Namarrgon posted:

Military legality is an incredibly murky issue and usually in the end it doesn't really matter what is said on paper.

ibroxmassive posted:

But there is a big move away from the traditional idea of 'might is right' so making sure countries stay within international law is pretty important, especially when the actions of these British and Dutch soldiers would have otherwise been a crime against peace.

quote:

July 15, 2008: Hannibal Gaddafi and his wife are arrested and charged with abusing their staff. They are released on bail and leave Switzerland. The servants are later compensated and charges withdrawn.

July: Swiss nationals Max Göldi and Rachid Hamdani are arrested as part of several anti-Swiss measures

January 2009: A diplomatic delegation travels to Tripoli.

May: Swiss foreign minister visits Libya.

June: Libya withdraws most assets from Swiss bank accounts.

August: The Swiss president apologises in Tripoli for the arrest.

October: A 60-day limit for normalising relations passes.

November: Swiss ministers say they will pursue visa restrictions for Libyans. On November 30 Göldi and Hamdani sentenced to 16 months in prison and fined for visa violations.

January 2010: Their terms are overturned and cut.

February 14: A Libyan newspaper reports Switzerland has drawn up a blacklist of 188 top Libyans.

February 15: Libya stops issuing visas to citizens of nations in the Schengen zone.

February 22: Göldi ordered to report to prison. Hamdani obtains an exit visa.

March 3: Libya declares a trade and economic embargo of Switzerland.

March 27: Libya lifts its visa ban on Schengen citizens after EU president Spain says the visa blacklist against 188Libyans has been scrapped.

April 13: A Geneva court backs a claim by Hannibal Gaddafi that the publication of leaked police photos infringed his privacy, but rejects his claim for SFr100,000 ($95,000) in damages.

June 10: Göldi is released from jail and moves to a Tripoli hotel.

June 12: Swiss and Spanish foreign ministers travel to Tripoli.

June 14: Göldi arrives back in Switzerland.

Earwicker posted:

Pretty sure "might is right" is the idea that is still very much in place which is why the US has been conducting combat operations in nations we aren't at war with since the 60's. Have the US ever been punished for this? I'd say that, and the fact that the US has effectively made itself exempt from international war crimes trials, pretty much spells out that "might is right" is the real current "law".

ibroxmassive posted:

It's the unfortunate effect of sovereignty but I'd rather see 99% of derogations punished than let them go without any censure at all.

Earwicker posted:

Yes you see Al Queda somehow convinced half the Libyan populace to take 6000 sleeping pills each and then, while they were asleep and half dead, attacked them with dream magick turning them into Islamist zombies controlled by the western media.

SauceNinja posted:

These drugs can't exist unless he's had this strategy for quite some time. Who would send him 740,000 pounds of sedatives? That is a pretty wild plan though. How are we going to put down this revolution? Sedatives. Lots and Lots of sedatives. Water supply? Foods? Powder them and crop dust the protesters? And if all that doesn't work, we'll declare they're on crazy druggies. With Luke on one side and Sideous on the other. I think this plan falls into the Dooku range. Every time I see the word rebels, I think of X-wings and snow-speeders.

Mr.Pibbleton posted:

From my point of view, the protesters are evil!

quote:

The anti-Gaddafi National Libyan Council in Benghazi has responded to Venezuela's offer to mediate talks with Gaddafi.

The opposition council said they were only open to talks on Gaddafi's resignation or exile to stop the bloodshed, Reuters reports.

Ahmed Jabreel, an aide to ex-justice minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil who heads the council, also told the news agency that air strikes to set up a "no-fly" zone were needed to help topple Gaddafi.

"If there is any negotiation it will be on one single thing - how Gaddafi is going to leave the country or step down so we can save lives. There is nothing else to negotiate.

"The military council in Benghazi started organising themselves they have not taken any decision to move to the west but they are organising themselves so they can be ready for any development in the coming days."

quote:

"We will never negotiate with anybody on the blood of our people. The only way we can negotiate with Chavez is if Gaddafi goes to Venezuela," said Mr Gheriani. "Then we'll ask him to have Gaddafi back in Libya to be prosecuted by our justice."

quote:

Tunisian elections have been scheduled for 24 July, it has just been announced.

quote:

The Guardian's Martin Chulov tweets: "Rebels captured 6 african mercenaries in eastern libya today. Almost summarily executed them. A colleague stopped things."

quote:

Martin Chulov continues: "The captured mercenaries said they had entered #libya through an air force base in the south."

quote:

Mariah Carey, one of several stars criticised for performing at New Year's eve parties hosted by the Gaddafi family, has sought to distance themselves from the controversy.

In a statement on her website, Carey confirmed she had performed at a party "thrown by the sons of vicious, crazy dictator" Gaddafi and expressed her embarrassment.

quote:

"At the time, Libya was not in the news...Now it's become an issue in hindsight, which is sort of ridiculous. I was naive and unaware of who I was booked to perform for.I feel horrible and embarrassed to have participated in this mess.

"Going forward, this is a lesson for all artists to learn from. We need to be more aware and take more responsibility regardless of who books our shows. Ultimately we as artists are to be held accountable."

Her comments come after Beyonce said she had donated the money she received for performing at a party for the Gaddafi family to support earthquake relief in Haiti.

quote:

Lisa Goldman tweets: "Two sources confirm: Internet blocked in #Tripoli."

quote:

3:30pm
Sergei Chemezov, the head of state industrial holding for Russian Technologies, says that Russia is to lose $4 billion in arms exports to Libya due to the imposition of UN sanctions against Gaddafi's regime.

Brown Moses posted:

Few bits of news:

More protests were planned for Friday prayers, so I'm guessing they are preparing for another slaughter.

Narmi posted:

Disappointing, but not unexpected, that they'd try and execute the mercenaries. When Chulov said a "colleague" stopped them, was he referring to a reporter, or another Libyan?

Narmi posted:

Not sure how many people have seen this yet, but for anybody interested, Al Jazeera's director-general Wadah Khanfar TED talk was posted yesterday:

A historic moment in the Arab world

quote:

"BREAKING: Families of Misratah offered 200,000 Libyan Dinars to stop protesting

Brown Moses posted:

That's about $7000.

ChaosSamusX posted:

This just reeks of absolute and total desparation. Also, isn't this basically just Gaddafi paying the people he's ostensibly at civil war with (indirectly if not directly)?

ChaosSamusX posted:

This just reeks of absolute and total desparation. Also, isn't this basically just Gaddafi paying the people he's ostensibly at civil war with (indirectly if not directly)?

http://bigthink.com/ideas/31329 posted:

By Firouz Folani

Institute of Near-Western Studies

TEHRAN, Feb 24, 2011 -- As a wave of "people power" this month toppled dictators throughout the Americas, citizens of Africa and the Middle East—the world's prosperous democracies— felt joy and sympathy. Nowhere was this more true than here in Iran. But with the fall of the dictatorship in Washington, it's time for us, the world's one remaining superpower, to lay sentiment aside. We have to ask the tough questions: How can we be sure that the next American regime won't be even worse? How can we be sure, for that matter, that Americans are ready for democracy?

Officially, of course, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Cameroon, Nigeria, Turkey and other rich democracies support free speech, personal liberty, the rule of law and fair elections for every country on earth. But we have to balance our democratic ideals with a realistic assessment of our interests (and the world's) in resource-rich North America.

Why do I have my doubts? Because Americans lack our Judeo-Muslim traditions of brotherhood, peaceful assembly and debate. Far from thinking of the greater good of their society, most Americans embrace a tribal ethos of "what's in it for me and my clan?" Their loyalties tend to divide along tribal and regional lines. In recent years, for example, elected officials have mooted the idea that their state should (a) secede from the federal union (Texas), (b) create its own currency (South Carolina), and (c) enforce only those national laws with which its ruling warlords agree (Montana).

In this climate, many, if not most of the nation's people identify themselves first by tribe or religion (as in "Italian-American," "African-American," "Baptist" or "Red Stater"). Members of these tribes gather often throughout the year to celebrate themselves, and they're all too ready to spit on the cultures of others. When a national election is called, one-third to one-half of those eligible do not not bother to vote.

With their feeble sense of nationhood, Americans fall back on an individualism so extreme that their laws hold that even business corporations are people, with the same free-speech rights as a flesh-and-blood human being. Unfortunately, fully half the homes of these tribesmen are stocked with firearms. And Americans have been known to bring their weapons to ostensibly peaceful political rallies. In fact, political assassination has been a recurring problem in the United States for more than a century. Even in 2011, Federal officials who ventured into the untamed Western deserts have been threatened and even shot.

You might be tempted here to say that democracy is messy, and that the Americans should just be left to muddle along as best they can, and learn their lessons without our interference. Unfortunately, North America is a vital source of uranium, soybeans, situation comedies, inspirational speakers and other resources without which the global economy would collapse. Moreover, the country possesses a sizable cache of weapons of mass destruction. For both those reasons we and the other peace-loving nations of the world cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. If Americans are incapable of electing a sane and responsible government, the whole world will feel the consequences.

The heart of the problem, of course, is religion.

I disagree with some of my conservative friends who claim that Christianity is an inherently violent faith (we all know the litany: it has an instrument of torture for a symbol, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc). Yes, if you read through their Holy Book you find a lot of alarming stuff, but I am satisfied that the vast majority of Christians read these passages metaphorically. For most, their religion is almost as peaceful and civilized as our own.

That said, the United States abounds in fanatics who don't share this view. They are all too eager to turn the democratic process to their own nefarious ends. Many will claim to have renounced the gun for the ballot box, but can we trust them? Consider one Sarah Palin, an imam from a wild northern region where the central government's hold is weak. Last year, her election literature contained images of targets on the territories of opponents, and she has said that the secular state should base its laws on a Christian version of Sharia. Obviously Iran, Nigeria and the rest of the G7 cannot tolerate such a person in charge of America's nuclear arsenal.

Some say not to worry, because Americans, now that they're free, will vote in a government of moderates, who will move toward a healthy secular society. Extremists, they say, have little support and cannot win. But I am not so sure.

Outside the large cities where foreigners are welcome, a majority of Americans don't "believe" in evolution and many are not shy about expressing distrust for any religion but their own. True, religious fanatics are not a majority, even here. But they're well organized and determined. Often, too, they run social-service organizations that feed, clothe and shelter people, performing the functions that the feeble secular government cannot. That impresses people who might not otherwise share their zealot values.

Given Americans' poor grasp of democratic principles, it is not inconceivable that one or more of these militants could win at the ballot box. And, of course, an election won by the Tea-liban would be the last election permitted. Equally obviously, the country would then have to be liberated by the international community, at great expense in blood and treasure.

For all these reasons, I believe we have to face the hard facts: Much as we aspire to a peaceful, democratic world, we know some peoples are not yet ready for democracy, and the Americans are one of these. Our policy, then, should aim for an authoritarian strongman of the sort Americans understand and respect—someone who can flatter their national pride and keep their well-armed warlords under control. This people needs a few decades of practice before they'll be mature enough to govern themselves. It may not be politically correct, but we have to accept that fact.

Xandu posted:

Another amazing parody

SauceNinja posted:

Who would send him 740,000 pounds of sedatives?

Xandu posted:

Another amazing parody

quote:

Col Gaddafi has insisted for some time that those opposed to him are being given mind-altering drugs by al-Qaeda. Now, Libya's anti-narcotics department says it has interrupted a shipment of 37 million Tramadol painkillers, allegedly bought in Dubai by a dealer with links to al-Qaeda, Reuters reports.

quote:

"The target was the distribution of the drugs among young people through drug traffickers," said official Abdel Haqim Giniwa. "Thanks to all the hard work of the security forces, this quantity of the drug was intercepted. It would have caused social and economic disorder."

Brown Moses posted:

Bit of an update on the drugs:



If all the protesters were on Tramadol they'd all be at home drooling and watching State TV, not on the streets.

bich posted:

I ate tramodols a couple times and they made me clean my house and then take a really good nap

Brown Moses posted:

Bit of an update on the drugs:



If all the protesters were on Tramadol they'd all be at home drooling and watching State TV, not on the streets.

Sivias posted:

Maybe my information is a bit off. The point is, nearly half the voting populace didn't bother. That's an incredible number of people who decided to 'just stay in and watch TV instead.'

Brown Moses posted:

That's about $7000.

Koine posted:

So let me get this straight - Al Qaeda bought 37 million pills from a dealer in Dubai, another oil producing nation, to make people high for just long enough so that Gaddhafi could look like not a lunatic?

CG, you're a straight OG type of guy, aren't you? Don't take no, or "that's implausible", for an answer.

JSARSOM posted:

Hipster_Doofus posted:

Umm, who's driving?

quote:

Mubarak in Mubarak jacket

quote:

"The target was the distribution of the drugs among young people through drug traffickers," said official Abdel Haqim Giniwa. "Thanks to all the hard work of the security forces, this quantity of the drug was intercepted. It would have caused social and economic disorder."

quote:

President Obama said Thursday that he had ordered plans giving the U.S. military "full capacity to act, potentially rapidly," in Libya if the situation there deteriorates.