US 'seeking country' to take in Gaddafi

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

btw Feuer Frei - what makes this guy a crim of the big type? Let's keep this to events of the last 20 years, ok? To really say this is all about Lockerbie is ..well..problematic I'd say.

Well, let's look at his resume shall we?

Muammar al-Gaddafi overthrew the monarchy in Libya in 1969
In 1970, he threw the U.S. and U.K. military out of the nation and confiscated all Jewish and Italian owned property in the nation. (unlawful seizure of privately owned property)
1972 Muammar al-Gaddafi financed “Black September” that massacred athletes at the Munich Olympics.
1984 Had mercinaries fire machine guns into anti Muammar al-Gaddafi demonstration in U.K. (outside of the Libya Embassy) killing a police officer and wounding others
1986 Had direct hand in Berlin Discotheque bombing that killed and wounded many US armed forces.
1987 a merchant vessel, the MV Eksund, was intercepted carrying a load of weapons that Libya had given to the IRA proving that Gaddafi was funding and supplying international terrorism.
1988 Libyan agents detonated a bomb on Pan Am flight 103 killing 270 people.

NOW, move forward the George Bush, Tony Blair era. It is becoming evident that their entire agenda was to gain control of as much global oil as possible during their time in office. After the terrorist attacks on the US and UK, (Which still have a cloud of mystery hanging over them since both events happened at the same time as a “mock exercise” for the same event was being staged.), the US and UK easily gained public acceptance of attacking and taking control of Iraq’s oil supply and were threatening to do the same to Gaddafi. Gaddafi was suffering greatly from the UN, UK and US sanctions against him and was worried about Al Qaeda pushing for revolution in Libya. This is when George Bush and Tony Blair opened the door for Gaddafi to surrender his oil diplomatically rather than lose his dictatorship hold on his country.
In 2003 Gaddafi admitted WMD’s and allowed UN inspectors to come in and dismantle them (All but about 10 tons of mustard gas that he still owns.) At that time Gaddafi also denounced terrorism and the terrorist attacks on the US and UK.
In March 2004, Tony Blair visited Gaddafi personally in Libya and cut the deal that would give Bush and Blair total access to Libya’s oil wealth and bring Libya back into International trade. Mr. Blair received the first cash flow from Libya oil. In this agreement, Libya could sell trillions of dollars worth of oil, but had to pay damages for the Pan Am flight 103 act of terrorism. Gaddafi paid 270 Billion Dollars to settle the claim. (Note: Only 80% of that was paid. Gaddafi withheld 40% until the US removed sanctions and withheld the final 20% because the US would not remove them from the terrorist nations list) The same month, Britain and Bulgaria co-sponsored a U.N. resolution which removed the suspended sanctions.
On May 15, 2006, the US State Department announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya, once Gaddafi declared he was abandoning Libya’s weapons of mass destruction program.
In July 2007, French president Nicolas Sarkozy visited Libya and signed a number of bilateral and multilateral (EU) agreements with Gaddafi
The “makeover” of Libya was complete. Gaddafi had not changed. Gaddafi was still the criminal that committed all the acts of terrorism above. All that had happened was that he paid damages for one act and agreed to sell oil to the UK and US through companies associated with Blair and Bush.
In other words, Blair and Bush gave Gaddafi the ability to buy his way out of his crimes and into the wealth of the international oil groups. With the recent uprising in Libya in an attempt to overthrow Gaddafi, all of these facts are coming to light and the roles of George Bush and Tony Blair in pardoning a world renowned terrorist in exchange for commerce and financial gain is being questioned.

Let me ask you this joegrundman:
Surely the consequences of a man murdering again and again has to be addressed, doesn't it?
To say that we must keep his criminal acts to the last 20 years is ridiculous. What is the point of that.
You don't think he is a criminal?

He is a dictator, and has acted as such, countless times.
He must be held accountable. For his crimes in the last 20 years. And beyond.
It is our moral obligation. For were we to aid a person such as this to a holiday house somewhere in Africa or South Africa with freedom to move and do as he pleases, all the whilst chomping down on cigars and laughing at the weak moral fibres in the Western Culture's bones.
Oh yea, good move that.
In closing, here is an interview with
Tim McCormack, an adviser to the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague:
MARK COLVIN: The UN vote comes on top of recently issued international warrants for the arrest of Colonel Gaddafi and his family.

Tim McCormack is an adviser to the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. I asked him what the warrants meant.

TIM MCCORMACK: It means that the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has the authority to investigate alleged crimes occurring in Libya that come within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court without Libya having consented as a state party to the Statute of the Court.

MARK COLVIN: So in practice what does that mean?

TIM MCCORMACK: Means that he can lay charges against any person in Libya from Muammar Gaddafi down through his senior political and military elite and ask the pre-trial chamber for approval to issue arrest warrants which would go out internationally for the arrest of any of those named individuals.

MARK COLVIN: And for what sort of crimes?

TIM MCCORMACK: For war crimes, crimes against humanity or acts of genocide. At this stage the prosecutor has announced that he believes there have been crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Libya and they're the categories that he would be investigating.

MARK COLVIN: Does there have to be a declared war for war crimes to be committed? I mean this is essentially a civil war at the moment, I suppose?

TIM MCCORMACK: That's right. No, no declaration is required because the key element is that the crime occurred in the context of an armed conflict rather than a war and that terminology has been developed for 30 plus years to avoid any issues about whether or not we have a formal declaration at this state of war.

So we talk about the law of armed conflict but we still use the language of war crimes which is a legacy from the past.

MARK COLVIN: So what would be a war crime in this context?

TIM MCCORMACK: The wilful targeting of civilians, indiscriminate attacks either from the air or by artillery which fail to distinguish between rebel forces, I'm talking about war crimes committed by Gaddafi's forces, indiscriminate attacks which fail to distinguish between rebel forces and the civilian population.

MARK COLVIN: You're only talking about Gaddafi's forces? It's not possible that the rebel forces could have done the same thing?

TIM MCCORMACK: Absolutely possible and the prosecutor has made it clear that in his investigation of the situation in Libya he keeps an open mind about who may or may not have been responsible. So of course if the rebel forces also targeted, or allegedly targeted civilians as well as Gaddafi's troops, then they would be liable for prosecution for the same war crime.

MARK COLVIN: I suppose the precedent there is the Balkans war where you have prosecuted Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian war criminals.

TIM MCCORMACK: And even Kosovar Albanians in fact. Yes, all sides of the conflict.

MARK COLVIN: So however Slobodan Milosevic died in custody, these things seem to take a very long time. I'm still getting emails in my inbox pretty much every week from Africa about proceedings over the Rwandan massacres of 1994. It's a long time ago.

I mean how much of a threat is it to the Gaddafi family to think that they may be put in jail you know, in 15, 20 years time?

TIM MCCORMACK: I mean it's a very good question, Mark, and there is no contesting the fact that these trials do often take quite a long time. I think what the prosecutor really hopes is that by announcing his intention to investigate the situation in Libya that he's putting the Gaddafi and his senior leadership on notice; that what's happening there is being carefully scrutinised and may become the subject of applications for arrest warrants.

In terms of the possibilities in time of arrests of Gaddafi and others who might be charged, I guess that all depends on how things unfold on the ground. If rebels are actually able to prevail now with this outside intervention and Gaddafi is actually loses power, he may be transferred to The Hague much more quickly than we've been accustomed to seeing in the past.

Or, for example, in contrast with the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, who was subject to an arrest warrant a long ago as March last year and is still at large and very much entrenched in power in Sudan.

SOURCE OF INTERVIEW

And more:
Beyond the use of violence to intimidate Libyans, Gaddafi has been responsible for severely stunting Libya’s economy. His belligerence towards the West and stubborn refusal to extradite wanted terrorists earned his country years of UN economic sanctions. The United States’ response was to ban imports of Libyan oil, effectively removing the biggest market for Libya’s most valuable export from the equation.
In the mid-1990s, Gaddafi expelled 30,000 Palestinians from Libya in a vengeful response to the Israel-Palestinian Leadership Organization peace talks.
And now, in the last week as Libyans have risen against their autocrat, reports are coming in that peaceful protesters are being fired on by Gaddafi forces. Deaths are somewhere in the hundreds.


So, it seems our man isn't that less of a crim after all.