PDA

View Full Version : NATO May Face War Crimes Probe For Libya



Apocalypse
11-13-2011, 01:27 PM
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-GqFJ3BH/0/S/i-GqFJ3BH-S.jpg


AP Exclusive: NATO may face posible [sic] ICC probe

By MIKE CORDER and SLOBODAN LEKIC Associated Press
November 11, 2011


BRUSSELS (AP) Some NATO members are worried that their organization may be investigated by the International Criminal Court after its prosecutor said allegations of crimes committed by NATO in Libya would be examined "impartially and independently," according to diplomats accredited to NATO headquarters.


http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-nato-may-face-posible-icc-probe-094028252.html


Remember, this was Obama's war that he started and championed.

Odysseus
11-13-2011, 11:02 PM
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-GqFJ3BH/0/S/i-GqFJ3BH-S.jpg


AP Exclusive: NATO may face posible [sic] ICC probe

By MIKE CORDER and SLOBODAN LEKIC Associated Press
November 11, 2011


BRUSSELS (AP) Some NATO members are worried that their organization may be investigated by the International Criminal Court after its prosecutor said allegations of crimes committed by NATO in Libya would be examined "impartially and independently," according to diplomats accredited to NATO headquarters.


http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-nato-may-face-posible-icc-probe-094028252.html


Remember, this was Obama's war that he started and championed.




Yes, it's Obama's war, but this time, NATO is in the right. From the article:


Still, in a briefing to the Security Council on Nov. 2, International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said "there are allegations of crimes committed by NATO forces (and) these allegations will be examined impartially and independently."

Moreno-Ocampo did not elaborate further on the accusations against NATO forces, or who was making them. His office is currently focusing on crimes committed by members of the ousted Gadhafi regime and is waiting for a report by a U.N. Commission of Inquiry in Libya, due in March, before deciding whether to proceed with a formal investigation into alleged crimes by NATO.

NATO has said it was confident its actions were in compliance with international law and that the alliance is not worried by the possibility of a war crimes probe. "In the event we receive a request for information, NATO is prepared to assist in any way it can," said an official who could not be identified under standing rules.

Officials from the alliance say that between March and October NATO warplanes flew 26,000 sorties, including more than 9,600 strike missions, destroying more than 1,000 tanks, vehicles, and guns, as well as buildings claimed to have housed "command and control" centers. These included facilities such as Moammar Gadhafi's heavily fortified compound in Tripoli, but also residential homes of his supporters targets which could be considered outside the UN mandate.

In other words, the allegations are unsourced, and undefined. Qaddafi's forces routinely targeted civilians, but they're looking to investigate NATO? Some hack in the ICC gets a bug up his fourth point of contact and the next thing you know, pilots and other warfighters have to defend themselves from BS allegations. Say what you will about the war and its results, but if NATO forces targeted civilians, I'll eat my oak leaves.

Tipsycatlover
11-13-2011, 11:56 PM
They can't win for the losing!

There can't be a war in which no one gets hurt.

DumbAss Tanker
11-14-2011, 12:34 AM
I doubt the NATO forces can be said to have deliberately targeted innocent civilians (As opposed to strongholds of government officials, who may have been civilians, but were at least arguably legal targets). At the same time, the strikes very early transitioned from implementing the actual mandate to imposwe a no-flly zone and protect the civilian population, to the completely unauthorized overrreaching mission of aiding the rebellion, which while in the geopolitical interests of the US, France, UK and Italy, really had bupkus to do with protecting civilians or enforcing the no-fly zone after the first day and a half or so (And unlike Iraq or the Yugoslavian Civil War, the no-fly zone enforcement was done by destroying everything remotely to do with aircraft anywhere in the whole country, rather than just shooting down anything that was caught flying).

As far as 'Protecting innocent civilians,' at the start of it we were attacking any mobile forces to defend fearful civilians, but they very quickly became armed citizen militias rather than huddled lambs awaiting slaughter, and by the end of it, we were bombing armed citizen militias that were opposed to the armed citizens militias we were backing. The rationale for the entire affair was an absurd joke, a particularly blood-drenched and humorless joke for anyone who happened to be in the regular armed forces of Libya at the time. The only two good things you can really say about it is that Moe the Q ended up dead, and we didn't lose anyone in the whole fiasco (As far as we've publicly acknowledged, anyway).

Tipsycatlover
11-14-2011, 09:04 AM
I doubt the NATO forces can be said to have deliberately targeted innocent civilians (As opposed to strongholds of government officials, who may have been civilians, but were at least arguably legal targets). At the same time, the strikes very early transitioned from implementing the actual mandate to imposwe a no-flly zone and protect the civilian population, to the completely unauthorized overrreaching mission of aiding the rebellion, which while in the geopolitical interests of the US, France, UK and Italy, really had bupkus to do with protecting civilians or enforcing the no-fly zone after the first day and a half or so (And unlike Iraq or the Yugoslavian Civil War, the no-fly zone enforcement was done by destroying everything remotely to do with aircraft anywhere in the whole country, rather than just shooting down anything that was caught flying).

As far as 'Protecting innocent civilians,' at the start of it we were attacking any mobile forces to defend fearful civilians, but they very quickly became armed citizen militias rather than huddled lambs awaiting slaughter, and by the end of it, we were bombing armed citizen militias that were opposed to the armed citizens militias we were backing. The rationale for the entire affair was an absurd joke, a particularly blood-drenched and humorless joke for anyone who happened to be in the regular armed forces of Libya at the time. The only two good things you can really say about it is that Moe the Q ended up dead, and we didn't lose anyone in the whole fiasco (As far as we've publicly acknowledged, anyway).

Isn't that one of the reasons we should not get involved with someone else's civil war.

Odysseus
11-14-2011, 09:30 AM
I doubt the NATO forces can be said to have deliberately targeted innocent civilians (As opposed to strongholds of government officials, who may have been civilians, but were at least arguably legal targets). At the same time, the strikes very early transitioned from implementing the actual mandate to imposwe a no-flly zone and protect the civilian population, to the completely unauthorized overrreaching mission of aiding the rebellion, which while in the geopolitical interests of the US, France, UK and Italy, really had bupkus to do with protecting civilians or enforcing the no-fly zone after the first day and a half or so (And unlike Iraq or the Yugoslavian Civil War, the no-fly zone enforcement was done by destroying everything remotely to do with aircraft anywhere in the whole country, rather than just shooting down anything that was caught flying).

As far as 'Protecting innocent civilians,' at the start of it we were attacking any mobile forces to defend fearful civilians, but they very quickly became armed citizen militias rather than huddled lambs awaiting slaughter, and by the end of it, we were bombing armed citizen militias that were opposed to the armed citizens militias we were backing. The rationale for the entire affair was an absurd joke, a particularly blood-drenched and humorless joke for anyone who happened to be in the regular armed forces of Libya at the time. The only two good things you can really say about it is that Moe the Q ended up dead, and we didn't lose anyone in the whole fiasco (As far as we've publicly acknowledged, anyway).
There are a few good things that can be said about the campaign. NATO actually did a good job of targeting the bad guys (that is, the bad guys that they were attacking, as opposed to the bad guys that we ended up empowering). It was a professional, well-executed operation. The biggest problem with it, which is what made it a fiasco, is that NATO ended up putting al Qaeda and the Islamist thugocracy into power, which actually sets us back in the region. It was a screwed up a strategic mission as we could have asked for, but the tactical execution was superb.

Isn't that one of the reasons we should not get involved with someone else's civil war.
Getting involved in someone's civil war only makes sense if the outcome impacts you, but if the outcome does you, then not getting involved can be a serious mistake. Mexico is involved in a civil war between their government and the drug cartels, and the consequences of that war spill over into the US daily, in the form of illegals, drug running and violence along the border. If we could assist the Mexican government in defeating the cartels decisively, then we would reap real benefits. That doesn't mean that we should put troops in Mexico, but we should be providing them with cross-border coordination and intel sharing and put our resources at their disposal, with strict oversight in order to ensure that what we provide is used properly.

A civil war that toppled the Iranian mullahs or the Venezuelan Chavistas would definitely be in our interest, expecially if we can shape the new regimes in such a way as to guarantee stability.

Tipsycatlover
11-14-2011, 11:04 AM
There are a few good things that can be said about the campaign. NATO actually did a good job of targeting the bad guys (that is, the bad guys that they were attacking, as opposed to the bad guys that we ended up empowering). It was a professional, well-executed operation. The biggest problem with it, which is what made it a fiasco, is that NATO ended up putting al Qaeda and the Islamist thugocracy into power, which actually sets us back in the region. It was a screwed up a strategic mission as we could have asked for, but the tactical execution was superb.

Getting involved in someone's civil war only makes sense if the outcome impacts you, but if the outcome does you, then not getting involved can be a serious mistake. Mexico is involved in a civil war between their government and the drug cartels, and the consequences of that war spill over into the US daily, in the form of illegals, drug running and violence along the border. If we could assist the Mexican government in defeating the cartels decisively, then we would reap real benefits. That doesn't mean that we should put troops in Mexico, but we should be providing them with cross-border coordination and intel sharing and put our resources at their disposal, with strict oversight in order to ensure that what we provide is used properly.

A civil war that toppled the Iranian mullahs or the Venezuelan Chavistas would definitely be in our interest, expecially if we can shape the new regimes in such a way as to guarantee stability.

A civil war is not a revolution. A civil war is citizens fighting fellow citizens. That's what was going on in Libya with a little help in agitation from the muslim brotherhood. In a civil war, most loss of life is going to be civilians. No matter which side you support, it's going to be civilian deaths.

A revolution is where the citizens rise up against the government. That won't happen in Iran, there might be dissidents, but by far the majority of Iranians support fundamentalist muslim religious rule. They might want a different ayatollah, but they still want an ayatollah.

Odysseus
11-14-2011, 12:07 PM
A civil war is not a revolution. A civil war is citizens fighting fellow citizens. That's what was going on in Libya with a little help in agitation from the muslim brotherhood. In a civil war, most loss of life is going to be civilians. No matter which side you support, it's going to be civilian deaths.
Technically, Libya was both. A civil war that results in the overthrow of a government is a revolution. A civil war that involves a seccession movement which creates a new government (such as the American Revolution) is also a revolution. OTOH, a civil war between two factions, neither of which is the governing authority, is just a civil war, even if one side comes out dominant at the end.

Once somebody picks up a weapon, he is no longer a civilian, but a combatant. Libya was a civil war in which the government was overthrown by the opposition, but both sides carried their weapons openly and engaged in conventional combat.

The issue in Libya isn't whether it was a civil war or revolution, it's that we intervened on one side against the other for no reason. The people that we put in place will prove to be just as despotic and corrupt as Qaddaffi was.


A revolution is where the citizens rise up against the government. That won't happen in Iran, there might be dissidents, but by far the majority of Iranians support fundamentalist muslim religious rule. They might want a different ayatollah, but they still want an ayatollah.
Actually, that is what happened in Iran after the last election. Polling has shown that the vast majority of Iranians loathe the theocracy and want a secular state (the last poll put Islamic rule at 75% disapproval, which is why the mullahs immediately jailed the pollster). They are sick of the ayatollahs and of strict Sharia (Iran never had the Arab ascetism as a cultural norm, and Persians are historically much more laid back than Arabs) and want to go back to the pre-revolutionary days. This is especially true of the younger people, who make up the largest demographic, and who have absolutely no faith in Islam as a political system.

The Khomeinists never represented a majority of Iranians, but they were the best organized and most willing to use force when the Shah was overthrown. The period immediately after the Shah's departure was incredibly bloody, as the Khomeini faction consolidated power and threw every other faction's leadership into prisons or summarily executed them. The horrific casualties that resulted from their mismanagement of the Iran-Iraq War and the perpetual austerity imposed on the public while the mullahs' children live the high life have discredited theocratic rule. They see billions of dollars being spent to foment revolution in places like Syria and Lebanon while they live in imam-induced poverty, and they want out. The smartest thing that we can do would be to provide them with the means to disseminate information and flood the country with alternate media. The place is a tinderbox, and Obama has been focused on pissing on the spark instead of fanning it.

AmPat
11-14-2011, 12:20 PM
NATO will probably end up belonging to the UN. We should get out of both.:cool:

Odysseus
11-14-2011, 12:43 PM
NATO will probably end up belonging to the UN. We should get out of both.:cool:

I highly doubt that NATO will survive the collapse of the Euro. The most effective militaries in NATO tend to belong to the most financially solvent nations, and they will want their money back when the PIGS implode.

DumbAss Tanker
11-14-2011, 12:45 PM
It was a screwed up a strategic mission as we could have asked for, but the tactical execution was superb.

Yes, I think we both agree on the real bottom line here.