From The American Thinker:
February 27, 2011
War crimes investigation for Gaddafi
Rick Moran
Not that he doesn't deserve it, but I want to see a show of hands from those who believe the Libyan dictator will live to stand trial in the Hague?
The New York Times:
The vote, only the second time the Security Council has referred a member state to the International Criminal Court, comes after a week of bloody crackdowns in Libya in which Colonel Qaddafi's security forces have fired on protesters, killing hundreds.
Also on Saturday, President Obama said that Colonel Qaddafi had lost the legitimacy to rule and should step down. His statement, which the White House said was made during a telephone call with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, was the strongest yet from any American official against Colonel Qaddafi.
The Security Council resolution also imposes an arms embargo against Libya and an international travel ban on 16 Libyan leaders, and freezes the assets of Colonel Qaddafi and members of his family, including four sons and a daughter. Also included in the sanctions were measures against defense and intelligence officials who are believed to have played a role in the violence against civilians in Libya.
The sanctions did not include imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, a possibility that had been discussed by officials from the United States and its allies in recent days.
China, Russia, and India initially opposed the war crimes resolution, believing it would inflame the situation. Gaddafi might feel so cornered that he would get even crazier with the crackdown.
When the Libyan ambassador to the UN urged passage of the resolution, all three nation's dropped their opposition. Besides, how much worse can it get for the Libyan people?
By the way, that statement from Obama matched statements made by European governments several days ago. Good to see the president playing catch-up. And the Washington Post helpfully covers for the administration's dilly dallying by giving the White House spin:
Obama had taken a more cautious approach, in part because he feared that hundreds of Americans in Tripoli could be in danger if he called for regime change. Those diplomats and other citizens have now been evacuated.
Not mentioned by the Post is that all European governments who have issued far stronger statements on regime change than the president - and issued them days ago - also had hundreds of citizens in Libya at the time. Why did it take Obama days to match what our allies have been saying?
Indecisiveness in a crisis is what we've been getting from this president since the Middle East violence started. Why should Libya be any different?
Posted at 10:06 AM
February 27, 2011
War crimes investigation for Gaddafi
Rick Moran
Not that he doesn't deserve it, but I want to see a show of hands from those who believe the Libyan dictator will live to stand trial in the Hague?
The New York Times:
The vote, only the second time the Security Council has referred a member state to the International Criminal Court, comes after a week of bloody crackdowns in Libya in which Colonel Qaddafi's security forces have fired on protesters, killing hundreds.
Also on Saturday, President Obama said that Colonel Qaddafi had lost the legitimacy to rule and should step down. His statement, which the White House said was made during a telephone call with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, was the strongest yet from any American official against Colonel Qaddafi.
The Security Council resolution also imposes an arms embargo against Libya and an international travel ban on 16 Libyan leaders, and freezes the assets of Colonel Qaddafi and members of his family, including four sons and a daughter. Also included in the sanctions were measures against defense and intelligence officials who are believed to have played a role in the violence against civilians in Libya.
The sanctions did not include imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, a possibility that had been discussed by officials from the United States and its allies in recent days.
China, Russia, and India initially opposed the war crimes resolution, believing it would inflame the situation. Gaddafi might feel so cornered that he would get even crazier with the crackdown.
When the Libyan ambassador to the UN urged passage of the resolution, all three nation's dropped their opposition. Besides, how much worse can it get for the Libyan people?
By the way, that statement from Obama matched statements made by European governments several days ago. Good to see the president playing catch-up. And the Washington Post helpfully covers for the administration's dilly dallying by giving the White House spin:
Obama had taken a more cautious approach, in part because he feared that hundreds of Americans in Tripoli could be in danger if he called for regime change. Those diplomats and other citizens have now been evacuated.
Not mentioned by the Post is that all European governments who have issued far stronger statements on regime change than the president - and issued them days ago - also had hundreds of citizens in Libya at the time. Why did it take Obama days to match what our allies have been saying?
Indecisiveness in a crisis is what we've been getting from this president since the Middle East violence started. Why should Libya be any different?
Posted at 10:06 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment