Couldn't he be removed and tried under international law as a war criminal for the slaughter of unnarmed cavillians?

If the following is correct, it seems like the US and their friends have already made up there minds to act illegally.

"Three B-2 Spirit bombers, piloted by two men each, made it back after the 11,418-mile round trip from the Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri (where the B-2’s are kept in special climate controlled hangars) to Libya where they attacked targets of forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi, and then back again.

After the first wave of more than 110 Tomahawk missiles launched from allied warships in the Mediterranean, they struck yesterday morning on "a variety of strategic targets over Libya" according to the US Air Force.

They dropped a total of 45 one-tonne satellite guided missiles on Libyan aircraft shelters before making the 5,709 mile journey back to their base in Missouri."

So much for the rule of law.

David

Interesting, we get slapped with International Law around the chops regularly on OLO, it seems to be a flimsy thing indeed, if everyone except academics can ignore it when they please.

It's always held up though by authors, outraged that it is being ignored, but it doesn't appear to actually exist, does it?

If everyone can ignore it, if there is no way to uphold it, then is it just a vehicle for progressive types to puff up about and finger point at whom they please in faux or other, outrage.

On another note, if this was President Bush at the controls of this activity, would we have howls by now of him being a War Criminal?

Why is President Obama not being castigated for war crimes, as the author says, he is breaking International Law.

International Law was held to be the basis of President Bush and PM John Howard being war criminals.

So is Obama a war criminal, or am I going to get a whole lot of weaselly caveats and conditions absolving Obama but still allowing for hate of Bush and Howard?

So why aren't the progressive types outraged by Obama's war crimes, and why are they not naming him as such, organizing protest marches, burning effigies and similarly the Australian government for actually cheer-leading this whole affair.

Surely if Howard was a war criminal by his involvement, then Rudd and Gillard similarly are? (Saddam was killing his own people too, with chemical and other weapons)

If you believe international law is a valid thing, at all - why was it valid to many for Bush and Howard, but they are all silent now that it is Obama, Rudd and Gillard involved in similar "crimes"?

I've noticed this before about lawyers. They can always find justification for flying in the face of reason.

Although, in traditional lawyerly fashion, this one comes with the built-in caveat, that the actions are "almost certainly" illegal. Leaving room, as they always do, for plenty of those mutually highly lucrative discussions between legal teams that lawyers and their financial planners love so much.

If she had a mind to, I am sure that Dr Pert could come up with a contrary justification for the action against Gaddafi on the basis of, say, malum in se. After all, it can hardly be argued that the gentle Colonel has the best interests of his citizenry at heart, right now. Would this not - of course, I am not a lawyer - but would this not effectively disqualify him from the protection that the good doctor wishes to afford him?

I'd be interested too, to determine whether this action could be squeezed into the definition of iura novit curia, where it is not up to the lawyers to decide ahead of time the law that applies - that prerogative rests with the court. Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius, Doctor Pert.

If there was ever any need to reinforce my view that lawyers operate at the same ethical level as politicians, this article would accomplish that.

But it's Monday morning, and I'm feeling distinctly liverish. Maybe I'll feel better by lunchtime.

Let’s be careful here. How sure can we be that Gaddafi is the demon that Obama, Cameron or Sarkozy are making him out to be?

Before the coup that saw Gaddafi rise to power in 1969, the UK and US were ripping oil out of Libya and basically keeping the profits for themselves. Gaddafi put an end to that. Life from that point forward changed dramatically in Libya, from largely poor tribalism to a very different westernised society.

Gaddafi has always been a champion of the underclasses, supporter of suppressed indigenous peoples, and staunch advocate of equality for women, which has put him at strong odds with the Muslin and Arab world.

His actions over many years have supported these passions. Mandela praised him for his principles when he won freedom in 1990.

He has survived as leader for 42 years, not just because of brute strength but because he has arguably been one the world’s rare GOOD dictators.

Who knows what bad things might have happened along the way, instigated by Gaddafi. But I think we need to be very careful about the message that we are receiving in the western media that is nothing other than condemnatory of him.

Not only is American or UN support for the rebels highly questionable in international law, but we’ve also got to wonder whether they are actually supporting the right side when it comes to humanitarian principles or whether they have a huge vested interest in deposing Gaddafi…. namely oil.

You are right Ludwig.The reason for the US being there is the oil.Strangely the US is also hitting Rebels and civilians in their attacks.The US also cannot afford the Rebels who represent the people to win.

I read one scenario whereby the US will suddenly find Al Queda is working with the Rebels and so to protect the US people and us from the evil terrorists,they will side with no one and remove both opposing forces and put in their own puppet.If he is right,expect another terrorist attack soon.