Gaddafi death may be war crime, says International Criminal Court

[Judi Lynn]

Gaddafi death may be war crime, says International Criminal Court
by: AP From: AP December 16, 2011 11:56AM

THE chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court says there are "serious suspicions" that the death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was a war crime.

Luis Moreno Ocampo said after briefing the UN Security Council that he sent a letter to the head of the National Transitional Council asking what the government's plans are to investigate alleged war crimes by all parties, including the rebels.

The uprising against Gaddafi's 42-year rule erupted in February, quickly escalated into civil war, and ended in October with Gaddafi's capture and death in unclear circumstances.

Witness accounts and video taken of the deposed dictator after his capture by rebel fighters show that he was beaten and abused by his captors, and there were strong indications he was killed in custody.

More:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/gaddafi-death-may-be-war-crime-prosecutor/story-e6frf7lf-1226223865623

[mbperrin]

1. Of course it was. So was the killing of a US citizen without a trial.

Gitmo itself. Too much money in it for the "right" people.

I guess we all noticed that even though the Iraq war is "over" that the Pentagon budget won't be cut by a nickel.

[24601]

8. Perhaps you can cite where shooting a fleeing fugitive has ever been deemed a war crime in any

credible court.

I'm not about to hand Pres. Obama over for trial any more than I would extradite Bill Clinton to Serbia to serve his sentence since he was actually convicted there.

And the same goes for other former presidents.

As for the budget - go back and look at Defense funding since Sep 2001. OEF, OIF, OND, etc were finded primarily from supplementals as opposed to the core NDAAs and Appropriations.

NDAA costs pale in comparison to social program entitlements and discretionary spending.

Approximately 80% of the federal budget is not DoD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

[mbperrin]

19. Perhaps you'd like to show where the person mentioned was fleeing from anything.

So cut the 20% of the budget you say is defense - that's $800 billion a year and well on the way to balancing.

[24601]

22. As you know, I responded to the killing of the US citizen who was not named in the preceeding

post - but I was of course referring to Anwar al-Awlaki.

"On September 30, 2011, in northern Yemen's al-Jawf province, two Predator drones fired Hellfire missiles at a vehicle containing al-Awlaki and three other suspected al-Qaeda members. A witness said the group had stopped to eat breakfast while traveling to Ma'rib Governorate. A Predator drone was spotted by the group, which then tried to flee in the vehicle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Who did you think "US citizen" rederred to?

I'm a fair person, reduce both SS and Medicare do to the same level as defense.

[mbperrin]

23. That is of course the citizen I was referring to.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now just which part of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution is not understood here?


Far as I can tell from your post, when a cop sees you, who has not been indicted for any crime nor served any warrant, when he sees you get in your car and leave wherever you are, he may safely kill you.


Oh, and let's look at real budget figures: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/hist.html

For 2010:
National defense: $693+ billion
Veterans' benefits and service: $108+ billion
Total all defense-related: $801 billion+

Social Security on budget: $23+ billion
Medicare: $451 billion
Total: $474 billion.

Looks like somebody owes me about $327 billion to increase Social Security and Medicare to the cost of running the military.
So will you contact your congressperson to immediately increase SS and Medicare to the level of military spending? Or would you rather cut military spending by $327 billion a year? I can go either way.

Thanks for the offer!

[24601]

25. I'm still waiting for a credible court cite that it's a war crime to shoot a fleeing

fugitive. Or the next time an FBI sniper team takes out a hostage taker, I'll pass on your concerns.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/defense.pdf

Nice try on the budget gimmick, lump in DVA with DoD, and ignore Total outlays on social spending

Now for the truth,

DoD - Base and OCO 707B Total outlays
Social Security 804B Oops - 817 Total Outlaws
Medicare/Medicaid 804B Oops 892.8B Total outlays

[mbperrin]

27. The 6th Amendment will cover my argument nicely. When's the last time an FBI sniper team took out a

hostage taker? Not that it is legal to do so, but it is highly uncommon.

Your numbers are dishonest:
Veteran costs are definitely part of the cost of having a war machine - no war machine, no vets.

Social Security does not cost $817 from the general budget - it is already paid for by the contributions made years ago to the SS fund, which is in surplus. Counting it as an expense is like saying this:

I put an item on layaway and pay for it fully. I go to get the item, and the folks say, sorry, you have to pay for it again. That would be fraud, as is the attempt to put this number on SS.

Further, I believe I'll stay with actual budget numbers rather than a political press release.
Now, Valjean, I'll take my leave of you. I cannot present straight arguments in a crooked fight - life is simply too short. I wish you everything you deserve in life.

[24601]

30. I can't believe you bought the line about it being paid for. Give us all a laugh and go ask the

treasury to show you the money.

Hint - it was spent on funding government. In it's place, the SS Admin bought, essentially, USG IOUs that have to be paid back out of non-Social Security funds.

You really thought the money was there? ROTFLMAO!!

[mbperrin]

32. Bond redemptions are done daily, routinely. If Treasury bonds are worth nothing,

China, Japan, and a whole lot of other folks are liable to be pissed that their 4 TRILLION dollars in bonds are just paper.

Here's who has what.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

You badly need educated in finance and economics, as well as law. Please attend some classes when you are mature enough, and then you will have some actual knowledge, Valjean.

Now I really am going to take my leave of you, with the fervent desire that you will get all you deserve. Quickly.

[sabrina 1]

33. The killing of Al Awlaki was a crime.

What was a US drone doing in that country chasing a person against whom no charges were filed? Can you explain that?

As far as him running,(and whose word are we relying on for that this?), if I saw a drone following me, which all of us may actually do before too long, I would 'flee' if I could. So would any non-suicidal human being, and while I was fleeing I would want to know wtf a drone was following me around for, especially if had done nothing to warrant the death penalty.

What exactly were the charges, wait, there were no charges. What crime was committed by Awlaki? The WH Press Secretary doens't know, but you seem to so could you enlighten the rest of us please?

These are Bush/Cheney illegal, unconstitutional policies that we worked for eight, long years to put an stop to. Are you sure you weren't thinking of something else?

I don't know about you, but I elected Democrats to put a stop to this. So did every single person I know across the country.

[24601]

43. Thanks for the great legal advice - should I ever rob a bank and end up with the FBI

chasing me - I'll just tell them that until they go get an indictment, they can't shoot me.

Appreciate your help!

[sabrina 1]

44. What were the charges against Al Awlaki? Was he even accused of robbing a bank?

The were not 'in hot pursuit' of him. They went out of their way to go to another country to kill a US citizen against him no charges were ever filed, and they had years to file those charges. Why didn't they?

What you are advocating is that if someone in authority decides they do not like the politics of an American citizen, they can order their assassination.

We have a system of laws here. Even OBL was charged with crimes. Bu Awlaki never was so your argument makes zero sense.

[Bacchus4.0]

11. Abe Lincoln killed hundreds of thousands of US citizens by his orders n/t

s

[mbperrin]

20. Yes, and I debated the topic "Was Abe Lincoln a War Criminal?" at the Lincoln Union debates

at Texas A&M in 1974.

Audience overwhelmingly voted yes he was.

Any other questions?

[24601]

31. What do you expect from vote in a state that rebelled against the United States? Take the vote in

Philadelphia, and Jefferson Davis is the war criminal.

In any case, the US people and historians consistently put Lincoln in the top three presidents who ever held the office in any century - so is path to greatness the willingness to do what it takes to save the nation regardless?

Edited to add...
BTW - you don't speculate that the reason Bill Clinton can add convicted war criminal to his resume is in any way tied to the triel being conducted by and in Serbia do you?

Give me pretty much any issue and I can produce a venue that will guarantee a particular result. They don't care much for Lincoln & Grant in the South - and go circulate a petition in Atlanta to rename a Park for Sherman.
Just make sure you are wearing body armor.

[Bacchus4.0]

34. I didn't ask any questions and would have voted "no he wasn't" at your grade school debate n/t

s

[mbperrin]

35. Sorry. It wasn't a grade school. It is a Tier I university, and the debate was held in a 2000 seat

facility that was at capacity.

Here's how Lincoln Union works: a vote is taken on the question before the debate starts. In this case, there were around 400 votes for Lincoln as a war criminal and about 1600 against the idea.

Another vote is taken at the end, and whoever changed the most minds wins. In this case, 600 now voted yes and 1400 no, so the affirmative team won.

It's a bit more sophisticated than popularity contests only and allows an unpopular topic to be debated.

There are many just like you that are not open to change or new ideas of any kind; that's not surprising at all.

[Bacchus4.0]

36. fascinating, a one vote switch wins regardless of the overall tally

well, I do have a question this time. what was the case against Lincoln?? killing US citizens?convince me.

[mbperrin]

37. The switch measures persuasion.

But you've already said you would vote no regardless, so no thanks.

[Bacchus4.0]

41. not very persuasive n/t

s

[MADem]

2. Good luck getting that kid prosecuted. It's not like the "rebels" had Code of Conduct/Geneva

Convention training in "boot camp." Youth, "fog of war," a retribution culture, decades of brutal oppression, and lack of training are major factors in mitigation.

http://rt.com/news/no-accountability-gaddafi-death-503/

The Libyans could try the shooter and find him guilty, sentence him to a day in jail and then release him. He'd wear it like a badge of honor.

I think they'll be more interested, in Libya, anyway, in trying Muhamar's friends and relatives, and they'll try to scramble all that up to keep any international busybodies at bay.

[joshcryer]

3. Yes, it most certainly was. In the same vein as Mussolini.

[arely staircase]

17. file under - when bad things happen to bad people.

if his death was a war crime it was certainly the least outrageous one i've ever heard of.

[joshcryer]

18. Don't forget, they captured Saif, alive, and he will undergo a trial...

...as long as no kid with a gun or a very angry mob gets to him first.

Showing, already, that the New Libya is already respecting international law better than the United States.

[Ghost Dog]

38. True, that. n/t

[Dover]

4. Didn't Bush declare assassinations of gov. leaders acceptable?

No one seemed to flinch at that including the Internation Criminal Court.
That said, it is preferable if it ends the conflict prior to the loss of thousands of lives.

How do they view the death of Saddam Hussein?

----

On edit: Just found this:

In the wake of September 11, President George W. Bush has restored the sordid practices of the CIA by revoking President Ford's 1976 executive order 12333 which banned the CIA from conducting "targeted assassinations". This time, however, the CIA is to receive orders to assassinate foreign leaders directly from the President:

....The Bush administration has concluded that executive orders banning assassination do not prevent the president from lawfully singling out a terrorist for death by covert action... Bush's directive broadens the class of potential targets beyond bin Laden and his immediate circle of operational planners, and also beyond the present boundaries of the fight in Afghanistan, officials said. But it also holds the potential to target violence more narrowly than its precedents of the past 25 years because previous findings did not permit explicit planning for the death of an individual ... nside the CIA and elsewhere in government,... much of the debate turns on the scope of a targeted killing campaign. How wide should the government draw the circle around bin Laden? And in which countries -- among the 40 or so where al Qaeda is believed to operate -- may such efforts be attempted?...

...The CIA's Directorate of Operations, which runs the clandestine service, is mindful of a traumatizing past in which assassination attempts in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East were blamed on rogue agents when they failed. The agency is determined to leave no room this time for "plausible denial" of responsibility on the part of the president and the agency's top management. That does not mean that operations will be publicly proclaimed, one source said, but that the paper trail inside government must begin undeniably with "the political leadership."

..."The important thing is that the accountability chain is clear," said John C. Gannon, who retired in June as deputy director of central intelligence,... "I would want the president's guidance to be as clear as it could be, including the names of individuals... With explicit authority, he said, "I think the case officers are capable (of targeted killing) and would follow instructions, and would, I think, have the capability of succeeding."

National security officials noted that the White House and at least three executive departments already maintain lists in which terrorists are singled out by name... One view, apparently a minority position but one expressed in private recently by two senior managers in the Directorate of Operations, is that the clandestine service should target not only commanders but also financiers of al Qaeda. "You have to go after the Gucci guys, the guys who write the checks," said one person reflecting that view. It is easier to find financiers, he said, and killing them would have dramatic impact because they are not commonly prepared to die for their cause... Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.)... said fundraisers are legitimate targets for death. "Under traditional terms of war, those who assist belligerents are belligerents," he said....

If Bush has drawn up such a list, it is among the most closely held secrets of government. It could not be learned whether names have been proposed to him by the clandestine service, or whether he has signed orders that would amount to individual death warrants ...

Spokesmen for the White House and the CIA declined to comment for this article. But the administration has laid down a public record that offers further evidence of the agency's new authority. (Washington Post, 29 October 2001, emphasis added)

American public opinion is led to believe that a policy of "targeted assassinations" in time of war is necessary to "fight evil" and uphold democracy: "White House officials have said that capturing bin Laden would be highly undesirable and he would be shot on sight rather than captured" (Daily Telegraph, 22 October 2001).


---

AMERICAN LAW AND POLICY ON ASSASSINATIONS OF FOREIGN LEADERS: THE PRACTICALITY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO

Nathan Canestaro*
Abstract: Suspending the ban on assassinations—as established in Executive Order 12333—serves no practical purpose. The Executive Order is not an obstacle to effective prosecution of the War on Terrorism; in fact, its reach is very limited. Although common sense might suggest that “assassination” equates with the targeted killing of a specific individual, the term is in fact a legal term of art with a very narrow definition derived from the Law of War. As a result, Executive Order 12333 only prohibits a very narrow spectrum of attacks in wartime or against clear threats to national security. As the United States has not typically engaged such means to attack “leadership targets” for several decades, publicly rescinding the offer now would grant no more freedom to act and only would serve to undermine the United States’ public diplomacy abroad.

Introduction
In the rush to vengeance after the September 11 attacks, it has been seriously suggested by a number of advocates, including scholars, journalists, and politicians, that the government remove all legal limitations on its use of assassination.1 They contend that the ability to eliminate key targets will be a necessary tool for our nation to prosecute its new war against terrorism.

No standing Federal law criminalizes the assassination of a foreign official outside the boundaries of the United States. In the ab[*PG2]sence of such a statute, only Executive Order 12333 prohibits the act of state-sponsored killing.2 This Order, which was drafted in the mid-1970s in the wake of revelations of government involvement in plots to kill several foreign leaders, has been maintained by every administration since President Ford. In recent years, however, there have been several attempts by Congress to override Executive Order 12333. The most recent of these initiatives is H.R. 19, the “Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001,” proposed in January of this year by Representative Barr of Georgia.3 The findings section of this bill states:

Past Presidents have issued Executive orders which severely limit the use of the military when dealing with potential threats against the United States of America; . . . these Executive orders limit the swift, sure, and precise action needed by the United States to protect our national security; present strategy allows the military to bomb large targets hoping to eliminate a terrorist leader, but prevents our country from designing a limited action which would specifically accomplish that purpose . . . .4

This paper will argue that any such legislation or other public revocation of the assassination ban would serve no practical purpose and will only injure the United States’ ability to pursue its interests overseas during a time of international crisis. There is little utility to be found in retracting Executive Order 12333, as neither it nor international law pose any serious obstacle to the use of assassination in the scenarios in which the United States would typically employ it. As with any Executive Order, it may be revised, revoked, or temporarily suspended by the President. Furthermore, each successive administration has carved out exceptions to Executive Order 12333 that have narrowed the scope of its restrictions.

..cont'd
http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_TXT.htm

[center rising]

5. Crime or not, I'm glad Gaddafi is dead.

I'm sure this is one supposed crime that won't be prosecuted!!

[EFerrari]

29. It won't be prosecuted. The ICC is just covering its @ss

and pretending to do its job. Yesterday the UN lifted the sanctions against the Libyan central bank.

[ellisonz]

6. Ok.

[midnight]

7. So many war crimes.... I wonder were this fits into the pile?

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. It was a Yankees fan who did it:

[bluedigger]

10. Tyrants reap what they sow.

The kid is a national hero.

[closeupready]

12. What a bunch of wimps. Give me a break.

Where was the International Criminal Court when Qadaffi was traipsing around Europe even though he'd sponsored international terrorism and had been using an iron fist against his opponents.

Paper tigers.

[UndertheOcean]

13. May ? Looked like Summary Execution to me ... If that is not a war crime then what is ? n/t

[gratuitous]

14. We only recognize war crimes as actions we don't like

It's kind of like the "Ordinarily I'm anti-death penalty, but . . ." (insert today's exception here). See, if you're really anti-death penalty, you're against it in every instance. Likewise, if you claim to be in favor of following the Constitution, our treaty commitments and international law, but carve out exceptions for really, really bad persons, then you're not really following the law of the land.

And the parade of folks endorsing such is just downright depressing. Summary execution it was indeed.

[closeupready]

16. By that token, the whole revolution was a continuous war crime.

and many 'innocent' Qaddafi supporters lost their lives. Should we put instigators of the Arab Spring on trial, or charge them as war criminals? Doesn't make sense.

[EFerrari]

28. Not really. The actual instigators of the Arab Spring were not violent

and they were not murderers.

I don't know why people go to such trouble to rationalize the summary execution of Gaddafi, who was likely killed a foot away from US, French, Brit and Qatari personnel. Why not just acknowledge the atrocity and move on?

[alphafemale]

15. If you don't want a brutal, humiliating death....Don't be a despot.

These charges will never be pursued.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Of course it was

[CJvR]

24. Sob sob sob...

Gadaffi had months to negotiate an orderly surrender where his personal safety (until he was formally tried, convicted & hanged) could be assured but he choose to ride down in flames instead. Perhaps not the brightest plan, but considering how many Libyans had personal reasons to want his blood any other outcome would have been surprising.

I wonder if they still have the carcas on display in that butchers shop.

[applegrove]

26. The ICC better give the dead victims of Gaddafi the same respect by studying their deaths

over the last 43 years.

[Ghost Dog]

39. Yes. And maybe the US could join the ICC

and help?

[NorthCarolina]

40. America is really becoming good at War Crimes and Atrocities of late.

http://warisacrime.org/content/new-photos-released-iraq-atrocity-documents-and-video

[Countdown_3_2_1]

42. Big Words for the ICC. But they never back words with action.

another UN paper tiger. ICC war crimes will be ignored until the ICC can go after war criminals