice it was NATO's decision to arm the rebels, it wasn't their decision to make according to the resolution. It should fall to the UN Security Council. Obviously, when it comes down to it, the legality of such an action doesn't matter that much, but at the same time, NATO's activities in Libya will certainly cost it votes in the Security Council in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 05:43
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:I dunno, that seems a little circular because you end up relying on the text of a document that admits to letting itself be defined by the entities charged with enforcing it. I know you're trying to make it so legality and justification aren't congruent, however given the foundation of your argument I'm not sure how it can be anything but the same. If the document is supposed to on its face strictly proscribe certain activities, but also in the same breath say that there are exceptions and delegates the determination of what's "right" to the same people as you're accusing of being hypocrites...then I'm not sure where this is supposed to go. Legality is something that would be decided by some authoritative body, in this case such a thing is impossible. However, you're talking about state actors who exit within legal and somewhat popular democratic frameworks. Their ability to justify an action is based on the legalities of the resolution, even if the legality of their argument can never be realistically tested. The legality of the argument is therefore important to the extent to which other states and the populace of the state making the argument will accept it. This is why we had the little song and dance between the Resolution not calling for Regime change but it being the fairly explicit policy of individual governments executing the resolution. Accordingly, the argument that some states made to justify their supply of weapons to the rebels were simply that, justifications. The legalistic argument necessary to make it work is fairly weak, as evidenced by it's lack of acceptance even among coalition partners, but at the same time it is enough of a smoke screen to do what they were going to do anyways. With that in mind, my trying to pretend any superiority to a similar argument justifying sales to Gaddafi would be hypocrisy. If someone sincerely believed the arms to rebels because it protects civilians argument, then it isn't hypocrisy to decry China, so I'm not sure how I'm accusing people of being hypocrites. And Xandu, I would be careful saying "NATO's decision" to arm rebels. I'm fairly sure we'd find it to be state actors acting in concert and not officially NATO. As shorthand for the intervening powers it works, but the importance of Qatar to the arms shipments makes it fairly clear that NATO would be a misnomer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
Fair enough, I was really referring to France, Britian, and Qatar when I said NATO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
So, is Bani Walid (and Sabha and the district of Al Jufra) included in the one-week extended deadline given to Sirte or not? There seems to be conflicting reports on this, with some saying that NTC forces will be moving into Bani Walid imminently (as in the next few hours), as shown on Al Jazeera, and then Mustafa Abdel Jalil announcing that all four of the above are being given the extra week. Is there some disconnect of agenda between the front lines and the leader I presume? EDIT: I would guess that the forces on the ground would probably be more eager to advance on Bani Walid and eventually Sabha to restore the water flow to Tripoli, among other things...
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 07:25
|
|
|
Xandu posted:The issue is that countries like BRIC and South Africa would not agree to arming the rebels, whereas NATO would. So while in practice it was NATO's decision to arm the rebels, it wasn't their decision to make according to the resolution. It should fall to the UN Security Council. farraday posted:Accordingly, the argument that some states made to justify their supply of weapons to the rebels were simply that, justifications. The legalistic argument necessary to make it work is fairly weak, as evidenced by it's lack of acceptance even among coalition partners, but at the same time it is enough of a smoke screen to do what they were going to do anyways. With that in mind, my trying to pretend any superiority to a similar argument justifying sales to Gaddafi would be hypocrisy. As far as your distinction between the legal and the justified, I think you're misplacing the concern here. The domestic audiences weren't spending their days parsing 1973 looking for inconsistencies between policy and authorization; they were worried about budget cuts or unemployment or the debt crisis or how we're spending more billions on another foreign adventure. The dog and pony show, as you put it, was aimed solely for the benefit of the other nations who need to defend their own geopolitical interests or ideological stances. The domestic audience in the UK understood what they were going for because it was debated in Parliament and in any case were more concerned about austerity cuts; the US was more focused on how the Republicans were going to flip flop on the issue to try and make Obama look bad for brownie points. At no point I don't believe serious political questions about overstepping the UN's resolution were raised, versus any domestic acts (like the WPA) regulating any foreign action at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
@LiberalLibyan seems to have deleted all his tweets from the last month describing his battles against NATO in Tripoli, and all of a sudden everyone has defriended him. Guess he gave up on the bullshit. [edit] Nevermind, I was looking at the wrong account, it's actually LibyanLiberal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 11:42
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Fair enough, I was really referring to France, Britian, and Qatar when I said NATO. As far as Qatar goes, I think it was pretty much a proxy for France. The Qatari Military has a gently caress load of French personnel in it (i.e. the people who fly and maintain the Mirages). Don't think for a second that Qatari Pilots were flying over Libya.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 11:43
|
|
|
New report from AJE about the plight of Africans in Libya https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tnJ7jt97d4 The UK newspapers are also generally covering the cache of documents found in Tripoli's British Embassay quote:Revelations on ties between the British and the Libyan secret services published in the Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday and the Independent on Sunday today are taken from come from intelligence documents reported to have been left lying in the ruins of the British embassy in Tripoli after it was stormed by rebel troops. The documents were written ahead of an MI5 visit to Tripoli in 2005. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Sep 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
Here's a somewhat creepy interview with Gaddafi's Ukrainian nurse:quote:Gadhafi's Ukrainian nurse talks about life with 'Daddy'
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
There's been some interesting tweets about Sirte and Bani Walid in the last fews minutes from journalists near the towns: Neal Mann of Sky News near Sirte quote:Back at Nawfaliyah, rebel forces have moved petrol tankers forward to hear from Ras Lanuf, preparing for the push to Sirte Richard Colebourn of the BBC near Bani Walid quote:BBC's @ipannell is outside Bani Walid. Key negotiator with pro-Gaddafi elements has told him standoff may be resolved on Monday AM
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 14:00
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Anti-Gaddafi forces nr Bani Walid #Libya also tell BBC's @ipannell that they have intell that Saif Gaddafi only left Bani Walid on Saturday Now this is turning into Carmen Sandiego, Libyan edition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
Zappatista posted:Now this is turning into Carmen Sandiego, Libyan edition.  When you're on a good thing... Cable Guy fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Sep 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Few small updates Hoda Abdel-Hamid of AJE near Sirte quote:Mil. spox says fight ongoing in #Harawa. we are not allowed to go past Piers Scholfield of the BBC near Bani Walid quote:Searing afternoon heat finally beginning to fade. Press pack still held nrly 70km from Bani Walid. Told we will be allowed further soon. Rob Crilly of the Telegraph quote:Libyan rebel military spokesman has now confirmed death of Khamis Gaddafi
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
If Khamis is confirmed to be dead, that's fantastic news. He was the most malevolent of Gadaffi's sons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
Jut posted:As far as Qatar goes, I think it was pretty much a proxy for France. The Qatari Military has a gently caress load of French personnel in it (i.e. the people who fly and maintain the Mirages). Don't think for a second that Qatari Pilots were flying over Libya. Weren't Qatari special forces confirmed to be in Libya?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:But that's the problem: even a weak justification is stronger than one that simply doesn't exist. You're going to have to do some even weirder mental contortions to spin the arms sales to Gadaffi that fits any sort of context within the resolution, whether textually or within the larger unstated understanding that was obvious to any international observer. Unless you can show that there is in fact a parallel logic that serves some part of the resolution, the Chinese argument is just a tu quoque fallacy. Clinton believed the arms would be legal because it would save civilian lives, which you stated would avoid the problem. Are you ready to make a similar argument for the Chinese in selling arms to Gadaffi> Not quite accurate. Clinton argued arms sales were justified under the resolution because they would protect civilian lives, suggesting she believed it goes a bit further. MY contention is that the argument is made not out of true belief, but because it provides a justification for actions desired. In that sense there is absolutely no difference between providing arms to the rebels or providing arms to Qaddafi using the same argument. If we look at the legalism for a moment here is an argument presented quote:The only question is how far does it do this. Does Res. 1973 allow transfer of arms by those acting to enforce the mandate to others who are also acting to do the same? If the US were to transfer arms to the UK or the French for use in Libya I fail to see how this would not be permitted by Res 1973 since it is within the mandate of using all necessary means to achieve the goals of the resolution. Or if a US plane were to refuel a UK or Canadian plane over Libyan territory that would be assistance related to military activities (within the meaning of para. 9 of Res. 1970) but would be assistance permitted by para. 4 of SC Res. 1973. If that is correct, it is established that transfers to, or as assistance of others, acting to fulfil the mandate is permitted. This argument relies on a supposition that transfers to the rebels in order to fulfill the mandate are necessarily the same thing as transfers to a member of the UN, which is clearly an argument you could make, as someone has made it, but strikes me as weak. We're getting to the level of "No animal shall sleep in a bed, with sheets" as the intervening powers claim the resolution justifies whatever they want to do but at the same time it is apparently impossible for it to justify anything else. It means exactly what they say it means. Lets move on to this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12900706 Some interpretations: Clinton: "The reason is because there is an arms embargo against the Gaddafi regime that was established in the first resolution, resolution 1970, which applied to the entire country," she explained. "In the follow-on resolution, 1973, there is an exception, if countries or organisations were to choose to use that." If the embargo applies to the entire country then so, perforce, must the exception. Hague: "Those resolutions in our view apply to the whole of Libya, although it is consistent with resolution 1973 to give people aid in order to defend themselves in particular circumstances." Again,while ti is clear who the US and Britain would choose to give aid to, this is not the same as saying it means you can only give aid to the rebels using the exception. Chairman of the sanctions committee: ""the resolution imposes a full embargo on arms." Contrasting view that no exception exists, in which case both attempts to arm the rebels and Qaddafi are again, equal. This view is held by a variety of lawyers I see no reason to list in full, however I think this particular one is important for a side fact it contains. http://lexspecialis.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/is-it-lawful-for-coalition-forces-to-arm-the-libyan-resistance/ quote:Previous SC mandated embargos like the one imposed on Liberia in April 1995, pursuant to SC Res. 788 applied to all parties operating within the territory of Liberia not just the government. Often-times subsequent resolutions are passed to modify the arms embargo to make it clearer who are the specific targets of the embargo (ie. particular militias or groups). The failure to do so in this case means that the exception they've decided to carve out for themselves can not help but apply to the whole country and every group within, including the government. The unwillingness or inability of the coalition powers to return to the SC and clarify the issue is pretty obviously because they didn't want the issue clarified, but that is hardly a reason to pretend their justification of the exception does not apply equally to Qaddafi. Also,my point about the domestic audience was just general not specific, there was obviously no major interest in the US as to how justified this was, but the same can not be said of the Iraq war where tortured justifications based on UN resolutions did play a part in military action. In this case the justifications were more consequential to the international sphere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Some updates from Bani Walid Frederik Pleitgen of CNN quote:Just returned from outskirts of Bani Walid #Libya. Green flag still flying there, but no Gaddafi forces in sight. Piers Scholfield of the BBC quote:Talks have collapsed in Bani Walid - main negotiator. Said Moussa Ibrahim was negotiating, had unrealistic position. Ian Pannell of the BBC quote:Claims #Gaddafi spokesman Mussa Ibrahim negotiating on behalf of ex Govt forces in #Bani Walid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Libyan rebel military spokesman has now confirmed death of Khamis Gaddafi This is turning into Francisco Franco.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 19:08
|
|
