The world's responsibility to protect Libyans

The Christian Science Monitor makes the case for intervention by external military forces.

Several of Mr. Qaddafi’s own ambassadors quit in disgust, warning of genocide and triggering the United Nations Security Council to weigh taking action. And indeed, if the Arab revolt continues in many Middle East countries, the world must be prepared to prevent extreme violence. It should take a decisive stand now in the case of the extreme cruelty committed in Libya.

More than democracy is at stake. The world must also act against crimes against humanity. And words of condemnation are not enough.

In fact, outside military intervention could be necessary, as was the case in Kosovo and Bosnia by NATO forces. In 2005, the UN General Assembly endorsed the idea of an international “responsibility to protect” innocent people from great harm within a sovereign country. That principle was elevated by the UN in large part because of its failure to intervene in the Rwanda genocide.

Failure to protect Libyan protesters, or any peaceful uprising in the Middle East, would only prove that the international community has yet to learn from past mistakes in not upholding international human rights laws, such as the Genocide Convention.

It is a difficult task for the UN or NATO to decide whether to break a state’s sovereignty if massacres are taking place. It’s even more difficult to find countries willing to make the sacrifice to send in their forces.

But the killings in Libya have been atrocious enough to provide moral clarity. On Tuesday, Qaddafi promised to hunt down protesters “house by house,” a day after his son warned that streets will “run with blood” if the protests continue.

This regime, in power for more than four decades, has been the most despotic of Arab autocrats, ranking alongside North Korea in its human rights violations. Now it has shown its true colors, and Libyans by the thousands are asking for outside help.

If ever a “responsibility to protect” was made clear, it is now in Libya, where terror has been unleashed on its people.

Click to expand...

reefedjib said:

The Christian Science Monitor makes the case for intervention by external military forces.

Click to expand...

Let the Christian Science Monitor send their Christian Scientists.

Words of condemnation are plenty enough. We have no business on earth involving ourselves in the domestic policies of other countries until they step on our toes.

Are you gonna invade every country with a repressed population? So when're you going to invade Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, Gambia, Central African Republic, Iran, Syria, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, North Korea and Fiji?

spud_meister said:

Are you gonna invade every country with a repressed population? So when're you going to invade Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, Gambia, Central African Republic, Iran, Syria, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, North Korea and Fiji?

Click to expand...

The Spud has a point.

Although I do not believe it is the obligation of any particular nation to intervene militarily in Libya, I do believe a UN Security Council resolution that would impose sanctions that bar commercial activity with Libya until the Gaddafi dictatorship has stepped down would be helpful. Unfortunately, I expect no such decisive resolutions from the UN, even as genuine crimes against humanity are being committed by the Libyan dictatorship and its armed elements.

IMO, much fundamental reform is needed before the UN can begin to offer a credible voice on human rights. Those fundamental problems relate to structural and personnel issues.

Its Commission on Human Rights does little more than engage in politicized crusades that often have little or nothing to do with the world's worst human rights abuses. This should not be surprising, as some of the world's worst human rights abusers have enjoyed seats on the Commission. Even worse, the General Assembly lends support to those far afield crusades, squandering time that could be devoted to human rights and granting license to the Commission to ignore human rights abuses.

In terms of senior personnel, some of its appointees have records that are no better. For example, Special Rapporteur Richard Falk has made a career of zealously pursuing causes that fit his political agenda, with exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims, rather than focusing on concrete human rights issues. In fact, had his judgment been examined prior to his appointment, that examination would have suggested that he should never have been hired in the first place. For example, just over 32 years ago he hailed the rise of Ayatollah Khomenei in Iran as potentially ushering in an era of humane governance. In The New York Times, he wrote an op-ed entitled "Trusting Khomenei." In that piece, he stated that he saw "hopeful signs, including the character and role" of the Ayatollah and declared that the Iran of Ayatollah Khomenei "may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country." Of course, his horrid analysis ignored the Ayatollah's fairly extensive body of writings and speeches that suggested that Iran would much more likely enter an era of religion-driven oppression that would suffocate even the most basic liberties. Why, one would reasonably have asked, did Mr. Falk expect an outcome that was radically different from what Ayatollah Khomenei had long written or preached about? His error had nothing to do with future events that could not have been foreseen. Instead, it dealt with woeful judgment in which he assumed that the Ayatollah would offer a form of leadership that was fundamentally different from the ideology he had long advocated.

In short, until the UN can address its structural and personnel issues, it is not likely to offer an effective voice on human rights, much less develop mechanisms that can better safeguard such basic rights.

spud_meister said:

Are you gonna invade every country with a repressed population? So when're you going to invade Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, Gambia, Central African Republic, Iran, Syria, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, North Korea and Fiji?

Click to expand...

Not all at once. Not alone, without a coalition. Building force capability in local democratic states can provide for regional coalitions. The two primary areas with democracy deficits are the Middle East and Africa. Build coalitions in those regions.

That said, use of force will not be required in all situations. Once our will is demonstrated to deal directly and forcefully with humanitarian abusers, other leverage will be more effective.

donsutherland1 said:

Although I do not believe it is the obligation of any particular nation to intervene militarily in Libya, I do believe a UN Security Council resolution that would impose sanctions that bar commercial activity with Libya until the Gaddafi dictatorship has stepped down would be helpful. Unfortunately, I expect no such decisive resolutions from the UN, even as genuine crimes against humanity are being committed by the Libyan dictatorship and its armed elements.

IMO, much fundamental reform is needed before the UN can begin to offer a credible voice on human rights. Those fundamental problems relate to structural and personnel issues.

Its Commission on Human Rights does little more than engage in politicized crusades that often have little or nothing to do with the world's worst human rights abuses. This should not be surprising, as some of the world's worst human rights abusers have enjoyed seats on the Commission. Even worse, the General Assembly lends support to those far afield crusades, squandering time that could be devoted to human rights and granting license to the Commission to ignore human rights abuses.

In terms of senior personnel, some of its appointees have records that are no better. For example, Special Rapporteur Richard Falk has made a career of zealously pursuing causes that fit his political agenda, with exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims, rather than focusing on concrete human rights issues. In fact, had his judgment been examined prior to his appointment, that examination would have suggested that he should never have been hired in the first place. For example, just over 32 years ago he hailed the rise of Ayatollah Khomenei in Iran as potentially ushering in an era of humane governance. In The New York Times, he wrote an op-ed entitled "Trusting Khomenei." In that piece, he stated that he saw "hopeful signs, including the character and role" of the Ayatollah and declared that the Iran of Ayatollah Khomenei "may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country." Of course, his horrid analysis ignored the Ayatollah's fairly extensive body of writings and speeches that suggested that Iran would much more likely enter an era of religion-driven oppression that would suffocate even the most basic liberties. Why, one would reasonably have asked, did Mr. Falk expect an outcome that was radically different from what Ayatollah Khomenei had long written or preached about? His error had nothing to do with future events that could not have been foreseen. Instead, it dealt with woeful judgment in which he assumed that the Ayatollah would offer a form of leadership that was fundamentally different from the ideology he had long advocated.

In short, until the UN can address its structural and personnel issues, it is not likely to offer an effective voice on human rights, much less develop mechanisms that can better safeguard such basic rights.

Click to expand...

I am impressed none-the-less that the UN General Assembly passed such a resolution in 2005. I don't know the reference, but international law evidently does not recognize humanitarian intervention as a justifiable reason to violate the sovereignty of a state. This resolution seems to put down a marker that it IS a justifiable reason, aligning itself with Just War Theory. Otherwise, the hell with International Law.

Personally, I don't trust the UN to make effective timely decisions along these lines. You provide a good explanation of why. Two of the Security Council Vetos are held by non-democratic states. To me, it is sufficient that they have recognized that humanitarian intervention is a justifiable reason.

Coalitions can be built and committed to invasion, outside the purvue of the UN. To start, I would recommend an ODS (Organization of Democratic States) be formed and funded, with executive power to commit force.

MaggieD said:

Let the Christian Science Monitor send their Christian Scientists.

Words of condemnation are plenty enough. We have no business on earth involving ourselves in the domestic policies of other countries until they step on our toes.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I say we wait until thousands of Americans die, because we weren't proactive enough to stop the stupid ****. Just like WW2...it'll be great.

Yes. Lets inflame the muslim world more and possibly stop the momentum of these demonstrations by sending in forces. [sarcasm]That couldn't possibly hurt us in the long run. [/sarcasm]

I think enforcing a no fly zone to stop the mass murder is a good idea, but beyond that, this is a battle that the Libyan people have to work out.

Realistically this is a Libyan issue, one that the Libyan will have to expend their blood, sweat and tears over. Material support (ie weapons) would be a good thing to provide but I feel that not much else should be done by outside forces other then to prevent material support reaching government forces.

Should the Libyan people take control over their government, through their own efforts, the deaths of their own people, they will not be as likely to let the government return to a despotic leader again. It will be their country and their government one they fought and died for. One they would be willing to fight and die for again. To have others do the fighting will lesson that effect

Even as another day of violence carried out by Libya's dictatorship unfolded, the UN Security Council had yet to consider any resolutions that would bar all commerce with Libya until the dictatorship steps aside. Indeed, the death toll in Libya may have risen to 1,000. At the same time, the dictatorship has likely given additional orders for airplanes to bomb civilians, something that at least one crew refused to do. The UN's lack of substantive action provided a fresh illustration of how that world body is ineffectual, and almost irrelevant, when actual war crimes/crimes against humanity are unfolding.

megaprogman said:

I think enforcing a no fly zone to stop the mass murder is a good idea, but beyond that, this is a battle that the Libyan people have to work out.

Click to expand...

Not sure how much good a no fly zone would be for this...

Qaddafi promised to hunt down protesters “house by house,” a day after his son warned that streets will “run with blood” if the protests continue.

Click to expand...

...unless of course they will be using jets to do the house by house searches.

donsutherland1 said:

Even as another day of violence carried out by Libya's dictatorship unfolded, the UN Security Council had yet to consider any resolutions that would bar all commerce with Libya until the dictatorship steps aside. Indeed, the death toll in Libya may have risen to 1,000. At the same time, the dictatorship has likely given additional orders for airplanes to bomb civilians, something that at least one crew refused to do. The UN's lack of substantive action provided a fresh illustration of how that world body is ineffectual, and almost irrelevant, when actual war crimes/crimes against humanity are unfolding.

Click to expand...

It is no surprise that the UN can't do anything substantive. Between the five Veto holders having differing views of Democracy and Government Sponsored crack-downs, the UN has no forces and is limited to making statements expressing disapproval, or at most institution sanctions and barring commercial activity, perhaps a declaration of Genocide, which Libya is not. Barring commercial activity hurts Europe more than it hurts Libya. I noted that Libya is not a signatory to the ICC.

Don, what do you think of this idea I mentioned:

Coalitions can be built and committed to invasion, outside the purvue of the UN. To start, I would recommend an ODS (Organization of Democratic States) be formed and funded, with executive power to commit force.

Click to expand...

I suppose it would start with a core of NATO, and may actually be a sensible replacement given that NATO has lost its raison d'être.

The US is too busy righting the world's wrongs in Afganistan and Iraq to get involved in Libya, so who is going to step in? The Libyans will have to take care of this one on their own.

reefedjib said:

Don, what do you think of this idea I mentioned:



I suppose it would start with a core of NATO, and may actually be a sensible replacement given that NATO has lost its raison d'être.

Click to expand...

IMO, the idea would face some of the issues currently faced by the UN, because the interests, circumstances, capabilities, and political dynamics of the democratic states would also differ in many areas. That they are democratic is a common attribute, but that commonality is probably insufficient to deploy substantial resources/manpower toward global democratization. Such an arragement would work in terms of a traditional defensive alliance in terms of safeguarding themselves from aggression and NATO is the de facto alliance of democratic states, though it doesn't include all of them.

Major barriers/issues include:

1. Regime change by itself cannot assure democracy. Democracy depends on many additional factors including a country's institutions, its traditions/culture, its history, role of ethnic/tribal rivalries, etc. Cases in which a regime change would lead to stable democratic governance, even in narrower circumstances where public uprisings against an authoritarian regime are present, would probably require a substantial amount of "nation building." Difficult challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan are often fairly typical when one is trying to establish democracy in states with little or no past democratic experience/institutions. It's not easy and genuine risks remain, even in Iraq where there has been some notable progress toward democratic governance vis-a-vis the situation that prevailed under Saddam Hussein.

2. Risks and resources required for the entire task could be substantial and they could (almost certainly will) compete with domestic needs. If so, popular support for such initiatives could be too low to sustain such commitments. In democratic countries, policies are not sustainable for the long-term if they cannot command sufficient popular support. Voters would simply elect leaders who would pursue policies more in line with their sentiments/desires.

3. If missions were launched but then aborted well before the foundation for sustainable democracy were in place, sacrifices (resources and manpower) could wind up having been made with little or no long-term payoff. That unsatisfactory outcome would further undermine support for future efforts along those lines.

4. Major long-term factors also undercut the feasibility. Both in Europe and in the U.S., populations are aging (in some European countries and in Japan the population is declining), and major fiscal imbalances loom. Fiscal resource scarcity/austerity will make it difficult for democratic governments to dedicate adequate resources (financial and manpower) to pursue missions aimed at expanding democracy. Indeed, I am quite worried, that one will witness pressures for increased disengagement from the world at large in the U.S. and parts of Europe as fiscal situations become more challenging. Under such circumstances, the kind of neo-isolationist/non-interventionist approach championed by some political leaders could gain broader public support and begin to redefine foreign policy/national security decisions. In a worst case, disengagement could dramatically shift the global balance of power in a fashion that is ultimately harmful to the interests of the disengaging states.

Ultimately, I suspect that efforts will need to be far more targeted and narrowly defined if there is to be sufficient public support to pursue such commitments. Regional actors who have a greater vested stake in the outcome will need to play a larger role, though democratic countries can play a supporting role. The problem is that in regions such as the Middle East, most countries are non-democratic in nature. Hence, their governments are not likely to advocate intervention that might ultimately create pressures on their own governments to become more democratic. Emergency intervention for narrower purposes e.g., to stem massive bloodshed or avert conflict contagion that could destabilize the region, might be more feasible. Instead, frustrating as the slow timeframe might be, patience will likely remain the policy de jour. If so, there will continue to be cases where the desires/needs of populations and outcomes delivered by governments will diverge to the point where instability erupts. Democratic governments are great in harnessing change. Non-democratic ones are rigid and more suspectible to violent revolutions when their power decays and/or local needs/desires become sufficiently divergent from what those governments can offer.

I do wish I had a more optimistic outlook on such an approach. But I see signficiant limitations and barriers and can only note that there had been widespread enthusiasm/optimism when the UN was established. Yet, over time, that institution greatly underperformed relative to the expectations/hopes of those who created it.

donsutherland1 said:

IMO, the idea would face some of the issues currently faced by the UN, because the interests, circumstances, capabilities, and political dynamics of the democratic states would also differ in many areas.

Click to expand...

I think we see that in NATO as well. That's a real shame. Since we won't be able to maintain "nation-building", for the reasons you point out, it will be up to the youth, the broader working and middle class to demonstrate, and those countries' Armies to turn them into successful revolutions. That's the first step. Then you need sufficiently moderate and enlightened Army leadership to guide to a democracy. We have seen how often that turns out successfully.

4. Major long-term factors also undercut the feasibility. Both in Europe and in the U.S., populations are aging (in some European countries and in Japan the population is declining), and major fiscal imbalances loom. Fiscal resource scarcity/austerity will make it difficult for democratic governments to dedicate adequate resources (financial and manpower) to pursue missions aimed at expanding democracy. Indeed, I am quite worried, that one will witness pressures for increased disengagement from the world at large in the U.S. and parts of Europe as fiscal situations become more challenging. Under such circumstances, the kind of neo-isolationist/non-interventionist approach championed by some political leaders could gain broader public support and begin to redefine foreign policy/national security decisions. In a worst case, disengagement could dramatically shift the global balance of power in a fashion that is ultimately harmful to the interests of the disengaging states.

Click to expand...

Sounds momentous and strategic. It will continue to be about the oil, though, no?

Another day, and no UN Security Council resolution. The tragedy in Libya provides the latest case example that nation states, not the UN, are key to safeguarding and expanding human rights. It also reaffirms that the balance of power and diplomacy at the national level are key to bolstering security and addressing international disputes. The harsh reality is that even as the concepts of world organization and collective security sound good on paper, in practice they are ineffectual or worse.

donsutherland1 said:

Another day, and no UN Security Council resolution. The tragedy in Libya provides the latest case example that nation states, not the UN, are key to safeguarding and expanding human rights. It also reaffirms that the balance of power and diplomacy at the national level are key to bolstering security and addressing international disputes. The harsh reality is that even as the concepts of world organization and collective security sound good on paper, in practice they are ineffectual or worse.

Click to expand...

I do not understand what you are saying here don. What do you want the UN to do. I understand it has privately, made public, told Gadaffi to stop what he is doing and I do not think it has a remit to interfere in the private affairs of a state..

From what I have heard Gadaffi has little power left and it is probably just time. Sanctions would surely only hurt Libya which I understand is bordering on bankruptcy.

I appreciate everyone is very concerned for the people. One of our MP's was saying yesterday that we had to give orders to our planes which are in the area to bomb any Libyan planes which set about bombing civilians but I do not know if even that is a good idea.

The no fly zone, yes. If someone can give Gaddafi asylum that might help, but otherwise though I do not like seeing loss of life any more than anyone else, I am with Megaprogman and Lord Tammerlain on this one. I do not trust any of those deserting rats of Gaddafi's any more than himself and I think when the people free themselves as I think is almost certain, then they really will know what they have earned and then they will as a nation be in a position to choose human rights for themselves.

alexa said:

I do not understand what you are saying here don. What do you want the UN to do. I understand it has privately, made public, told Gadaffi to stop what he is doing and I do not think it has a remit to interfere in the private affairs of a state..

Click to expand...

I believe that on account of the regime's continuing crimes agains humanity, the UN Security Council should adopt a resolution condemning those crimes, calling for those responsible to be brought to justice, perhaps establishing a no-fly zone over the country, and imposing sanctions on the regime that would continue until it is gone.

From what I have heard Gadaffi has little power left and it is probably just time. Sanctions would surely only hurt Libya which I understand is bordering on bankruptcy.

Click to expand...

Sanctions would be targeted strictly at the regime. Its overseas finances would be frozen. Its ability to finance the mercenaries who have played a leading role in the atrocities would be diminished. My position on the sanctions is exactly that which was called for by Libya's diplomats in New York who have disassociated from the dictatorship.

One of our MP's was saying yesterday that we had to give orders to our planes which are in the area to bomb any Libyan planes which set about bombing civilians but I do not know if even that is a good idea.

Click to expand...

I am not expecting military intervention.

Finally, I do not believe a resolution will be forthcoming. IMO, cases such as the Rwandan genocide and crimes against humanity ongoing in Libya illustrate the vast limitations of world organzation/collective security. If the occurrence of crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide (no genocide is occurring in Libya as far as I know) are to be meaningfully reduced, I suspect that new arrangements and frameworks will need to be devised. The ongoing situation only reaffirms that the UN is probably not a major part of the solution. Perhaps a framework where the International Court of Justice, which already has jurisdiction over the crimes cited, could issue an emergency injunction that would immediately freeze an offending country's assets, suspend commercial transactions with that country, etc., could be part of such a framework. Of course, safeguards would need to be in place to assure that the mechanism would not wind up becoming largely politicized e.g., just because a country is authoritarian in nature would not be sufficient to lead to such an emergency injunction.

donsutherland1 said:

I believe that on account of the regime's continuing crimes agains humanity, the UN Security Council should adopt a resolution condemning those crimes, calling for those responsible to be brought to justice, perhaps establishing a no-fly zone over the country, and imposing sanctions on the regime that would continue until it is gone.

Click to expand...

Well I think the crimes against humanity are one of the reasons why noone feels able to offer him asylum. However you are wanting I think the UN to change because of Liybia and I am not sure changing the UN because of a man who it would appear is out of touch with reality would necessarily be a good thing.



The Liybian people have themselves called for those responsible to be brought to justice, though in this situation I suspect that it will be the Libyian people who will bring that about.

donsutherland1 said:

Sanctions would be targeted strictly at the regime. Its overseas finances would be frozen. Its ability to finance the mercenaries who have played a leading role in the atrocities would be diminished. My position on the sanctions is exactly that which was called for by Libya's diplomats in New York who have disassociated from the dictatorship.

Click to expand...

Well I thought I heard last night that the US had frozen his assets. Obviously it would be good if he could not finance the mercenaries but so far he seems to be managing, whilst, from what I hear, other people are quite unable to get money to pay for plane fares out.

donsutherland1 said:

Finally, I do not believe a resolution will be forthcoming. IMO, cases such as the Rwandan genocide and crimes against humanity ongoing in Libya illustrate the vast limitations of world organzation/collective security. If the occurrence of crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide (no genocide is occurring in Libya as far as I know) are to be meaningfully reduced, I suspect that new arrangements and frameworks will need to be devised. The ongoing situation only reaffirms that the UN is probably not a major part of the solution. Perhaps a framework where the International Court of Justice, which already has jurisdiction over the crimes cited, could issue an emergency injunction that would immediately freeze an offending country's assets, suspend commercial transactions with that country, etc., could be part of such a framework. Of course, safeguards would need to be in place to assure that the mechanism would not wind up becoming largely politicized e.g., just because a country is authoritarian in nature would not be sufficient to lead to such an emergency injunction.

Click to expand...

I didn't know you had such expectations of the UN. I understood it to be an organisation with the remit to step in on International issues. People I know have been wondering if it will make an exception on this one and it seems so far not. Now, if Gadaffi were by some manner to quell his people or if he somehow was able to get the rest of the country back, maybe the situation would be a bit different - though it wasn't after T Square.

You are wanting something new and different from the UN. You are suggesting some other organisation take over I think. What actually are you wanting? Who will be the policeman? Does Israel for instance recognise the International Court of Justice?

For the situation in Liybia

Gaddafi has lost it ... - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

donsutherland1 said:

I believe that on account of the regime's continuing crimes agains humanity, the UN Security Council should adopt a resolution condemning those crimes, calling for those responsible to be brought to justice, perhaps establishing a no-fly zone over the country, and imposing sanctions on the regime that would continue until it is gone.



Sanctions would be targeted strictly at the regime. Its overseas finances would be frozen. Its ability to finance the mercenaries who have played a leading role in the atrocities would be diminished. My position on the sanctions is exactly that which was called for by Libya's diplomats in New York who have disassociated from the dictatorship.



I am not expecting military intervention.

Finally, I do not believe a resolution will be forthcoming. IMO, cases such as the Rwandan genocide and crimes against humanity ongoing in Libya illustrate the vast limitations of world organzation/collective security. If the occurrence of crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide (no genocide is occurring in Libya as far as I know) are to be meaningfully reduced, I suspect that new arrangements and frameworks will need to be devised. The ongoing situation only reaffirms that the UN is probably not a major part of the solution. Perhaps a framework where the International Court of Justice, which already has jurisdiction over the crimes cited, could issue an emergency injunction that would immediately freeze an offending country's assets, suspend commercial transactions with that country, etc., could be part of such a framework. Of course, safeguards would need to be in place to assure that the mechanism would not wind up becoming largely politicized e.g., just because a country is authoritarian in nature would not be sufficient to lead to such an emergency injunction.

Click to expand...

Compared to other horrors in the world as you mention above and go on all the time, I have to wonder why all the discussion about this uprising and the government reaction. This is a country with 6 million people. They produce about 2% of the world's oil. If it wasn't for the threat of cantagion in Saudi Arabia who cares about Libya or what happens there. What is their contribution to the world. I feel sorry that the people have to live in the conditions there but they have put up with this guy for about 40 years. They did not have a problem with him when he ordered the bombing of that Pan Am flight. If you look at all the terror and outright killing that these people seemed to be fine with, why the big tears for them???

washunut said:

Compared to other horrors in the world as you mention above and go on all the time, I have to wonder why all the discussion about this uprising and the government reaction. This is a country with 6 million people. They produce about 2% of the world's oil. If it wasn't for the threat of cantagion in Saudi Arabia who cares about Libya or what happens there. What is their contribution to the world. I feel sorry that the people have to live in the conditions there but they have put up with this guy for about 40 years. They did not have a problem with him when he ordered the bombing of that Pan Am flight. If you look at all the terror and outright killing that these people seemed to be fine with, why the big tears for them???

Click to expand...

I don't hold all Libyans collectively guilty for the dictatorship's role in terrorism and other crimes. Moreover, many of Libya's younger people were not even alive when the Lockerbie terrorist attack occurred. Finally, if crimes against humanity are inexcusable under the laws of war and other aspects of international law, one cannot pick and choose targets against which such crimes are justified. Otherwise, those principles are not credible.

Finally, as I did in numerous discussions here at DP, I do not believe that the convicted terrorist should have been released under any circumstances. Moreover, I have significant concerns about the "diagnosis" that was given and would not be opposed to an inquiry into the matter and appropriate sanctions were wrongdoing found. Error, of course, is not wrongoing, and it is possible that the diagnosis given was erroneous.

donsutherland1 said:

I don't hold all Libyans collectively guilty for the dictatorship's role in terrorism and other crimes. Moreover, many of Libya's younger people were not even alive when the Lockerbie terrorist attack occurred. Finally, if crimes against humanity are inexcusable under the laws of war and other aspects of international law, one cannot pick and choose targets against which such crimes are justified. Otherwise, those principles are not credible.

Finally, as I did in numerous discussions here at DP, I do not believe that the convicted terrorist should have been released under any circumstances. Moreover, I have significant concerns about the "diagnosis" that was given and would not be opposed to an inquiry into the matter and appropriate sanctions were wrongdoing found. Error, of course, is not wrongoing, and it is possible that the diagnosis given was erroneous.

Click to expand...

I agree that we should not have any type of collective punishment. I just don't think America needs to risk any lives to stop the fighting over there.

washunut said:

I agree that we should not have any type of collective punishment. I just don't think America needs to risk any lives to stop the fighting over there.

Click to expand...

I don't believe the U.S. should intervene militarily either. In fact, I believe that the costs of doing so would exceed the benefits. Expressing support for the ouster of the dictatorship, backing sanctions against the regime/freezing its assets, and participating in no fly-zone enforcement (if necessary, though I don't believe that will be the case) would be sufficient. The regime is finished. It's more a matter of when, not if. Had the sanctions been imposed earlier, they might have facilitated the process. Now, each day sees more defections against the regime and each new occurrence of atrocities further accelerates that process. Helping organize reconstruction assistance/humanitarian aid afterward could be beneficial.

In 2005, the UN General Assembly endorsed the idea of an international “responsibility to protect” innocent people from great harm within a sovereign country. That principle was elevated by the UN in large part because of its failure to intervene in the Rwanda genocide.

Click to expand...

Gotta love the effectiveness of the UN... They "endorsed the idea"..... That's almost as strong as writing a letter of dismay, well actually it's not even close. :lol: