The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Whether declared or not, we are at war in Libya > Comments

Whether declared or not, we are at war in Libya : Comments

By Gary Brown, published 5/4/2011

The west needs to prosecute the war in Libya so as to successfully and speedily remove Gaddafi from power.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
This is an appallingly ignorant article and I am concerned that On Line Opinion should lend its space for the propagation of such ill-informed nonsense.
Has Mr Brown any concept at all of international law? Plainly not as he manifestly has not read the terms of not only SCR 1973 but also SCR 1970 which preceded it and which specifically prohibits the arming of any party to the Libyan civil conflict.
Regime change is also contrary to international law.
There is at the least a respectable argument that SCR 1973 is itself contrary to the UN Charter and thus has no validity in international law.
We now have evidence that US special forces and CIA forces were in Libya before the SCR resolution, as were British special forces. That also is contrary to international law.
It seems to have become fashionable in at least the circles that Mr Brown inhabits to pretend the rule of law is merely a convenience to be used when it suits and discarded when it does not. If that is inddded the way of the future (and Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that it is) then the futre is very bleak inded.
Posted by James O'Neill, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 6:27:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok.....your really going to rub it in.................my advice to Bob Brown, would of consisted of, "with keeping your nose out of World Views. So the greens will have to bare that cross, and the bloody normalizes of what continuable assets this party rep,s.

Bob Brown. When some are born, some sit well with the drivers seat, as it comes with its territorial grounds.......Put simply.....some have got it and some do not...........sorry, you did start out well.

With the topic.........Not well thought about friend, not at all.

LEAP
Posted by Quantumleap, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 7:25:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James: Without intervention that thug Gadaffi would already have massacred who-knows-how-many in Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya. When you'd finished with your international law textbooks, you could have gone there and helped count the bodies. Then you could come home and pontificate about Gadaffi's violations of international law. Win-win for a sanctimonious theorist... pity about the Libyan people, though.

Quantum Leap: against whom or what is your incoherent diatribe directed? Bob Brown is not the author of this piece.
Posted by The Godless, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 8:00:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"incoherent diatribe........just what it is.

Leap
Posted by Quantumleap, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 8:19:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, wrong thread, but right intentions.

Graffiti/moron is one of those 19th century out-of-date Murders, thats not being equal with the New World what has already begun. Look the world, its in the middle of a shake up, and the man beast, is having some codifications ( on this small and tiny planet ):) In time, all will come together:)

LEAP
Posted by Quantumleap, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 10:15:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James, do you have a link to "International Law" it seems an abstract term?

You might want to post just what International Laws are being broken here, and by whom, how they can be prosecuted (and by whom).

"Has Mr Brown any concept at all of international law?" should he?

Your outrage at Gary's article appears somewhat confected, and you use the term international law as some sort of vapish pillar to your outrage.

You might disagree with Gary,I frequently do, but this just smacks of made up anger at something else. Hopefully it is not that you want to see the rebels massacred. If the rebels are not armed, and given some assistance, they are all going to die, badly and Gaddafi will go on in an ever more brutal regime (but according to the fabled, International Law, perfectly within his rights to massacre people)

"Regime change is also contrary to international law.", really ? There is law that prohibits, exactly that? Or am I going to get some obscure definition now of "contrary" .. is it against the law or not .. what law is it specifically against.

I suspect people who point to International Law, fall into Clausewitz's reference to "those who wield political instruments" (or would like to?)
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 7:22:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Other COMMENTERS and GARY:

should realise this whole Libyan rebel movement looks like an apolitical sham.

Where are the demoocratic vigils in squares, middle class leaders and woman advocating a political alternative to Gaddafi? There appears to be no democracy movement in Libya just a thin, fighting rebel movement.

Unlike democracy movements in other Arab countries - the Libyan rebels appear to have little political agenda - other than being young bloods from anti-Gaddafi tribes, who might be quietly paid by Western agencies.

The West/NATO can't create democratic political movements by BOMBING or freezing Libya's phone system (through what Gary suggests - "EW").

If the Wests two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't enough why start a third Middle Eastern War? Why skyrocket our oil prices while wrecking Libya?

Obama and his officials recognise the rebels lack legitimacy because the rebels are totally reliant on the West/NATO aircraft.

Obama recognises the long-term risks of transforming rebel youngbloods into a Libyan wave of al Qaida - into a radicalised Libyan force that seems incapable of governing Libya, has no fixed address, but has experience in blowing things up.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-covert-action-to-be-scaled-up-in.html
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 12:55:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@RPG. Thank you for your response. I assure you that there is nothing confected about my outrage. The questions you pose are too big to be answered in the constraints of this letter.
In brief however, international law is not some theoretical construct. It governs relations between nations whether they are parties to agreements or not. In the present case all the relevant parties are members of the UN and as such bound by the terms of the UN Charter. The Charter provides tight constraints upon a member state in attacking another member state. The exceptions to the general prohibition do not apply in the present case. Ergo, the attack on Libya is unlawful notwithstanding SC Resolution 1973. Even if 1973 was lawful then the actions of the attacking States already exceed its limits. It is one reason Norway has withdrawn from the operation.
This is not the place for a treatise on international law but you are free to consult any of the major textbooks on the topic to verify the claims I made in my original letter.
I repeat my essential point: either we are a nation governed by law (including abiding by our international law obligations) or we are not. It is obvious from our government's response that we only refer to the rule of law when it suits us. Such selective morality was obvious from Mr Brown's article and I do not apologise for being appalled.
Posted by James O'Neill, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 3:11:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
james, fair enough, your outrage is genuine .. my perception was that it is based in Gary's dodging of what you see as a clear obligation.

I have referred to law books and UN charters, notwithstanding our own law, there is no "International Law" is there?

You make the stetement that "international Law" is being broken, that regime change is "contrary" to international law - when no such law exists, except a abstract concepts.

The average bloke like me is left with the idea that there is a set of laws out there that govern the behavior of everyone, all countries - when there is NOT.

James, it is misleading, is my point .. would you agree?
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 7 April 2011 7:03:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@RPG
Of course there is international law and the topic is so obvious there is hardly any point in discussing it further.

I am neither mistaken nor misleading anyone.

I can only suggest that you look at any standard international law text. They are replete with examples of international law in operation. The international law of the sea for example is hardly an abstract. Ditto the international criminal court in The Hague. Ditto the World Trade Organization; the Geneva Conventions etc etc.

The UN Charter is one of the fundamental international law documents. It forbids one country from attacking another except in very limited circumstances. In Libya's case none of the exceptions apply. the aim of the current attacks are clearly aimed at removing Ghaddafi. That is illegal and the posturing of Rudd et al about "humanitarian intervention" does not alter that one jot.

Don't take my word for it. If the texts don't tell you the answers take this correspondence to your local university and ask one of the law professors if I am correct or not.
Posted by James O'Neill, Thursday, 7 April 2011 11:02:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
james - point me to the law that prohibits regime change .. please
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 7 April 2011 5:19:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@RPG

For the lawyer's version read the article by Steven Wheatley in the European Journal of International Law vol 17(3) pp531-551.

If that is a little heavy go to The Guardian website for an article by Robert Booth 28 March 2011

I really don't have time to spell out the obvious.
Posted by James O'Neill, Thursday, 7 April 2011 6:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If International "law" prohibits us saving Libyans from slaughter at Gaddafi's hands, why then, Sir, the law's an ass.
Posted by The Godless, Thursday, 7 April 2011 7:38:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@The Godless

The law is not an ass. What is an ass are people who swallow self-serving propaganda about non-existent "slaughter". You might like to acquaint yourself with the facts about the armed insurrection by people armed and encouraged by the CIA before the matter even came before the UN. How do you suppose the Australian government would react if, say, Western Australia mounted an armed insurrection in opposition to Canberra rule?

You might also ask yourself why the Americans are silent on the "slaughter" of unarmed protesters in Bahrein by a despotic royal family (Sunni in a country 70% Shi'ite), aided by the Saudis using American tanks etc. The Saudis banned any protests at all in favour of democratic reform and have killed those who went ahead anyway. Again not a peep out of the americans.

The Libyan situation is a great deal more complex than the Australian media even begins to hint at. Your obvious swallowing of one version is not only a reflection on the poor quality of our mainstream media. It speaks volumes about people too lazy to actually try and find out what is going on, content instead to parrot the Rudd-Gillard idiocies and blame situations they neither like nor understand on the law. If you bother to actually think about it, the law is what we rely on to maintain a thin veneer of protection for ourselves from despotic governments.
Posted by James O'Neill, Thursday, 7 April 2011 10:24:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is noone bothered about Bahrain? Well the Emir/Sultan/etc. of Bahrain did NOT sponsor the Lockerbie bombing, or the many other atrocities that have not only been credited to Libya's nutcase Qaddaffi-duck, but which have been claimed by him as well. Why is the West doing nothing to help Shi'ite protestors? Maybe because they are sick of trying, last time they tried to help, Al-Sadr blew the whole thing out of proportion, the time before that, they blew up a car-bomb underneath the US Embassy in Beirut. On top of that, we have the Iranian Clerics/etc. openly calling for insurrection against the Saudi Gov't, the Bahrain Gov't, the Lebanese Gov't, etc.

As to why the west is dragging its heels at the present time, the bulk of the rabble are Al-Quaeda insurgents/sympathizers, the west is doing the very least it can to assist them, while doing as little as possible to stop the Libyan army. In the long term, it is better for us to let them kill one another. It is also better for the hard-core Rebels, including the various General's that went over at the start of this, if the rabble is dealt with first. The well-trained, poorly equipped regular army forces that defected are the only ones ANYONE is interested in equipping to take on the Libyan Army, the West knows who is behind them, not comparable to the disorganised rabble dying by the day now.

When my enemy fights my enemy, I'll do anything in my power to ensure that they do the best possible job of removing each other from the planet (Israel supplied aircraft parts to both Iran & Iraq in the 1980's). The few, privileged, pro-western Leaders, with intact command structures are too valuable to waste in the current war of attrition, they'll be rearmed, re-equipped and retrained in time to take advantage of the damage done to both sides before they are unleashed.
Posted by Aaron 1975, Thursday, 14 April 2011 8:35:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy