Libya: ICC issues arrest warrant for Muammar Gaddafi

[Gerald]

The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi.

The court had accused him of crimes against humanity and of ordering attacks on civilians after an uprising against him began in mid-February.

The Hague-based court also issued warrants for two of Col Gaddafi's top aides - his son Saif al-Islam and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi.

Thousands of people are believed to have been killed in the conflict.

ICC presiding judge Sanji Monageng said there were "reasonable grounds to believe" that Col Gaddafi and his son were "criminally responsible as indirect co-perpetrators" for the persecution and murder of civilians in Libya.

The warrants had been requested by chief ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo in May, who said the three men bore responsibility for "widespread and systematic attacks" on civilians.

Mr Moreno-Ocampo said the court had evidence that Col Gaddafi had "personally ordered attacks on unarmed Libyan civilians and was behind the arrest and torture of his political opponents.

The Libyan authorities have previously said they do not recognise the court and were not concerned by the threat of a warrant.

On Sunday, government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said the court was overly preoccupied with pursuing African leaders and had "no legitimacy whatsoever".

The arrest warrant was welcomed by UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, who said it further demonstrated "why Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy and why he should go immediately".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13927208


Note: 27 June 2011 Last updated at 11:57 GMT

[NeonSamurai]

Any bets on if similar charges are levied against the leadership in Syria? I bet no myself

[papa_smurf]

Any bets on if similar charges are levied against the leadership in Syria? I bet no myself

There is no consensus from other Arab nations to remove him, unlike Libya where many Arab nations want him gone.

[Gerald]

This whole, is a game for the gallery, :stare:

[August]

There is no consensus from other Arab nations to remove him, unlike Libya where many Arab nations want him gone.

Are you saying that ICC actions are politically motivated?

If so i'm glad that President Bush wouldn't agree to make our people subject to that.

[papa_smurf]

Are you saying that ICC actions are politically motivated?

If so i'm glad that President Bush wouldn't agree to make our people subject to that.

Did not say that, you took my words and twisted them. Should of never said anything.

[Skybird]

Are you saying that ICC actions are politically motivated?

If so i'm glad that President Bush wouldn't agree to make our people subject to that.
Several years ago, we seriously banged our heads over the ICC. I must admit I have changed my opinion on the ICC completely since then. Your initial doubts on the ICC's political neutrality were correct, my naivety over it's motives was wrong.

:salute:

[Castout]

If Syria leadership have to be brought to justice through the ICC are you suggesting the Bahrain monarch and the Chinese due to Tianamen square massacre should too? Because if you don't you're a hypocrite since you're asking for the prosecution of the Syrian leadership and if you do suggest prosecuting the Chinese you're a mad man.

Are you guys so naive? Sometimes condemnation is the strongest action that an international community could do and they do just that. It is still much better than silence.

And who says Syria leadership isn't going to be prosecuted through ICC anyway? The whole thing takes time. Give them a year and if the situation in Syria becomes worse with more atrocities I wouldn't count bringing the Syrian leadership to ICC an impossibility. Right now there's even a 50:50 chance already.

You must realize that the ICC is like nuclear deterrent in the military. If you use it too much it would cease being a deterrent and instead become a destructive to ALL instrument and in the end it would destroy itself or get boycotted by the majority of nations.

[August]

Did not say that, you took my words and twisted them. Should of never said anything.

Sorry Smurf, nothing personal but you certainly implied exactly that. After all, what does Arab consensus have to do with an ICC arrest warrant? Courts are supposed to make their decisions on the law, not political consensus or popularity.

Several years ago, we seriously banged our heads over the ICC. I must admit I have changed my opinion on the ICC completely since then. Your initial doubts on the ICC's political neutrality were correct, my naivety over it's motives was wrong.

:salute:

:salute: An honor returned.

That's mighty upstanding of you Sky and I thank you for your post, but to my thinking there is nothing wrong with expecting ones institutions to meet the standards that they're supposed to maintain. I could hardly blame you for doing something that I am all too willing to do myself.

[Platapus]

Since Libya, like the United States, is not a signatory to the ICC instruments, this decision resembles a pointed moot.

[August]

You must realize that the ICC is like nuclear deterrent in the military. If you use it too much it would cease being a deterrent and instead become a destructive to ALL instrument and in the end it would destroy itself or get boycotted by the majority of nations.

I'd submit that it is already beyond a deterrent.

Nuclear weapons have been used only twice, within days of each other and haven't been used in over a half century since. How many ICC warrants have been issued in their short existence?

Now it is being used against a dictator who is still in power. They just gave him another reason to go down fighting instead of giving up.

[Castout]

I'd submit that it is already beyond a deterrent.

Nuclear weapons have been used only twice, within days of each other and haven't been used in over a half century since. How many ICC warrants have been issued in their short existence?

Now it is being used against a dictator who is still in power. They just gave him another reason to go down fighting instead of giving up.

It is like a nuclear deterrence but it is obviously NOT a nuclear deterrence.

The ICC arrest warrant is a clear message to Gaddafi and his followers that their regime is DEAD politically and is intolerable to the international community. That is they are erasing any possibility of a come back or holding on to power without being an ineffective and isolated leader of Libya.

In short the ICC is giving Gaddafi one less reason and less hope to hold on to power.

Now there's only need of more ground pressure on Gaddafi controlled territory.

[August]

It is like a nuclear deterrence but it is obviously NOT a nuclear deterrence.

The ICC arrest warrant is a clear message to Gaddafi and his followers that their regime is DEAD politically and is intolerable to the international community. That is they are erasing any possibility of a come back or holding on to power without being an ineffective and isolated leader of Libya.

In short the ICC is giving Gaddafi one less reason and less hope to hold on to power.

Now there's only need of more ground pressure on Gaddafi controlled territory.

No, what it tells him is: "If you give up we will put you on trial as a war criminal so you might as well fight to the end"

Besides, even if he were to loose power and somehow get it back it wouldn't be by permission of the international community whatever that is.

[Castout]

No, what it tells him is: "If you give up we will put you on trial as a war criminal so you might as well fight to the end"

Besides, even if he were to loose power and somehow get it back it wouldn't be by permission of the international community whatever that is.

Umm not exactly you see being a dictator and being one for more than 4 decades has many perks besides just power. Money and all kind of jewels for example(arts, women, etc). Now power is obviously not going to be restored or recognized by international community so there's less reason trying to hold on to that and instead now more reasons to save the other perks instead.

There are states specifically African states which are not a signatory of the ICC agreement. The places now Gaddafi needs to weigh as to where he will be if he decides to step down. Insisting to hold on to power now holds little value to him. It's more like trying to get the best deal to get as much as the other perks with him. Now if ground pressure is mounting against him that would speed up his mind. It's much better to be alive and rich than dead or worse in jail for insisting to hold on to power. After all Gaddafi's situation is much better than say Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

Here's why:
Being a head of state or a diplomat requires international recognition and the person must command respect. A head of state or government who is on the arrest warrant of ICC has neither. He wouldn't be able to travel to conduct diplomatic visits or attend international(UN) or regional forums and even his envoys would not be as effective if not irrelevant to the eyes of the international community as they are representative of the person whom arrest is wanted by the ICC. Of course there's always the possibility of them shutting themselves from the rest of the world like North Korea but I think there's a strong reason why there is only a single North Korea like regime in the world and others do not envy their position. In one sentence a political leader who is on the ICC arrest warrant is an ineffective political figure. Dead politically. It spells the end of his political reign.

[August]

Dead politically. It spells the end of his political reign.


Nope. He has oil. Within a year other nations will be making back room deals if they aren't already. He only looses when and if he leaves Libya.

[Castout]

Nope. He has oil. Within a year other nations will be making back room deals if they aren't already. He only looses when and if he leaves Libya.

Backroom deal with China or Russia maybe but certainly not with the west with the ICC arrest warrant.

Can't you see that the current Gaddafi is not the same Gaddafi before NATO decided to protect civilian lives in Libya.

He has promised a vengeance to the west. So if he does make a comeback you can see Gaddafi's Libya sponsored terrorist blossoming.

I got the feeling that the west doesn't want Gaddafi to fall under rebels effort. They hope that Gaddafi would step down instead. They gave Gaddafi time(being a friend to Europe has its perk I guess). The west has refused any effort to arm the pro democracy fighters as well. Because if they did Gaddafi would fall under the rebels effort. Sure NATO bombs Tripoli now and then and on the first two weeks did much to reduce Gaddafi military but they didn't help much with Misrata siege nor the west mountain fight. I assume because NATO commanders do not want to be perceived as being the rebels airforce. In the end they are making the impression they want a stalemate.