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

@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 It is one reason Norway has withdrawn from the operation.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.

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?

@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.

james - point me to the law that prohibits regime change .. please

@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.