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.

I feel I must be missing something here Ludwig.

You ask:

>>...whether they have a huge vested interest in deposing Gaddafi…. namely oil<<

Ummm... wouldn't it have been more sensible to side with Gaddafi, rather than the rebels, if oil is the issue? After all, he has been very accommodating recently...

Just asking.

ludwig, it sounds like you are supporting the clearly innocent Gaddafi who is now being unjustly attacked by the evil Americans and Europeans .. ? Your post describes him as almost saintly

Let’s be careful here
Gaddafi has always been a champion of the underclasses, supporter of suppressed indigenous peoples, and staunch advocate of equality for women
Mandela praised him
he has arguably been one the world’s rare GOOD dictators.

and the incredible ... "Who knows what bad things might have happened along the way, instigated by Gaddafi"

a couple of words to consider in your admiration and handwringing at all the injustice of your hero being attacked

terrorist support
Lockerbie

perhaps you should organise your mates and yourself to go over to protect Gaddafi the Good, as human shields? (we could end several problems at once with any luck)

arjay - So what if it's oil the US and Euros want, there's no secret that Gaddafi would not have had a bean of support or any money at all if it wasn't for oil. It's not some secret conspiracy, if you heard Donald Trump this morning "Either I go in and take the oil or I don't go in at all" This is no longer some namby pamby support the rebels because of human rights vehicle.

Oil is precious, get over it. We have posters on OLO bemoaning peak Oil, and others accusing them of scare tactics. Well maybe the scare has worked to mobilize the Americans to action, maybe they'll come take our oil if we don't behave.

It's about a resource that someone is misusing, Gaddafi is using his oil to fund violence, the US are using violence to fund getting oil.

This is how it has always been, powerful countries get sick of being p*ssed around and step in to take what they want and need.

Hello Pericles, long time no squabble!

In fact, we are communicating here without squabbling. Now that is truly amazing!! ( :>)

Is Gaddafi being genuinely accommodating of the US or did he foresee American support for forces working against him a year or so ago and move to stave it off by acceding more to their wishes?

He has a reputation for being unpredictable. Maybe the US feels that he is just too unreliable and that if he could have secured US support or neutrality and entrenched his continued leadership, he could then unwind any deals made with them.

I guess he’d figure that once the rebels are out of the picture, the US and UN wouldn’t have an opposition force to aid and abet and would have to go it alone if they wanted to remove him, which would be a blatant and very unlikely act of aggression.

I don’t know. This is just conjecture.

Legal, Illegal have no meanings to the one who imposes his/her wishes by brute force.

There is noting illegal until a law is made and made known.

The one who makes the law is the one who has sufficient power to enforce it and change it at his/her whim.

With the word ‘Law’ the question: Whose Law? is inevitable.

Dictatorship is the product of fear by the dictated.

I know. In front of my window there is a spanking new Police Station.

Verbal protests cannot disloge the weapons of a Dictator.

We dictated supply the servants and the tools that eventually crush us.

Feeling alright there Amicus? Careful of that blood pressure!

You do the silliest thing, which unfortunately is not unusual on OLO – you just jump straight to absolute end of the spectrum in your response.

It is worth considering the possibility that Gaddafi isn’t as bad as what he is purported to be. That’s all I’m saying.

Gee, how dare I say anything good about such a foul despicable tyrant!! Of course, you’d KNOW that he is nothing other than the worst of the worst tyrants, and that everything the western media says about him is absolutely true, without any exaggeration, wouldn’t you.

<< Perhaps you should organise your mates and yourself to go over to protect Gaddafi the Good, as human shields? (we could end several problems at once with any luck) >>

Dear oh dear, you are a nasty little so and so! ( :>|

I don’t believe that you can so blithely support the US (or not object to them) just going in and taking the oil, or deposing Gaddafi primarily because they want Libya’s oil or more of it than they are getting or at a much lower price or whatever, if that be the case.

<< This is how it has always been, powerful countries get sick of being p*ssed around and step in to take what they want and need. >>

Really?? I don’t think so! And it SURELY is not to be supported or condoned or glossed over as an apparent fact of life that we just have to live with! Wow!

This is an important article and OLO and the Australian (to my amazement) are to be congratulated for publishing it. It is not Dr Pert's fault that international law is selectively enforced and the neanderthals who think it is simply a means for enriching lawyers are dangerously ill-informed.

One could mount a respectable argument that the world is in its current sorry condition at least in part because of the failure by political leaders to punish wrongdoing. Thus Obama excuses illegal wiretapping, torture (admitted by both Bush and Cheney) although it is contrary to US domestic law as well as international law; waterboarding etc etc by his predecessor. He no doubt hopes that his successor will be similarly well disposed to Obama's already manifold illegalities.

Similarly in Australia. Not only does the Rudd-Gillard government refuse to countenance Howard's war crimes, but they are intent on adding their own, actively in Afghanistan and by explicit support in the case of Libya.

Whether Ghadaffi is a "good" or "bad" dictator is irrelevant. He has been supported by western powers at various stages when it suited them and demonised when it did not. He is merely one in a long list of dictators that the west supports. One of the tragedies of our media is that they concsistently fail to point out the hypocrisy in so may of our pronouncements and policies.

Compare and contrast the Gillard-Rudd, Obama, Cameron statements on
Libya with what they fail to say about Israel's use of cluster bombs and white phosporous in Operation Cast Lead in December 2008; the banning of all demonstrations in Saudi Arabia and killing those who dissent; the Saudi invasion in Bahrein and the killing of pro-democracy demonstrators there; etc etc.

Rather than sneering remarks about why aren't progressives doing something it would be more productive to look at one's own society and ask why we tolerate such polices by our government. After all, you probably voted for Howard or Rudd or Gillard over the past decade or so.

Skeptic,
Let me jump in before Runner and tell you that there is only one law and that is God's Law. (Who am I kidding?)

David

While I am no fan of Nelson Mandela's good buddy, Mumammur Gadaffi, I don't see why UK / France / USA are so keen to intervene.

Why not for once stay out and leave the Libyans to sort out their own mess?

Are you a lawyer too, by any chance, James O'Neill?

>>It is not Dr Pert's fault that international law is selectively enforced and the neanderthals who think it is simply a means for enriching lawyers are dangerously ill-informed<<

Lawyers, to my sure and certain knowledge, simply adore laws that i) are poorly written, ii) support multiple interpretations and iii) are, as you say, selectively enforced. Of course it is not Dr Pert's fault that this is the case here. But that does not mean that she cannot salivate over the opportunity afforded when adopting a suitably contrarian position.

It is none of her concern, as a lawyer, that a bunch of people are getting killed. Nor that a policy of "look away, dear, it's only some foreigners" can in itself be ethically criminal.

Was she, I wonder, one of the legal team advising the United Nations forces in Rwanda, as they stood passively back, observing the bloodshed of tens of thousands? On the basis of this article, that would come as no surprise.

But I suppose that is what being a lawyer entails. Find a suitably defensible intellectual argument, build a little pedestal on top of it on which to stand, and spruik for business. Who cares if people are dying. Right is right, and damn the torpedoes.

The rest of us in the meantime have to balance a whole lot more nuanced political situation, our dislike for tyrants tempered by our concerns about intervention, our fears for terrorised citizens weighed against our ignorance of the nature of the "rebels".

So lucky, not to have to take these little things into consideration, but instead remain blinkered to anything but a self-righteous, impersonal interpretation of "the law".

Which, as we all know, is an ass.

International Law? Civil War? International Law supports Nation States, as legally recognized, and the delivery of assistance to the same in the war against non-Sovereign entities within their borders. That is how we & the UN/NATO happen to be legally in Afghanistan, the UN/French in Ivory Coast, the UN in Macedonia/Serbia/Montenegro/Bosnia-Herzegovena, the Middle East, etc. It is PRECISELY what the UN is for - remember the minor conflict between the two Korea's? Which is still ongoing?

Qatar, several other Emirates, the Saudi's (the minute they are really asked - although given the presence of Al-Quaeda backed insurgents, they are already involved heavily), and the bulk of the African Nation States support Qaddaffi's being deposed as quickly as possible (they REALLY don't want their people watching others get supported, they'll get ideas). The UN Security Council has invoked it's mandate to protect civilians and the member States of NATO have decided that the best way to implement the same is to destroy Qaddaffi's Armed Forces. However, several UN/NATO Member's have recognized the rebel forces as the LEGITIMATE (ipso facto, Qaddaffi's regime is now illegitimate) LEADERSHIP of Libya.

As time goes on, the rebels, who are currently swapping oil for weapons, will only get stronger, while Qaddaffi's Army will be effectively rendered ineffective by the ongoing lack of resupply, lack of equipment and lack of trained formations (which get shot to hell by NATO Airstrikes whenever they are found). The trained rebel forces (several of which decamped early in the peace & more will follow as the writing on the wall gets clearer) will be held back until the current rabble is exhausted, then with their EU/US Supplied Equipment (via proxies) they will move forward. Time is Qaddaffi's enemy and it is running out (UN/NATO members would like nothing more than seeing insurgents continue to die). There will still come a time, when prolonging the conflict serves no useful purpose (they would otherwise be en-route to Afghanistan for Summer) & it will be ended.

VK3AUU

David, don't jump. What if the God is is gone shopping and can't help? You'll get hurt.

So Amicus and Donald Trump think invading Libya for their oil is ok? So the USA and Israel are within their rights to invade any country they like and steal resources and energy.We will not benefit from USA/European Corporates having a monopoly on all the oil.It will only get more expensive due to less competition.

They have not found a good enough excuse to invade Iran and steal its'oil,but if they do,China and Russia will enter the fray.Amicus,are you of sound mind to want to give oxygen to these lunatic neo-cons? The USA think they can beat China with these min-nukes.They also produce a lot of radiation.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz2HaGZ_wmc You will see here a tactical nuke in Bagdad light up the entire sky and then followed by a giant mushroom cloud.Fallujia is wracked with birth defects and US soldiers come home with health destroyed.Do you think an all out war with China and Russia that mini-nukes will save anyone?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24202 The USA is also considering using nukes in Libya.

It will be up the ante,and an all out nuke war.The yanks,poms and Israelis are barking mad.

Spot on, Pericles, as usual.

Arjay,

Notice how quiet the Swedes are ? Hmmmmm ? Devilishly cunning, to wait for the players to exhaust themselves and then step in as the 'neutral' saviours. Give it some thought.

I love your way of arguing, Arjay: while CTs [conspiracy theorists] have been warning of a US invasion of Iran for many years, it hasn't happened yet, perhaps for the reasons you suggest, that China and Russia (and India as well, perhaps) would be peeved.

So you posit that:

IF the US did invade Iran, and

IF they used nuclear weapons,

THEN Russia and China would get involved, which would

THEN lead to 'all-out war'. With the entire West, presumably.

Frankly, I suspect that this is more likely (but still unlikely for a while): after successful revolutions are well under-way across the Arab world, the people of Iran may be encouraged to rise up again and overthrow the reactionary theocracy, at great human cost.

When your first IF occurs, Arjay, I'll take some notice :)

Joe

Noone needs any more of an excuse than has already been provided by Iran in order to justify invading it, whether legally, morally or whatever. Iran has just been put in the "little too hard" basket for the moment (we may go there in the future).

There are problems with the level of consideration being played with here. The EU, like Russia, like the USA, like China, like India, needs a guaranteed source of oil. The EU owns the Mediterranean Sea (and by default, North Africa) by virtue of its overwhelming military capacity in the region. The Russian's have oil pipelines being built in the *-stan ex-Soviet States. The USA/Japan & Australia have the Timor Gap oil (Timor Leste can't do much about it except turn to Indonesia for help) and the Saudi oilfields. China has already done deals (in competition with the Russians) with the ex-Soviet States. India and the USA are competing for the Southern Pakistan (Baluchi) fields (if India wins those, Iran will be in all sorts).

Russia and China are also looking at Iran, they are blocked (for the most part) from controlling the Arab oilfields (by virtue of Yankee Imperialism), so it looks like we may end up all going to war, like domino's over the balancing act (same way we did about this time last Century) between the various power blocks. Charming thought isn't it? Instead of Monarch's we'll be lead to war over the falling out of various Nation's Companies.

Like the Russian soldier said "... we need a revolution, but we'll also need a good Tsar." As each group outstrip the capacity of their own Countries, they look elsewhere, then comes the scrabble that goes BANG, then of course, we all fall down.

Could all those breathlessly declaring that the US is only in it for the oil, please explain how the cessation of Libya's oil flow has benefited the US?

Could they further please explain how the US will steal all this oil, when they are a backseat partner in the intervention, after Britain and France, and NONE of three intends to put troops on the ground?

And Ludwig seems to be able to tell which dictators are good or bad, depending upon how much they hate the US. Of course, we should ignore that fact that Gaddafi is smashing Misratah with B21 Grad missile trucks, only one of which can ripple fire 40, 200lb projectiles, into the civillian populace from a distance of 10kms, in one second.

Good Dictator? Are you mentally ill?

His people went to the streets to protest and he tried to brutalise them into acquisence. Regardless of what you think of america, Gaddafi's actions are indefensible. To defend him shows just what an apologist you are for ANYONE who has a bone to pick with the US. Next you'll be telling us that Mugabe and Kim Jong Il are just misunderstood fellows, who are really 'GOOD DICTATORS' unjustly maligned.

I'm staggered that any US hater could even put those two words into a sentence. GOOD DICTATOR.

REALLY?

Loudmouth, war is a racket and it is totally unnecessary.The greatest war mongerer is the USA's/European Corporatocracy.It has the track record of unnecessary nukes on Japan,wars with North Korea,Kosovo,Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan and now Libya.It also interfers with the politics and finance of dozens of countries around the planet.So choose,peace or psychopathic nut jobs

PaulL, you can't seriously be saying Kim is a bad bloke? He's just a little sensitive about his hair (can you blame him?)...

Qaddaffi made too many enemies over too long a period and the EU has now jumped in (as the good guy) to reap the rewards. No harm, no foul, they specifically recognised the rebels as the legitimate leadership first, thus complying with the letter of International Law. As they have strictly complied with the letter thereof, they are entitled to act as they are (whereas others have not - they cannot beat the EU in a fight over North Africa).

The Suez Canal is safe, the people have won (not very much) in Egypt. Then again, Georgia was beaten badly in a punch-up over Azerbajainian oil (the Georgian's wanted to sell it to the EU), with Russia able to project just enough force on its border to prevent the EU/NATO protecting them. The Ivory Coast is another one of interest mainly because of location, but also due to gold (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iv.html), which is increasingly popular (for that reason I'd be half expecting the Dutch to try and get a vote going in Irian Jaya under UN auspices).

Nigeria, Venezuela & Algeria (http://www.economywatch.com/international-organizations/organization-of-petroleum-exporting-country.html) remain interesting. The EU is the only realistic future (and of course, past) owner of Algeria unless someone wants to play a long way from home. Note however the Countries not on that list, Australia/Timor Leste (ex-Indonesia of course), the USA itself and several others (North Sea/Brunei for instance). Venezuela is another interesting prospect, Brazil/Argentina have to be alive to the need for supplies close to home, but have they any prospect of controlling it? Nigeria? I would almost have to say that is likely to go to India/USA, it is in the Indian Ocean, a long way from anywhere and only the USA & India field Carriers in that region.

What amazes me is the absurdly shortsighted conspiracy theorists, they can see the conflict is about oil, but unless they can link the USA/Israel to it, it isn't happening or some-such nonsense.

Arjay,

Not a very long list :( I would add: Greece (late forties), Guatemala (1954), Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Philippines, perhaps Nicaragua and Lebanon.

But I would subtract: Kosovo, North Korea, Afghanistan - all necessary against aggression; Pakistan - not at war with it yet; and Libya - supporting the people, not its dictator.

It's a complicated world, Arjay. And there is more than one way to get oil cheap.

By the way, I was driving down South Road in peak-hour traffic and went past 'Arjay Uniforms'. Maybe there are a lot of you around, a well-organised organisation of conspiracy theorists ? At least, in Adelaide ? It doesn't bear thinking about ;

Joe

For the clowns, the danger in "Peak Oil" lies not in the fact we are running out of Oil, it lies in the fact that a number of Nations are starting to, preemptively, protect "THEIR" oil supplies.

Thus the danger is not just that your motor vehicle is going to run out of petrol on the way to work, it lies in the fact ENTIRE ECONOMIES will grind to a halt and the big players are determined not to be the ones left without a chair when the music stops.

What does that mean? It means that there are a number of Countries (and "blocs" of the same) competing on the World Stage to guarantee their Economies oil doesn't run out first. How do they "Guarantee" the same, the same way the various Monarchies did prior to last Century, by grabbing it and telling the Competitors to back off, this is mine or I'll fight you for it.

The trouble with that is kinda obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway, when (as happened this time last Century and regularly before that) all the GOOD stuff (be it spices, gold, etc) runs short and the various groups start to ally with each other, then you have major alliances, all saying it's "OURS" or we'll fight you for it & so will our mate(s).

Nuisances like Qaddaffi and other tinpot Kings/Dictators/etc. who are isolated (by their own stupidity or worse) will be gobbled up rapidly by whomever can dominate the airspace best and is willing to fight for it. International Law? The Letter & the Spirit are very different once Lawyers get hold of it.

Thank your lucky stars we are not, yet, at the point where the various "blocs" are rubbing directly against one another for real. However, don't be deceived, when the success/failure of entire economies is at stake, it is a matter of when not if. Then we revert to the oldest International Law of all, "Might IS Right"

What a doozy of a post, PaulL.

First problem - what an utterly polarised and stupid position it is to see someone like Gaddafi (or whoever) as being entirely bad and not possibly having any good characteristics. Life just ain’t that simple mate.

Second problem – what an utterly polarised position it is to take to just completely condemn any one who dares to suggest that he might not be 100% bad.

I say the same to you as I said to Amicus –

< Gee, how dare I say anything good about such a foul despicable tyrant!! Of course, you’d KNOW that he is nothing other than the worst of the worst tyrants, and that everything the western media says about him is absolutely true, without any exaggeration, wouldn’t you. >

Are you going to say that the points I mentioned in support of Gaddafi are false?

Are you going to call Nelson Mandela mentally ill for praising him?

Waiting on your reply.

This article highlights the ambivalence I have in my mind when it comes to Libya.

On the one hand, I have no love for Gaddafi and am sure that someone else would probably do much better things for Libya and, by extension, for the world. On the other, I doubt that this rebellion will place such a person in a position of power.

I remember watching footage in the early days of the rebellion, showing rebel forces with a captured loyalist soldier. He was bound, beaten and appeared to be about to suffer execution without trial, before the angry mob noticed the camera. They bundled him into a truck and sped off. I'm guessing execution followed shortly after.

I'm aware that what we see on TV is a construction of reality, rather than reality itself. I'm also aware that, without the journalist's commentary, I would have had no idea what was going on. I may have been positioned to believe that an execution was about to take place, even if no such thing was going to happen. I doubt, though, that the rebels are 'good' and 'law-abiding' while Gaddafi has a monopoly on wickedness and deceit. I suspect that it would be out with the old and in with the new, but no real difference for Libya except decreased stability and the absence of a personality cult (for the time being).

As for international law, I (like some others here) grow tired of the term. How is international law enforced? Why were the leaders of the 'illegal' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq not prosecuted? If a law cannot be enforced, then it is purposeless and a waste of all our time and money. Rather than finding a loophole allowing the western powers to intervene in Libya, perhaps they should simply give the digit to the law and do what they want. Then, and only then, we could dispense with the patronising rhetoric by which leaders pretend that they have humanitarian causes at heart, and let those with big sticks brandish those sticks in the open, rather than behind closed doors.

When are we going to learn that presidents and prime ministers should have their time limits ? That the best president in the world should have limits on her/his tenure ? That it is not up to a president to choose his/her successor - it should be up to the people, through an electoral process ?

Forty years' rule by Gaddafi, fifty years' rule by the Castros, thirty eight or whatever years by the Assads - isn't that obscene ? Do they think they are royalty or something ?

Any half-decent ruler/president/whatever certainly should be cultivating successors, in the event that her/his party wins the vote from the people whenever they are able to exercise it.

It amazes me that in Cuba, for example, in fifty two years of 'people's rule', a couple of guys trained under the old elitist system can't develop a way to tap into the genius of the twelve million Cuban people and have a whole raft of brilliant and dedicated people ready after ten years or so, say by 1970. And of course, the bottom line should always be that it is up to the people to decide who rules them.

So in Libya: Gaddafi was obviously, after 42 years, grooming one of his sons to take over. Why do these pretentious thugs always seem to crave to recreate a monarchy ? And why do so many people, some who even think they are on the Left, kiss their backsides so uncritically ?

Limited tenure and the people deciding who is to rule them - basic democracy. We've still got so much to learn.

Joe