You are hereLibya
By Peter Dyer
If there is one thing the “humanitarian” intervention in Libya has convincingly demonstrated it is this: the only real international law is the law of brute force.
The Libyan dust now appears to be settling. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has been summarily executed and the NATO intervention has officially ended. The dominant narrative is that the intervention was a timely, legal and morally justified action that fulfilled the primary purpose of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, passed on March 17: the protection of civilians in Libya’s civil war.
But there is an alternative narrative: three major powers invoked the United Nations Charter in order to violate it. The United States, the United Kingdom and France engineered a “humanitarian” intervention that was in reality an unprovoked act of war against a sovereign state.
The intervention resulted not only in illegal regime change — a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter — but in the extrajudicial assassination of its head of state.
The primary stated purpose of UNSC Res. 1973 was indeed the protection of civilians – through an immediate ceasefire – but that was not how the resolution was implemented.
Washington's Man in Libya - by Stephen Lendman
After ousting independent leaders, Washington replaces them with puppets. Mustafa Abdul Jalil is interim chairman. Until October 23, Mahmoud Jibril was prime minister.
Abdurraheem el-Keib replaced him, a dual US/Libyan citizen. He lived in America, holds a doctorate in electrical engineering, and taught at North Carolina State University and the University of Alabama for years.
The UN said in its resolution said that they wanted to protect civilians. I am a civilian. I'm asking the United Nations and the National Transition Council for help for the citizens of Sirte. Ali Salah Arzaga, Sirte, Libya. (His home and business were destroyed in the final assault on his city.)
There are very public smoking guns that inculpate the rulers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and others in war crimes in Libya.
The rationale for NATO's entry into the Libyan conflict was based on humanitarian principles, correctly noted by Mr. Arzaga. (left, text and image: VOA video). The United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1973 on March 17 and NATO followed up with actions that the alliance and its partner Qatar claimed conformed to the resolution. The sole purpose of NATO’s involvement was to "protect the Libyan population," we were told.
The outcome has been anything but humanitarian. Tens of thousands of Libyans are injured or dead. The nation's infrastructure is in tatters. One city, Sirte, was destroyed during the final push while another city, the non-Arab Black Libyan town of Tawergha, is absent its entire population, 25,000 residents. They were there just a few weeks ago.
Washington Wants Its Imperial Model Replicated in Libya - by Stephen Lendman
Washington ran NATO's imperial war against Libya to colonize, occupy and plunder another vassal state. Democracy and humanitarian considerations are non-starters. Only wealth and power matters.
Libyans will be ruthlessly exploited. Decades of vital social gains are lost. NATO turned Libya into a charnel house. Tens of thousands of corpses bear testimony.
Libya: War Without End - by Stephen Lendman
Libya will long be remembered as one of history's great crimes. For over eight months, NATO's killing machine ravaged the country, killing tens of thousands.
Years of protracted conflict lie ahead. Libyans will keep struggling until they're free from NATO's scourge.
Anti-Imperial Voices - by Stephen Lendman
Last August, over 140 prominent Africans expressed opposition to NATO's imperial war against Libya. South African signatories to an open letter included former President Thabo Mbeki, former Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils, former Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Aziz Pahad, and ANC National Executive Committee member Jesse Duarte.
Killing Gaddafi: Longstanding US Policy - by Stephen Lendman
Absent reliable independent proof, some sources believe a double was killed, not Gaddafi. More on that below.
Nonetheless, clear evidence shows Washington wanted him dead for years.
Why Libya Was Attacked - by Stephen Lendman
Obama's March 28, 2011 address at the National Defense University was true to form. It reeked of duplicity, hypocrisy, and ball-faced lies, saying:
"For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom."
Libya: Another Lost NATO War - by Stephen Lendman
NATO's sole new millennium accomplishment consists of endless unwinnable wars. Coalition partners eventually tire and pull out.
America may end up isolated against raging street anger to end imperial wars and address vital neglected homeland needs. It's already happening.
JURIST Special Guest Columnist Curtis Doebbler of Webster University and the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, both in Geneva, Switzerland, says the killing of Muammar Gaddafi appears to be another violation of international law involving the US, sending the dangerous message that one must kill or be killed...
Although the facts are far from clear, most reports now seem to confirm that Muammar Gaddafi was killed after his convoy was attacked by NATO planes, including aircraft from the US and France, and after he was captured alive. If these facts are correct, they point to yet another serious violation of international law involving the US.
The willful killing or summary execution of a prisoner of war who is no longer participating in an armed conflict is a grave breach of the Third Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War of 1949, to which both France and the US are parties. It makes no difference how much one dislikes the particular prisoner of war. The resulting obligation for all parties to this treaty is that they investigate, arrest and punish the perpetrators of such crimes.
Mixed Messages on Gaddafi - by Stephen Lendman
Nothing from NATO, political capitals, puppet TNC officials, and major media scoundrels is credible. Nonetheless, manipulated public opinion says he's gone.
Wikipedia has him born June 7, 1942, died October 20, 2011, saying Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi "was Libya's head of state from 1969 when he seized power in a bloodless coup."
"It’s not acceptable to kill a person without trying him," said Louay Hussein, a Syrian opposition figure in Damascus. "I prefer to see the tyrant behind bars." New York Times, October 20
The New York Times reported that a NATO jet and drones disabled vehicles in a convoy carrying Muammar Gaddafi near the besieged town of Sirte on October 20. Loyalists in the remaining vehicles scattered becoming easy prey for the emboldened fighters of the new Libyan state.
Reuters expanded the narrative on the 21st by reporting that Gaddafi fled from his jeep, hid in a drainage pipe, and emerged with an automatic weapon and side arm. He was manhandled and slapped by the soldiers of the new Libya. He allegedly asked the crowd, "Don't you know right from wrong?" They took exception to the question and shot him twice in the head. He was transported to Misurata, scene of one of the few decisive victories by the former rebels. Gaddafi's corpse was placed on a bare mattress and put on display for the public on the 22nd. It remains there today, although it is now reportedly covered by a blanket (Reuters, October 23).
There's a new sheriff in town, NATO.
Doubts About Gaddafi's Reported Assassination - by Stephen Lendman
NATO, Washington, Western media, Qatar-controlled Al Jazeera, Saudi-controlled Al Arabia, UK-controlled BBC, and other mainstream sources reported his death. More on that below.
On October 20, Mathaba.net disputed official accounts, saying:
Gaddafi: Dead or Alive? - by Stephen Lendman
Either way he became a legend in his own time. Thursday on the Progressive Radio News Hour, James Petras reported information he received from a reliable Argentina source saying he's dead.
If so, he explained, he'll be Africa's greatest martyr since Congo's Patrice Lumumba. After leading its independence struggle successfully in June 1960, a CIA coup ousted him 10 weeks later.
Hillary Clinton in Tripoli - by Stephen Lendman
Obama is an unindicted war criminal. So is Clinton. More on her staged photo-op theater below.
On October 18, NATO deputy spokesperson Carmen Romero said:
Major Media Liars Never Quit - by Stephen Lendman
Whenever major media Libya reports appear, truth is distorted, manipulated and falsified. For seven months, despite daily terror bombing and ground attacks, courageous loyalists bested the ferocity of NATO and its rebel army.
As a result, they control most of Tripoli, Benghazi and other cities across the country. Fighting, however, still rages. Loyalists are holding their own. They're determined to liberate Libya, live free and rebuild.
Lies, Damn Lies, and NATO Claiming Control Across Libya - by Stephen Lendman
At an October 11 press briefing, NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu claimed Operation Unified Protector (NATO's aggression on Libya) "has been a great success. We're pretty close to the end, but we're not there yet."
Libyan Loyalists Fight NATO, Rebels and Propaganda - by Stephen Lendman
Reporting more propaganda than legitimate news, Al Jazeera broadcast another lie about NTC fighters, claiming Mutassim Gaddafi's capture, saying:
"....(O)ne of Gaddafi's sons has been captured in Sirte, according to" NTC officials. He's "currently being held in Benghazi....after being arrested on Wednesday."
Libyans Resist NATO's Killing Machine - by Stephen Lendman
For over six and a half months, Libyans tied down the world's mightiest military force despite overwhelming odds against them and enormous loss of life and human suffering.
Established in 1949, NATO was never a "military alliance for peace and security." It was for offense, not defense. Cold War hysteria was contrived to incite fear and assure an arms race for corporate dominance and enrichment.
By Dave Lindorff
While this statement by Occupy Wall Street is a powerful list of grievances against capitalism, it fails to even once mention the word "war." This is a significant failing, and cannot have been an oversight. The activists in Liberty Park and in cities across the country, if they want to make this a mass movement to confront the corporate domination of American politics and society, must be willing to confront head on the reality that the corporate elite have made the U.S. into the world's greatest war-monger. It is not just "colonialism," an outmoded term, that is the problem. It is a vast web of imperialism, imposed by a war machine that is bigger and costlier than all the rest of the world's armies combined, and it is the single biggest reason that this country is descending into a state of social and economic decay and decline.
By Charles M. Young
By Ron Ridenour
It was with joy that I watched television coverage of election day, September 15. According to all the nine political parties running, and the mass media, there were no wars in the world and Denmark no longer was involved in three wars—Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya--alongside the USA.
In fact, all through the three-week long election campaign, none of the parties spoke of war, or of that most fundamental of moral questions a society must ask: do we kill other people who do not attack us?
Planned Peacekeeper Occupation of Libya - by Stephen Lendman
The peacekeepers are coming! The peacekeepers are coming! War, mass killing and destruction continue, but they're coming!
In fact, paramilitaries are coming to kill and terrorize Libyans wanting liberation, not occupation.
Committee Member Denies CIA Involvement in Libya War
Washington D.C. (September 9, 2011) – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today took to the House Floor in opposition to the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2012.
Congressman Kucinich’s remarks follow:
“I rise in strong support of the dedicated public servants of our intelligence community. Their work to ensure national security is to be commended. However, I must oppose the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2012.
By Dave Lindorff
When you are the New York Times, or in this case, one of the only real liberal columnists working for the Times anymore, there are apparently some things you just cannot mention.
How else to explain how a seemingly intelligent economist like Paul Krugman can scorch the Republicans in Congress and President Obama for failing to deal with the crisis of joblessness and deepening economic collapse in the U.S., but never once mention the endless and pointless wars into which the country is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars a year?