To the Libya Triumphalists

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 10:08am

Way back last Spring, when this Libya business started, we were told that NATO was going to intervene in a very limited way for the sole purpose of protecting civilians. Some NATO spokesmen went so far as to state that the rebels as well as the loyalists would be subject to action if they attacked civilians. We were also told that the US involvement was even more limited - strictly a supporting role, and definitely not "hostilities".

Within a few days, the purpose had changed - the objective was to bring down the Gadhafi regime, and NATO was openly coordinating with the rebels. As stories came out of rebels targeting black civilians, and substantial collateral damage, we heard less and less about protecting civilians and more about democracy and regime change. By mid-Summer the talk was mostly about regime change, and oh yeah, democracy too, maybe.

By the time Fall rolled around, we'd personalized the conflict, like we always do. It was now about getting Qaddafi himself, and his family. Now that he's been killed, we're seeing triumphant declarations that vengeance has been obtained for Pan Am Flight 103, as if that had been the purpose of the whole exercise.

So what, you say - Khadafy was a terrorist and a tyrant, the world's better off without him, and our President can proudly claim another trophy in the War on Terrorism, again outperforming his feckless predecessor.

What's wrong with that view? A lot.

First of all, either we were engaged in hostilities, or we weren't. You can't have it both ways. If it is now claimed that we were engaged, that is an implicit admission that the dispute over the War Powers Resolution was not a case of differing opinions, but an intentional and dishonest evasion of constitutional limits. If it is claimed that we were not engaged, then our contribution to this great "victory" was minor at best.

Second, the introduction of Pan Am 103 as a supposed motivation for targetting Qadhafy and family. I don't know what was privately agreed to in that deal where the UK and others accepted $10M per victim compensation to the families, followed by opening up of Libya to foreign investment in oil extraction. But I'm fairly sure the deal wasn't "and by the way, Muammar, we'll continue to try and kill you whenever we have a chance". There's an excellent case to be made that we should never have made such a deal with a terrorist and dictator, but once the deal was made, it was made. You can bring up plenty of other reasons to take out Khaddafi but either the deal was immoral, or reneging on the deal was immoral. You can't have it both ways.

Third, and most importantly, this idea that we can measure progress by how many Big Name Evil Leaders we kill - always with bonus points for the kids - is fundamentally mistaken. In the particular case of Gaddafi, he was already defanged with respect to international terrorism. It's possible that getting him will cause the violence in Libya to rapidly ramp down, but it's also possible that (just like in Iraq) the causes go deeper than just one bad guy at the top. I think Obama understands this but it's not clear his supporters do.

But by all means, enjoy your victory.

The "victory" happened weeks ago

(#269036)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 10:22am.

when Tripoli fell to the rebels, as yet another Mideast dictatorship toppled before a populist movement using Twitter and Facebook to circumvent state-controlled media. NATO assisted with air support, preventing the rebels from getting rolled over by mercenary armored columns...it was the right and moral call to make. Once the regime determined to continue fighting rather than negotiate a new political settlement, the right thing was to continue providing air cover. Millions of Libyans vs. a corrupt police state. And the intervention was relatively easy. There are few national airspaces easier to control from sea-based air power than Libya. This is not a difficult call.

So much for morality. As for legal questions, if you're upset about War Powers, why don't you write a diary about the War Powers maneuvering that went on? See if you can prove whether the law was broken or not. Parse the word "hostilities" if you feel like it. Personally I don't think there's any way in hell courts will indict or Congress will impeach in this case, for the simple reason that the action was broadly if not punctiliously agreed to.

As far as shifting justifications for the war, you make your argument by shifting speakers just as rapidly. Different people say different things; that doesn't count as hypocrisy. Why not stick to what the WH and State Dept. said over the course of the conflict?

M Aurelius was probably right.

Don't Forget Wikileaks

(#269040)

Submitted by notyou on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 12:48pm.

as yet another Mideast dictatorship toppled before a populist movement using Twitter and Facebook to circumvent state-controlled media.

Even though everybody always does.

Wikileaks, after all, is fundamentally another way to route around official information channels.

And don't forget Saudi Arabia

(#269092)

Submitted by Micky Love on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 9:50pm.

They have far more to gain from a Salafist regime in Libya than wikileaks, or even NATO.

As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to "seduce" three other members to get the vote.

Translation: only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD02Ak01.html

The arrangement had Saudi Arabia sending in their tanks to clear the streets of Bahrain of demonstrators in exchange for NATO's aerial assault on Libya. It's worth a look at what is happening now in Bahrain. The GCC games have just concluded, 12 days of sporting in near empty stadiums. (Formula One racing is slated to return next year, by the way.)

In addition to the gold in handball, Bahrain also won titles in the half-marathon, 10,000 meters, bowling and cycling as well as in the table tennis, the only event featuring women.

"I don't care if the national teams win or lose," said Jassim, a 22-year-old student, who only gave his first name for fear of harassment by the authorities. "All I care about is for discrimination to stop. I want justice and equal rights for all in my country."

http://www.necn.com/10/21/11/Few-cheer-Bahrain-at-Gulf-Games-after-cr/la...

Also on note is that the International Commission of Inquiry which was due to report on Oct. 23 is now extending its deadline another month. Although the monarchy consented to the commission, the delay seems due to the government's lack of cooperation:

Over the past months, the panel received more than 8,000 complaints, testimonies and documents. Its members have interviewed more than 5,000 witnesses and alleged victims of the unrest, including detainees, police personnel, doctors and journalists.

The panel also said it is still awaiting responses from various ministries and government agencies, and that its interviews aim to establish "whether these governmental institutions and their agents upheld the rule of law and respected international human rights law" during months of protests and crackdowns on dissent.

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/507266

I'm sorry to see Gaddhafi go. He was a despot, certainly, but a despot with some style and panache. Anyone who would travel with an all women team of bodyguards can't be all bad. I hope they have escaped his rather ignominious fate.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Here's the message Obama and his apologists are sending

(#269041)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 12:52pm.

The rule of law matters, except when it doesn't, and we get to decide when it doesn't.

There's no parsing necessary for defining hostilities. We rained bombs on the sovereign territory of another nation.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Again, you have to make the argument

(#269042)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 12:54pm.

that the War Powers Act was violated. The dots are there, but neither you nor eeyn has connected them.

M Aurelius was probably right.

My argument is

(#269047)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:36pm.

not so much that the WPR was violated (although I think it was), but more that the supporters of this action can't have it both ways. There is no disputing that Qaddafi was brought down through military action. If we were part of that military action, then the WPR was violated. If we weren't, then "we" didn't bring down Qaddafi, somebody else did.

But since you asked...if there were hostilities it's clear Obama did not meet the WPR requirements. What counts as hostilities? Poorly defined. Here's my opinion:

Selling, or even giving, munitions and weapons to someone else that uses them - not necessarily hostilities.

Sharing intelligence that helps someone else bomb stuff - not necessarily hostilities.

Interactively providing targeting information in real time at the request of those doing the fighting - hostilities

Launching cruise missiles - hostilities

I'm fairly sure we engaged in the last two activities. Of course you are right that there is zero chance that Obama will be held to account for the violation, any more than his predecessors who did similar things. But that's because impeachment is a political rather than a legal matter, and it is very rare even for an unpopular president to have less than 1/3 support in the Senate.

All it takes is a simple thought experiment

(#269053)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:01pm.

Take the same number of jetfighter and drone strikes that the U.S. used on Libya and apply them to Morocco, targeting military and command-and-control targets. Tell me, Jordan, how the attack on Morocco would not be considered a hostile act. I'm pretty sure the Moroccans would view those strikes as acts of war. The parsing isn't being done by me, my friend, it's being done by the guy that you're carrying water for and, by extension, you. "Hostilities" is the line that connects the dots, and it was drawn with a big, fat Sharpie.

They seem like hostilities to me.

(#269057)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:46pm.

But when & to what degree did they occur? If they did occur after the 60 day limit set by WPA, how long after, who was involved, what were the mitigating circumstances, what did Congress do & what should Congress or the courts do about it?

Those are the missing dots.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Some dots, some lines

(#269071)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:31pm.

Full text of the WPR here.

"1541....(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Method (1) clearly didn't apply. Method (2) only applies if one claims the AUMF extended to Libya, but even the admin didn't try to claim that Libya was involved in 9/11. Method (3) clearly didn't apply.

"1542. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,..."

I don't believe one can seriously claim that it was not "possible" for the President to consult with Congress prior to getting involved in Libya. One can argue what "consult" means, since he did talk to some individual Congresspersons.

"1543. (a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report,.."

The first report was due in 48 hours. I'm not sure but I don't believe this requirement was met.

"1544. (b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congres..."

You're perhaps suggesting that by the 60th day things had ramped down to the extent that they were no longer "hostilities". Even if this is true, Obama appears to definitely be in violation of 1541, possibly 1542, and probably 1543.

What's the appropriate remedy in this case? -nt-

(#269087)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 8:24pm.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Well you got me there

(#269089)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 9:14pm.

Same remedy one would use on a President running torture camps, or a President who phonied up a Tonkin Gulf incident to start a war, or a President that put tens of thousands of Americans in detention camps based entirely on race with zero due process.

Constitutional defect.

Re-elect them?

(#269090)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 9:29pm.

kinda depressing, huh?

I blame it all on the Internet

Yes, Obama continued the policies

(#269045)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:20pm.

of the Reagan and Bush administrations.

I blame it all on the Internet

False

(#269056)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:35pm.

Here's what Reagan established. Sending advisors to another country, and conducting joint military exercises with another country, sending non-combat peacekeeping forces to another country, and sending money and weapons to rebels in foreign lands are not hostilities. Grenada was a hostile act but the fighting lasted a few days, so an AUMF was not necessary. Reagan reported his actions to Congress but did not have to take it any further. Similarly, Libya. Similarly, Chad.

Here's what Bush I established. (1) He received an AUMF from Congress to launch Desert Storm. (2) He sent troops to Somalia for humanitarian relief in a non-combat role. His successor creeped the Somalia mission to include combat sorties.

Here's what Bush II established. He received AUMFs to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Here's what Obama established. F*ck the War Powers Resolution, f*ck Congress, f*ck congressional oversight. Obama further established that he can define "hostilities" so as to exclude a $1 billion worth of jetfighter and drone strikes that hit the soil of another sovereign nation. That's just a swell precedent he set.

Oh spare us. Reagan's record of Congressional Oversight

(#269058)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:48pm.

with regard to selling arms to our goddamn enemies, the Ayatollah Khomeini, was, um ( suppressing violent laughter ) ... somewhat suspect.

What we have here is

(#269059)

Submitted by brutusettu on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:57pm.

A bunch of blind men and an elephant?

--Reagan [i]just[/i] had advisers and Obama [i]just[/i] ordered for some freedom bombs.

"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."

Major Kong

Reagan lied about it all, then said he thought it was right

(#269060)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 3:05pm.

in his heart, you know, where facts don't matter and neither do arms embargoes. Then he sorta forgot all about it when deposed on the matter. Reagan's people in the White House basement spent weeks running the shredders. There wasn't a tinhorn dictator or genocidal despot Reagan wouldn't welcome to the White House and call a Freedom Fighter.

That bastard sold arms to our enemies.

Well, yes

(#269066)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 3:45pm.

But I'm pretty sure the topic is about presidents and their conduct re the WPR.

Awesome

(#269061)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 3:16pm.

so if Obama had used the words "advisors" and "humanitarian" (I think he actually used that one) everything would be hunky-dory, right?

BTW, was the US involved directly after 60 days or was it NATO? Because I'm not sure if congressional approval is needed to fulfill treaty obligations.

I blame it all on the Internet

Sure, why not

(#269067)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 3:56pm.

He's already warped "hostilities" beyond recognition. The way he's going, he can call F-15s "The Mach II Humanitarians" and drones "The Advisors of BOOM" and flout the law all over again.

As for NATO, interesting theory, but I'm pretty sure that NATO does not have the authority to require the U.S. to launch a $1 billion worth of weaponry at a nation that does not pose an imminent threat to us or our NATO allies. They have to ask nicely. It really works the other way. A request by NATO should be a good selling point for getting an AUMF, had the president bothered to try.

So he's following in Reagan's footsteps

(#269070)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:05pm.

twisting words beyond all recognition. I'm surprised you're not planning to vote for him.

I blame it all on the Internet

Except for one thing

(#269146)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:20am.

Reagan didn't violate the WPR, as you demonstrated with your link. Obama did. Blatantly.

Sure he did. He violated the Boland Amendment.

(#269147)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:24am.

Specifically told not to do something by Congress, he did it anyway. And lied about it. Repeatedly.

Boland Amendment != WPR

(#269154)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:45am.

Of course Reagan violated the law, but it was a different law.

Checked the text of

(#269073)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:39pm.

the War Powers Resolution and I didn't see any exception for NATO treaty obligations.

Possibly one could argue that by signing off on the treaty Congress implicitly "approved" any military action taken by NATO. As Bird Dog says, interesting theory, but it has two flaws. First, it proves too much - no way, for example, we are bound to help Turkey smack the Kurds this week, much less support them if their fight with Israel turns physical. Second, did NATO formally invoke treaty obligations? If so, how did various small countries that didn't participate get off the hook?

Not sure

(#269083)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 7:24pm.

I'm not an expert on treaty law. But I think it would make for a gray area when done as part of a military alliance rather than just attacking a country on our own. In this case it's pretty clear that the impetus came from NATO and not the US.

I blame it all on the Internet

Guatemala, and Senor Montt?

(#269080)

Submitted by mmghosh on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 7:12pm.

literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it

Bird Dog, the USA has always decided

(#269102)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 1:47am.

when to intervene in other countries' affairs and when not to for a very long time. Based upon a consideration of its own interests. This is not a criticism - every country does act in its own interests as far as it can promote them.

I don't think the rule of law, or similar conventions necessarily entered the equation in the past, and nor does it today. Mr Obama is following a time-honoured, and sanctioned tradition (and on the cheap, as it happens, this time).

The significant point, FWIW, is whether some of the interests of the Libyan people and the US coincide, or at least partially. In this case, it seems it does.

literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it

True

(#269108)

Submitted by MaxSchrek on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:02am.

But some countries hide behind a weak legal defense or outright denial and the US did so

in the past.

The shift has been to flout any acceptable law, right now people are demanding to know

how the Gaddafi died and the rebels are holding to a 'shot in crossfire' story, they at least

dont want to be seen breaking the law. The US has moved increasingly to the point where

blowing up family homes to kill alledged combatents is the norm, no questions asked, just

call it "Justice".

I guess with Osama Bin Laden they shot him immediately whereas there is footage of

Gaddafi being detained.

Its just a model, you wouldn't want to bank on it.

Contrary to popular belief by those outside the US,

(#269150)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:26am.

a president has to go to Congress if he wants U.S. forces to engage in hostilities for longer than 90 days. The commander-in-chief still has plenty of latitude and plenty of ability to extend military power, but there are limits, and the current president crossed that limit in Libya with impunity. The Left, which decried Bush for all kinds of rule-of-law breaches (and rightfully so in multiple cases), is hypocritically waving the pom-poms the hardest for Obama's pissing on the rule of law.

Heh. I'm not suggesting the USA has a king

(#269172)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 6:45pm.

who makes arbitrary decisions. I agree with you - it is elected representatives, representing the majority of the people of the USA who make the going-to-war, deciding-to-intervene decisions. The President is also directly elected, after all.

Which is why it is not correct to accuse particular, individual, Presidents, for example, for the supposed perfidy of the intervention in Iran, or the invasion of Iraq.

literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it

I opposed the Libyan intervention

(#269046)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:34pm.

and I still think it was a bad idea to continue the precedent (at this point established policy) of military intervention without an official declaration of war. But I will say that as these things go, this one was handled in a way that minimized costs to the US.

But I still think it was a bad idea. It will make military intervention look like a better option going forward specifically because the costs were so low, and that's how you get in trouble.

I blame it all on the Internet

What you're missing Hank...

(#269072)

Submitted by Darth Cuddly on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:33pm.

...setting right/wrong/legal aside is that the Fat Lady ain't sung yet. We've got oodles of SAMs that have gone missing, we have no idea what/who will replace Khadaffi. Saying that cost was minimized at this point is premature.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.

Yup

(#269074)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 5:03pm.

Opposition to El-Ghaddafi might have been the only thing holding together the coalition of secular, Western oriented professionals; Islamic fundamentalists; and various tribal clans that had some long standing feud with the Qadhafi clan.

The NTC's relative (stress the relative) restraint in slaughtering prisoners, Sirte residents, and black immigrants might be because they really are better. Or it could be because they needed to keep their NATO sponsors happy, and once they don't need NATO, all hell breaks loose.

NATO didn't overthrow Ghaddafi

(#269077)

Submitted by Wagster on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 6:42pm.

The Libyan people did. And whatever else happens, whether the resulting government is to our taste or not, the West supported the Libyan people in the overthrow of a tyrant that brutally oppressed them. If in the worst case another tyranny replaces Ghaddafi, it will be a regime chastened by the power of the popular will.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

List of chastened regimes

(#269084)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 7:29pm.

Are you saying that regimes brought to power through revolutions fear the popular will?

Robespierre

Lenin

Khomeini

Let's hope Libya does better than the historical average for this kind of thing.

As far as "the Libyan people" overthrowing Qaddafy, I agree that the NTC has majority support, and that the holdout populations in places like Sirte were in the wrong all things considered, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the holdouts weren't people. Some Libyan people overthrew a regime supported by some other Libyan people.

I think this is different

(#269088)

Submitted by Wagster on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 8:30pm.

Because this revolution is part of a sweeping regional movement, and because it's nature is pro-democratic in a way that the revolutions you mention weren't.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

So far the only

(#269091)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 9:30pm.

part of the regional movement that can definitely be chalked up as an improvement is Tunisia, since they're actually holding an election. Egypt has become noticeably worse if one happens to be a Christian, and they get no democracy points until an election actually gets held. Yemen is well on its way to failed state status. In Bahrain we're supporting the autocrat and that's going to stick. Syria is still up in the air.

The big test for the NTC in Libya is the next few weeks. They no longer need to convince NATO they're the good guys, and can act with a free hand. Up until now the choices were NTC versus Khadhafi, and clearly the majority of the population favored the NTC. The choice will now be one faction of the NTC versus another. If that gets resolved through elections, it's a success. If it gets settled through disappearances or another civil war, not so much.

Either way, Libyans caused it to happen,

(#269093)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 9:51pm.

and we're only marginally involved. This is kind of how sh*t works.

M Aurelius was probably right.

It would interesting to

(#269094)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 9:59pm.

make pundits state now whether our involvement was marginal or major, before we know the outcome.

Because if it ends up badly, we'll hear from Republicans that Obama was in deep, and from Obama supporters that we hardly participated at all. If it ends well, reverse that.

Are you sure

(#269107)

Submitted by MaxSchrek on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 3:53am.

all the mentioned revolutions were offering greater involvement of a wider group of people

in government. What actually happened is what happens in a lot of rapid social changes -

you get to a completely different place where power is locked back down and the chaos of

the change leaves a lot of damage.

The Arab revolts have not run course yet, I suspect that the powerful elites in politics and

business are already rolling back or trying to limit the actual changes in order to retain their

controlling interests, not least in Egypt where things are glacially slow.

Its just a model, you wouldn't want to bank on it.

The ideological content

(#269156)

Submitted by Wagster on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 12:32pm.

of the Arab spring vs. the Bolshevik or French revolutions is very distinct. A better analog if the eastern European revolutions after the fall of the Wall. Of course, you're right about the rollback... this will be a continuing process.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

This "revolution" started because the cost of food was

(#269112)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 7:27am.

rapidly increasing and the college educated "middle class" couldn't find jobs. That is, the nature of the regional movement is economic (similar to the French Revolution) and the dynamics have not changed.

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H

Doesn't get much more democratic than

(#269117)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:04am.

"the masses decide the rich shouldn't get all the food."

M Aurelius was probably right.

If democratic simply means the mob, you are right. nt

(#269167)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:56pm.

Boston Tea Party. Storming the Bastille.

(#269175)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 7:07pm.

Tiananmen Square. Soweto. The Salt March. Tunisia. Democracies very often have their roots in mobs.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Roots sustain, mobs not so much

(#269183)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:52pm.

which I believe makes my point.

Well I believe you can't find a modern democracy

(#269185)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:58pm.

that didn't start with a mob, so too bad.

M Aurelius was probably right.

A mob is a fascinating phenomenon.

(#269187)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:10pm.

More than any other human collective activity, it is the most natural. Deadly, stupid and implacable, the mob is beyond reason.

You're fundamentally wrong about roots, though. A mob has a long root, reaching down with an unseen taproot into the deepest recesses of the human mind, flowering like the baobab in the heart of the dryest of times. There's a story about the baobab I was told as a small boy: pluck its flower and you'll be eaten by a lion.

The OWS folks were first ignored, then mocked and now feared. They won't go away. Troubling thought, to realize this mob arose from what the Declaration of Independence called a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism. You might call it something else. You can say they're all wrong, misguided, call them what you'd like. They're here now. They're just a small percentage of America but they've changed the tenor of the debate in ways you will not like, Timmy.

Mobs don't simply disperse. Shoot at the mob, lock it up, do what you want. You only strengthen it, spread it by crushing it down. Mobs get their way, via peaceable means or otherwise. As Malcolm X put it: "by any means necessary"

No revolution

(#269155)

Submitted by Wagster on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 12:30pm.

is completely missing an economic component, but to see any revolution as simply that is to misread it. There's a difference between a food riot and a revolution.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

As I pointed out, it was food and no jobs (for the middle class)

(#269166)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:55pm.

You must think very little of democracy

(#269188)

Submitted by Wagster on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:29pm.

Their people scream for it, risk their lives for it, and you think it must be something else they want.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

"Jim Crow" was democracy; and the race riots in Tulsa was

(#269194)

Submitted by Timmy on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 7:56am.

democracy by your definition, I have a different viewpoint.

I remember

(#269368)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 3:32pm.

You throwing the accusation of racist against anyone who didn't think that a docile Iraqi populace wanted democracy brought to them at the point of a gun. Now that Arabs are actually acting on their own behalf to bring democracy to their countries, all of a sudden you're the skeptic.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Part of this Arab Spring is a food riot: prices have soared

(#269170)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 6:35pm.

and many people are making do with far less than before. Combined with a moribund economy, it seems safe to say the Arab Spring is a whole lot more than yearning for democracy.

Wait a minute

(#269079)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 7:04pm.

we had an overpowering presence in Iraq and that didn't help any with securing their weapons, so I'm not sure how you can mark that against this intervention. Unless you were calling for large numbers of ground troops?

Of course we have no idea what the new government will be like. I don't think Khadaffi will be hard to beat, though.

I blame it all on the Internet

Hank, what are you talking about?

(#269101)

Submitted by Darth Cuddly on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 1:41am.

You said this was done at minimal cost. I'm saying it ain't done yet. This has nothing to do with Iraq, it's not a comparison.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.

It's done as far as our military involvement is concerned

(#269104)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 2:29am.

so I think it's OK to start assessing that part of the cost.

I blame it all on the Internet

No dog in this hunt, but "blood for oil" isn't a bad desrciption

(#269113)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 7:28am.

Except we didn't lose any blood nt

(#269160)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 1:40pm.

I blame it all on the Internet

I believe that you miss the overall nuance of the statement nt

(#269163)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:19pm.

In other words

(#269164)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:26pm.

"I really wanted to use one of the liberals phrases against them, I couldn't really make it work but I used it anyway".

I blame it all on the Internet

As I said in the opening, I don't have a dog in this hunt

(#269165)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:53pm.

but maybe you can explain why Lybia and not Syria?

The same reason

(#269168)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 5:20pm.

as why Iraq and not Syria.

I blame it all on the Internet

Libya's a highway on the coast, whereas Syria

(#269174)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 6:59pm.

is mostly landlocked behind Lebanon, Jordan & Israel?

M Aurelius was probably right.

And their blood doesn't count?

(#269350)

Submitted by marlowe on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:24am.

You're all heart, Hank.

Where I stand

I never said that

(#269384)

Submitted by HankP on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 5:32pm.

but you tell me what matters more to Amercans, our blood or that of foreigners? (hint: it's not the foreigners).

I blame it all on the Internet

Thomas Jefferson was a fine theorist on international relations.

(#269119)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:31am.

He believed the nation only needed genuine allies: we could maintain neutrality with the others. The Barbary pirates of what is now modern-day Libya routinely captured American sailors and sold them into the Ottoman slave markets. It was a common sight in the American churches of the day to see the collection plate go round a second time, raising money to buy back enslaved sailors. For fifteen years, the USA paid tribute to the Barbary pirates.

Reality intervened: Jefferson did go to war against the Barbary pirates, over the objections of his own party. He first sent ships as close to Tripoli as he could manage, saying the Constitution gave him no more powers. Congress relented and allowed him to prosecute raids on the Pasha of Tripoli's ships. It did not authorize him to wage a land war, which Jefferson did anyway.

Wars do not arise for single reasons: they brew in the vat for many years before they boil over. The UN resolution which authorized American entry into the conflict against Gadhafi's regime was based on actual reprisals against civilians taken by that government.

There is no question: we were involved in hostilities. UN resolution 1973 made the casus belli clear enough:

Recalling its resolution 1970 (2011) of 26 February 2011,

Deploring the failure of the Libyan authorities to comply with resolution 1970 (2011),

Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties,

Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians,

Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions,

The issue of Pan Am 103 had no bearing on UN resolution 1973. It had everything to do with UN resolution 1970.

Gadhafi's regime was not defanged. Its atrocities continued unabated. There was no end to the violence against Libya's civilians.

Let us not wring our hands and conflate our own grievances with Gadhafi's regime with the UN resolutions which authorized our actions. Gadhafi was given every chance to reform and did not. Like Jefferson, Obama acted within the boundaries of what the Constitution allowed him to do and notified Congress of his intentions thereafter.

Ancient chivalry observed certain limits on warfare: notably the Peace and Truce of God, which kept warfare from becoming personalized. Sanctions applied to those who broke that Peace and Truce of God. The reforms of the Cluniacs led to further sanctions and the establishment of zones of neutrality, where fights could be resolved without fear of immediate reprisals. It seems to me all nations must observe limits on warfare, especially upon civilians. If morality is to mean anything, we must accept limits upon ourselves, both as people and nations. Those who are offended by doubletalk about prosecution of vendettas against the likes of Gadhafy must remember the UN had issued several revolutions pointing out Libya's vendettas and many murders of its civilians, well proven incidents, beyond any dispute.

There was no dishonesty: these things were well known and brought before the UN which condemned them. In our own day, we have our own version of the Peace and Truce of God and sanctions against those who break them. Weeping and hollering about intentional and dishonest evasion of constitutional limits, well, it's disgusting. President Obama, like Jefferson before him, acted within the limits of the Constitution, in the very same harbor and against the very same sort of villain.

Well written, but built on a flawed analogy:

(#269125)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:16am.

the Barbary pirates were attacking American vessels, selling American citizens into slavery. The War Powers Act, which has not been declared unconstitutional, clearly limits military action where there is no immediate danger to American lives or interests.* Jefferson did ultimately get Congressional approval, whether he overstepped or not, whereas Obama didn't. The two scenarios couldn't be more starkly different from a legal POV.

*And, to your suggestion that a UN resolution can authorize the President to act, the War Powers Act specifically prohibits the notion that authority can be inferred:

(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

The only legal rationale the WH has at this point is to say that specific WPA reporting and timing requirements were not violated. And that is in fact the only argument they're making, and the argument I'm going with until proven otherwise.

M Aurelius was probably right.

I made no such inference. Re-read what I wrote.

(#269128)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:38am.

The facts are these: this has already gone to court and Judge Reggie Walton has dismissed it. Kucinich v. Obama, 11-01096, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).

The very idea that Dennis Kucinich can drag his little political quarrel into court was settled (and cited as Kucinich v. Bush, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2002) ) "[t]he question whether members of Congress have standing to sue Executive Branch officials is neither novel nor unsettled"

The whole idea of suing the President is nonsense. There is remedy enough: Congress can impeach him. It didn't.

Again irrelevant. You made the analogy

(#269129)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:47am.

Jefferson:Barbary::Obama:Libya. I pointed out the analogy is flawed since Libya wasn't attacking American shipping. Yes, I'm a shameless pedant.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Do you really want the whole analogy?

(#269130)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:58am.

Spain advised the USA to pay tribute to the Pasha, which it did for fifteen years. Congress authorized the payments. Jefferson finally had enough of it, and it seems important to recognize Jefferson's political enemies at the time were against the First Barbary War.

All analogies fail, pressed far enough. What do you want here? Absolute congruence in every respect? Why the hell am I making this point? Nobody else wants to extrapolate any lessons from history. All we're getting here is a bunch of truculent nonsense about Pan Am 103, as if Obama hasn't made his point clear enough, both at the time hostilities commenced and before Judge Walton's court. Never mind Jefferson's rationale at the time, his strict observation of his Constitutional prohibitions, or that this was America's first war, because Gadhafy didn't enslave American sailors, the analogy is somehow flawed and must not be used.

Yeah, it definitely isn't the worst comparison

(#269131)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:00am.

out there. The Pan Am stuff is ridiculous. Anyhow in this diary we're focusing on the to my mind exceedingly narrow question of the War Powers Act & the jot & tittle legality of the Libya campaign. I say exceedingly narrow because if the question ever went before the courts it would rapidly become a constitutional question (is the WPA constitutional, etc.), and if Congress impeached over it it would rapidly become a political circus. Either way, the specific reporting & timing requirements of this one law are obviously *not* the issue, so you & I seem to agree on that.

M Aurelius was probably right.

we love you Russia, we love you China

(#269120)

Submitted by Micky Love on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:38am.

It's interesting to note here the large rallies supporting the Assad regime in Aleppo, #2 city in Syria. The government claimed more than a million in attendance. There's a pretty impressive photo in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/world/middleeast/assad-supporters-hold...

Unless I have missed something, there have never been large scale anti Assad demonstrations in Damascus or Aleppo, number one and two cities of Syria respectively.

The state-organised gathering in Syria’s commercial hub came a week after a similar demonstration in the capital Damascus, showing authorities can still rally mass support in the country’s two main cities despite waves of unrest across the nation.

“We love you” sang demonstrators, holding pictures of Assad and waving Syrian, Russian and Chinese flags — a reference to Moscow and Beijing’s veto of a United Nations draft resolution which could have led to UN sanctions against Damascus.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Assad does have his supporters: the Alawites and their allies.

(#269123)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:03am.

The Syrian regime, like Saddam's regime, has its pets. I seem to recall many such rallies in support of Saddam and Gadhafy and even Mubarak before they fell.

Playing Favourites, as all these dictators did to keep themselves in power, means those who aren't pets are constantly scheming. Being a dictator is a full-time job and most threats are within stabbing distance. The Assad regime has constantly faced such threats, going back to its inception. Time is not on the side of the dictators: their supporters become effete. China and Russia might think they can throw spanners into the gears of progress but they're on the wrong side of history. Russia and China have played little games for a good long time in the tesuji of Middle East Realpolitik.

The USA has thrown similar spanners into UN resolutions condemning Israel. Time's not on Israel's side either. Force of arms solves the immediate problem but it can never solve the long term problems.

Thanks For Sharing, Sergei

(#269180)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:26pm.

Opinion noted. Maybe next time whoever whacks a former dictator can meet Russian standards by using polonium.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

And from NATO,

(#269333)

Submitted by nyoos junkey on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 6:35am.

by way of explanation for bombing Gadafi's escape convoy under their remit to protect civilians:

[quote]

"At the time of the strike," a spokesman said, "Nato did not know that Gaddafi was in the convoy. These armed vehicles were leaving Sirte at high speed and were attempting to force their way around the outskirts of the city. The vehicles were carrying a substantial amount of weapons and ammunition, posing a significant threat to the local civilian population. The convoy was engaged by a Nato aircraft to reduce the threat."

[/quote]

A mistake then. Traveling with a light escort

(#269334)

Submitted by Jordan on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 6:38am.

would've been wiser.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Why didn't he just sneak out?

(#269336)

Submitted by mmghosh on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 7:07am.

Disguised as a woman or some such. Good opportunity for cloak and daggery missed. I'll tell you about the story of Shivaji sometime.

literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it

I'm guessing this was the last of his retinue,

(#269338)

Submitted by Jordan on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 7:10am.

and slipping away incognito would have meant giving up the fight and going into a long period of exile. How are people over there reacting to the news of his apparent execution?

M Aurelius was probably right.

Heh. There is a Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore, major cricket

(#269339)

Submitted by mmghosh on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 7:26am.

stadium in Pakistan. I think it will get renamed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8793153/Call-for...

literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it

Well he caused the Swiss some discomfort

(#269342)

Submitted by nyoos junkey on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 7:31am.

recently. No-one seems to worked up either way though. I wouldn't expect people to celebrate at the death of another, regardless of who it might be.

I do wonder what will become of Hannibal though. Fewer wife and servant beating episodes in expensive Euro hotels I would expect and perhaps more observance for local laws and norms.

Yes, if he could have done so undetected

(#269340)

Submitted by nyoos junkey on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 7:27am.

by Nato and rebels. I guess it was a catch 22 - he needed the firepower to punch through roadblocks I would guess but that drew arial attention. Not that Nato would have held off based on a lack of weapons - they just would have needed a different excuse. Running a red light perhaps. Near a school no doubt. Someone, after all, should think of the children.

Some dashed off thoughts.

(#269351)

Submitted by marlowe on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:33am.

Down payment on a future blog posting:

A tyrant is dead. That's a good thing no matter how you slice it.

To debate whether a war is legal is to miss the point of war. War is the ultimate breakdown of law and civility. Legality is moot.

Some more followthrough might have assured a better outcome. Iraq wasn't perfect, but it was better than what's shaping up here. You get what you pay for.

Why were we so respectful of Osama's body again?

The No Blood For Oil crowd were always a bunch of hypocrites.

The Republicans denouncing this war are a bunch of hypocrites.

Syria next? Why not? Seriously. Why not?

And Venezuela?

Where I stand

Looking fwd. to your diary. For now:

(#269356)

Submitted by Jordan on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 11:25am.

All civilized nations honor & generally obey the law of war, and we in particular are lawful signatories of the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter. The debate over Libya is even more local than that: there are very credible questions about whether the White House violated the terms of the 1973 War Powers Act, IOW, the President may have violated US law.

Legality is not moot in war. Ask Adolf Eichmann.

What followthrough? No NATO boots on the ground; you can't build a governing coalition or restore municipal order with airstrikes.

The current Congress was never going to authorize even the airstrike campaign, much less an actual occupation force. My belief is that this is the reason why the WH skirted the War Powers Act: Obama knew House & Senate Republicans would hold any AUMF request hostage the way they've held every single other Obama initiative hostage. This does not justify possibly violating the law: just explains a possible motive.

Why were we so respectful of Osama's body again?

Because we're not angry children. We're not superstitious primitives who believe they have to defile the enemy's corpse in order to break his power to harm us. We believe in law and order, the dignity of individuals, and the dignity of human life. Or as Churchill put it: "If you're going to shoot a man, it costs nothing to be courteous."

Syria next? Why not?

Have a look at a map. See Libya? See the great cities of Libya, its ports, industries, power plants, communications facilities & highways? They're all no more than a few dozen miles from the Mediterranean coast, and backed by mountains and plateaus, well in reach of carrier attack groups, even naval artillery. Every vital point in Libya is directly reachable from the sea.

Now look at Syria. Syria's coastline is vulnerable, sure, but where's the capital? Landlocked behind Lebanon. Where's its industry and agriculture? Again landlocked in several fertile valleys behind Jordan, Israel, Turkey, and northwestern Iraq. What about lines of supply, energy, banking & finance? Caucasian oilfields, Iraqi & Jordanian oilfields, a banking system hardly friendly to western controls, etc. etc.

Syria is not Libya.

And Venezuela?

Why would we attack Venezuela?

M Aurelius was probably right.

A cynic would say

(#269360)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 2:03pm.

Eichmann's offense was committing crimes against humanity while being on the losing side.

Dashed off responses

(#269358)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 11:36am.

A tyrant is dead. That's a good thing no matter how you slice it.

Tyrants are efficient.   Democracies are not. And there is that unpleasant part where overthrowing a tyrant rarely lead to democracy.

To debate whether a war is legal is to miss the point of war. War is the ultimate breakdown of law and civility. Legality is moot.

Clausewitz says we ought to understand the sort of war we're about to fight before we get into it.   War is man's natural state and legality might be something of a fig leaf, but war's what happens when politicians quit doing their jobs.

Some more followthrough might have assured a better outcome. Iraq wasn't perfect, but it was better than what's shaping up here. You get what you pay for.

See first response.   Iraq is a made-up country, containing mutually-distrustful tribes which should never have been conjoined into one country.   The same is true of all post-colonial regimes.   Americans have no business following through on that mess, unless we want to undo the Sykes-Picot treaty and reset the borders of most of the world's countries.

Why were we so respectful of Osama's body again?

Why not?   We're not savages.

The No Blood For Oil crowd were always a bunch of hypocrites.

The actual No Blood for Oil crowd were the folks who bought up all those oil leases in Iraq and the Kurdish areas, Chinese, French and the like.   Our blood, their oil now.

The Republicans denouncing this war are a bunch of hypocrites.

Denouncing war is a good thing.   Let them go on denouncing.   Wars don't solve problems.

Syria next? Why not? Seriously. Why not?

A few minor problems might arise such as Syrian politics and tribal allegiances. And Turkish interests.   Last time we went adventuring in Lebanon, we got whacked.   Israel did, too.

And Venezuela?

Chavez has always thought of himself as a Simon Bolivar type.   The higher the monkey climbs, the better you can see his ass.   He's not long for this world.

Maybe Chavez is a Simon Bolivar type

(#269369)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 3:35pm.

i.e., dies with all his dreams unrealized.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Syria next?

(#269367)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 3:20pm.

How about we see how Libya settles out first. Yeah, a tyrant is gone. What's the next step...

In a speech to a cheering, flag-waving crowd, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the Transitional National Council, promised to ban interest on housing loans and scrap other laws that didn’t conform to Islamic jurisprudence.

Of course, right now a lot of people here in the US wouldn't mind a bit of Sharia Law on their mortage. But still.

“We are an Islamic state,” he said,

I don't believe that democracy and "Islamic state" are necessarily incompatible but if I were a secular person in Libya I'd be getting nervous. Add to that surplus anti-aircraft missles being shipped east out of the country*, prominent rebel officers being arrested by the NTC and then shortly afterward turning up dead, and the long delay between now and the promised elections (June) - it's way too early to say if this will turn out well.

And in any case, as Jordan says, Syria is a much tougher case. Larger population; larger and better developed military; non-zero allies; ruler who's brutal but isn't delusional like Qaddafi; close to Israeli, Turkish, and Lebanese airspace. On top of that, the Israelis are ambivalent about regime change in Syria, and if they tell Congress they don't want it, then you'll see the WPR actually enforced for the first time ever.

*Nasrallah announced last week that Hizbollah now had the capability to shoot down planes at high altitude. Coincidence?

We agree

(#269379)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 4:44pm.

The thoughts are dashed off.

I prefer Gaddafi out of power, dead or alive.

Obama's decision to join NATO in the aerial campaign is moot. His decision to flout the War Powers Resolution is also moot, but it still bears repeating that he violated the rule of law. If there's anyone who's being a hypocrite, it's our constitutional scholar in chief. Quote:

From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.

Except when he feels like s**tting on the rule of law.

A Republican can still support the bombing campaign, oppose the manner in which Obama administered it, and not be a hypocrite.

Syria? Why? Do they pose imminent threat?

Venezuela? Why? How does Chavez pose an imminent threat?

There are pics on HuffPo potentially taken while Gaddafi

(#269363)

Submitted by catchy on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 2:13pm.

is being sodomized and tortured before dying.

I submit that whether it's a good thing that a tyrant dies depends on how the tyrant dies.

That's

(#269365)

Submitted by notyou on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 3:00pm.

awful.

Oh My...it's Not ALL Fun & Games Being a Dictator...

(#269396)

Submitted by Traveller on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:16pm.

...it may seem like fun for a while, even a long while, but the fall can be a long one indeed.

Traveller

Give him points for dictator integrity

(#269401)

Submitted by Wagster on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:03am.

He could have chosen a balmy retirement in a banana republic somewhere, living off the Swiss bank account, but he chose to fight, and when he did the risk of a scene like this must have been present in some part of his reptilian brain.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Not a Swiss one.

(#269402)

Submitted by nyoos junkey on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:17am.

Not in this case anyway.

Heh. After Hannibal Qaddafy beat his servant in Geneva

(#269404)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:55am.

the Swiss have taken a dim view of that family. Italy and Germany, too.

Curiously, I'd always thought Qaddafy would be one of those slow-reformers, keeping up his popularity by gradually releasing his grip on power, forming up a more-democratic system. It's been done before. If only Qaddafy had trained up some worthy replacements, delegated some power to them, he actually had the rudiments of a democracy in place. Not many people realize how his revolution worked: he had local committees everywhere, which had they been used effectively, could have given his regime the populist cachet he so desperately wanted to project.

Qaddafy's big problem was his own vanity. Even more so than Saddam Hussein, Qaddafy though himself to be the acme of political wisdom. Qaddafy had some great ideas, not least among them was a United States of Africa. Trouble was, he saw himself as the leader of that Africa and nobody took him seriously. Nelson Mandela had the same idea.

I can't put my finger on just why this always seems to happen, but oil money is a curse. There are a few instances where it's been used effectively, Norway, maybe Alaska, but when oil money appears, the beneficiaries always go apesh*t.

Come on, Blaise. Malaysia? Indonesia? Brazil? UK?

(#269463)

Submitted by mmghosh on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 7:31pm.

Norway is exceptional, I agree - they are an example to humanity about sanity and decency in the face of extraordinary riches.

Perversely, perhaps, I would also include Sheikh Mohammed of Dubai as one of the modern-day's true visionaries, slave labour or no.

literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it

I did say there were a few. Malaysia and Indonesia

(#269465)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 7:49pm.

have their own problems, Malaysia's playing games with the price of foodstuffs and it's not going well. Indonesia is importing oil: its fields are largely depleted and inflation is eating them alive as their economy hollows out. Predictably, Indonesia's oil made a handful of people very wealthy. Now that it's mostly gone, I'm afraid both Malaysia and Indonesia conform to my model.

Brazil's oil is just now coming online. Poverty in Brazil is bad as it gets. UK, hard to say what's going on, but like Indonesia, the gas is mostly gone.

I'll plead to not knowing a great deal about Brazil

(#269470)

Submitted by mmghosh on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 7:55pm.

but I'd always thought it was doing remarkably in Human Development indices and so forth.

literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it

It's a strange country. In some ways, it's like the early USA

(#269472)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 7:57pm.

with its important cities along the coast or along rivers. The jungles are emptying out and vast slums are forming. Petrobras is as corrupt as any Nigerian operation.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

(#269397)

Submitted by marlowe on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 2:35am.

It's not that I don't have any compassion. It's that I only have so much. After tutoring refugees from the more badly governed parts of the world and helping a jobless friend who's a victim of Hope and Change, I just haven't got any left over for this poor fellow.

Where I stand

Don't care much either

(#269400)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:02am.

about Gaddafi, but it does add to the concern over what kind of regime the NTC is going to run. The killing can be assigned to a few angry guys fresh from severe fighting, but days of displaying the corpse in a glass top ice cream freezer has to be assigned to some higher ups.

Bizarre loyalist fighting style

(#269546)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 10:38am.

Apparently crazed Qaddafi supporters would enter combat by putting on full body armor but no helmets, binding their own hands together, and then charging at the enemy by running backwards. Because hundreds of bodies are turning up in mass graves with hands tied and bullet holes only in the back of the head.

On the general principle that you generally only find a fraction of the bodies, it's safe to say the executions number in the thousands over the last week. Given the small population of Libya, and that it's not over yet, they're likely to rack up per capita atrocity numbers comparable to the Iranian revolution.

Or maybe it's OK 'cause it's democracy.