Gaddafi's playboy son Saif 'makes bid for freedom across the desert'

[jakeXT]

Source: dailymail

Saif al-Islam was said to be fleeing across the vast Libyan desert towards Niger yesterday after escaping the carnage of Sirte.

Officials said Gaddafi’s favourite son – a British-educated playboy – was travelling in a convoy of three armoured vehicles being hunted by Nato reconnaissance planes.

If confirmed, it would be a blow to the National Transitional Council and a huge boost to the dead tyrant’s remaining supporters who would see his survival as a potential rallying point for any insurgency.

His escape will also worry the British political elite who could face acute embarrassment if Saif was ultimately captured and ended up in court.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052065/Saif-Gaddafi-makes-bid-freedom-Libyan-desert.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[DJ13]

1. the British political elite who could face acute embarrassment

So he must die?

[aquart]

3. Well, it's traditional.

Although methods may vary. But leaving an heir for revolt to rally around is just stupid. Alexander the Great knocked off the competition the second Daddy was dead, including baby brother. Henry VII of England went on a spree that got rid of any relative of Richard III he could find. Bloody Mary was awfully tempted about sister Elizabeth. Elizabeth got rid of Cousin Mary Queen of Scots...and so on.

The practice only disappears with representative democracy...because you simply can't figure out who to kill.

[tcaudilllg]

10. Not really true.

Hitler proved you can seize control of a nation by killing its intelligensia in one sudden wave of violence.

To be quite honest, were the editors of the Weekly Standard and other key Republican mags and think tanks to disappear, the Right would be hobbled for a generation.

[aquart]

59. I was talking about the tradition of murdering COMPETITION, NOT COMMENTATORS.

[calimary]

63. Oh man - I can dream...

[EFerrari]

14. The practice diminishes when the state replaced the tribe

but not entirely as old habits and oligarchies die hard.

[EFerrari]

6. I forget where I heard it, but is he the son for whom the London School of Economics

wrote a dissertation? Hmm, I think it was Chomsky that I heard talking about this.

[tabasco]

2. I hope they catch his sorry ass. n/t

[harmonicon]

12. Because?

Seriously. Heaven forbid someone try to live their life as they see fit. They clearly should be murdered because of a familial grudge.

[Tx4obama]

15. A warrant for his arrest was issued in late June 2011, for crimes against humanity

War crimes court issues Gaddafi arrest warrant

ICC orders Libyan leader and his son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi to stand trial on charges of torturing and killing civilians and rebels
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/27/muammar-gaddafi-arrest-warrant-hague


Apparently you know nothing about him.

[harmonicon]

16. No, I don't know anything about him - thanks for the link.

If there's a warrant, I do hope he's caught, but I also find a lot of sympathy with this statement:

'"The actions of Nato are crimes against humanity, crimes that the ICC should deal with. The Libyan state will prosecute Nato for crimes committed in Libya." Qamoodi said Libya is not party to the ICC and therefore does not recognise its jurisdiction.Khaled Kaim, the Libyan deputy foreign minister, described the ICC as "the equivalent of the US tribunal at Guantanamo Bay", adding that it represented "an attempt by Europe for the re-colonisation of Africa."'

Of course the idea that the ICC is like Guantanamo is laughable, but I do think an argument can be made about it being a tool of powerful western countries used against their enemies. For instance, I don't think any warrants will be issued for Obama for his role in the assassinations of multiple people, US civilians, and otherwise.

[sabrina 1]

21. I know enough to know that if indeed he was guilty of any of this

that warrant should include, Tony Blair, George Bush, the current administration's State Dept, (see Wikileaks cables) the London School of Economics, Italy's & France's leading Govt officials, Halliburton, KB&R, and a whole host of other US and Multi-National Corps. and the heads of many European Nations. Too much proof of their 'complicity' in those crimes is lying around, thanks to the Wikileaks cables.

The list is very long of those who are now claiming he committed all these crimes, as the Wikileaks cables reveal (no wonder they didn't want that info revealed) viewed him as the best possible future leader of Libya, as late as just before this phony revolution was started by the Imperial powers.

Investigations need to start immediately into why, if this was a criminal, all of these officials and Corps and Universities, who have no new information other than what occurred after the invaded Libya (in which case they will have to answer for the deaths of, according to some Human Rights estimates, maybe thousands of innocent Libyan civilians, not to mention Black African immigrants), were so cosy with him claiming he was their best ally to get things done in Libya. Again, damn those Wikileaks cables. It makes it so hard to keep telling lies and pretending to be the 'good guys'.

[totodeinhere]

23. Be that as it may, the Libyan people consider him a criminal and they would love to get their hands

on him because of crimes he is alleged to have committed against them. Some of those other players that you mentioned also surely have dirty hands as well, but the status of those people and institutions is not as urgent as far as the people of Libya are concerned. For instance, you didn't see demonstrators in Libya going around with signs that said "down with Tony Blair or George Bush," but you saw plenty of signs that said "down with Qaddafi."

[sabrina 1]

32. Who are the Libyan people? The 'rebels' do not represent

a majority of the Libyan people. The Libyan people are still fighting the rebels, and will most likely continue to do so. There was so little support for that minority, many of them from outside of Libya, Qatar, eg, (I wouldn't call them 'the Libyan people') that NATO had to do the job themselves using the so-called 'rebels' to help them remove the latest leader of an oil-producing country. Have you read anything about Libya over the past decades? I believe we have all been very misinformed about that country, and I am angry about that as I did fall for the propaganda until I noticed some things that appeared not to make sense, and finally took the time to do my own research. It was no paradise, but it was nothing like what we have been led to believe, and I for one, don't believe in parroting what the MSM tells me.

[totodeinhere]

37. I saw massive demonstrations filling whole town squares with people supporting the rebel movement.

You can say that "The 'rebels' do not represent a majority of the Libyan people." That is subjective. What do you think about people who claim that the OWS protesters don't represent a majority of the American people? I believe that the OWS protesters do and I support them but I must admit that my opinion on that is also subjective.

[sabrina 1]

41. Libya has six million people. We also saw over one million

people, verified by International Observers btw, cheering in Tripoli for Gaddafi.

It is estimated that one sixth of the population, always opposed to the Gadaffi government,(see the flags the rebels are waving, those are the old king's flag) is the most that supported this revolution and without the backing of the West, they would never have had a chance of ousting him. Because like it or not, and no matter what we think of him, he was a popular leader, not only with Libyans but in other parts of Africa. This was another Imperial war and the world knows it. The dissenters in Libya were used and I feel sorry for them because some of them seem to think they can tell these western powers to go and leave them alone now.

[al bupp]

47. You are simply wrong, ma'am, Gaddafi never managed to mobilize a million people...

despite bringing them in by bus and coercing attendance by bribery and threats. His rule was based on naked thuggery, pure and simple. To believe otherwise puts you in the same camp as the loonies on Mathaba.net (go check out what passes for reasoned thought there, if you want a laugh.)

Here's a simple question. If Gaddafi had so much support, then how did the rebels manage to take Tripoli, the largest and most populous city, w/in matter of days? I think by the first night they reached the center of the city, and there followed large and spontaneous pro-NTC demonstrations in the newly named Martyr's Square. Gaddafi claimed to have armed the masses, but where were they? Holed-up mostly in Gaddafi's compound, or lurking as snipers in tall buildings as it turned out, where they were defeated in another day or two.

Don't say it was NATO air power that did it. While it may have paved the way, there few, if any strikes on the days that Tripoli fell.

Have you somehow missed the numerous massive demonstrations and celebrations that Tripoli has hosted since Gaddafi fled? There can be little doubt that the revolution has the support of the vast majority of Libyans, to think otherwise seems to me a remarkable species of denial.

[sabrina 1]

57. Just saying 'you're wrong' is nice, but means nothing.

Reporters who were there verify the numbers in Tripoli supporting Gadaffi. But we don't have to rely on recent events, there is a whole history of Libya and records to view and eyewitnesses, workers, even CEO's of major Corporations, who have told an entirely different story.

There are reams and reams of film of Gadaffi riding around in an open care for miles and miles with Libyan citizens waving and rushing over to shake his hand, threw town after town. Could our president do that? Any Libyan who wanted to kill Gadaffi had ample opportunity to so over many years considering the way he traveled around the country with no protection.

How did the rebels take Tripoli? They didn't. NATO took Tripoli and even with all their WMD it took them months to finally do it. If a majority of the people had supported it, it would not have taken more than a couple of weeks.

Since we now know that the UN presentation was filled with lies, 'Gadaffi was using his airforce' and 'he killed 6,000 civilians' have been completely debunked (like the babies in the ovens) and the individual who made that presentation has been interviewed publicly (this guy made Colin Powell look like a truth teller) and admitted he had no proof of any of any of that, I would go with the credible journalists who were there with no agenda other to report what they saw.

Without NATO, the rebels would never have been able to leave Bengazi. Compare that with Egypt and Tunisia where they did not need NATO or anyone else, because a vast majority of the people did not support those regimes and it took them, unarmed, approx. three weeks to topple their governments.

Trying to justify what has been done by making claims that are questionable at best is foolish, there is so much evidence to the contrary. Libyans had every reason to like Gadaffi. Look up how they lived. They lived better than most people now in the so-called First World. They had high standards of living, gifts from the government, such as new homes, when they married, free HC and Education and the profits from oil revenues were shared with them. There was always a faction in the Bengazi area that hated him, they were supporters of the old king and that flag can be seen now proving that it was that faction, a minority, mostly involved with NATO in this war. That doesn't mean he was a nice guy. Nice guys wouldn't last long in the world they live in. But compared to some of the brutal dictators we are now supporting, he was not so bad, as far as his people were concerned, as far as dictators go. Women had equal rights there also, and equal pay, which we still can't get here.

Maybe presenting evidence of crimes in a proper legal setting would be more convincing. And there were crimes.

Eg, we sent him our detainees to torture. And he obliged. That is a crime. We could have charged him with that eg. Obviously the US knew he used torture, or they would not have become customers. Why did we not stop him if we are so concerned about human rights?

It's really incredible to think that people believe this was a humanitarian mission considering all the evidence that we HELPED him, probably PAID him with weapons or whatever to commit the crimes we are now screaming about.

So, charges of crimes against humanity were out of the question in any public court because we too were guilty. Better to just throw him to a rabid mob and silence him forever. Democracy in action.

[al bupp]

65. You say that NATO used WMDs in Libya, really?

You must have a very original idea of what a WMD is. As for your other points, lets see... perhaps the Tunisian and Egyptians didn't have to take up arms because they didn't have snipers on rooftops taking pot shots at them?

Sure, Libyans had every reason to love living under the Jamahiriya state as long as they didn't, say, write an angry letter to the editor complaining about the vast siphoning of country's wealth into the Gaddafi family's coffers. But wait, they couldn't do that either because there were no independent newspapers, never mind tv or radio stations. You do know that something like DU would not have lasted 10 minutes there, don't you?

Your thesis seems to be that because the west tolerated him and didn't oppose him sooner, it's somehow hypocritical to have done it later. Yes, a lot of people sold that maniac things we wish he never had, such as yellow cake uranium from who knows where (Pakistan?), high-power sniper rifles (from SA), cluster bombs (from Spain) and comprehensive, broad-spectrum surveillance equipment and associated computer systems (from France). So what, therefore the international community has to let Gaddafi use them if he likes against his own people? Your rambling is approximately as coherent as Gaddafi's Green Book.

[Posteritatis]

48. I imagine the main reason people are saying stuff like that is because the US was involved

DU was pretty enthusiastic about its support for the uprisings in Libya at first; they suddenly became the bad guys after the UNSC resolution to aid them because of the silly Manichean kneejerks that happen so much with stuff like that. If they'd won without western assistance, or if they'd gone down like they were just about to, arguments like the one you're dealing with in this subthread probably wouldn't be happening.

We'll probably see a variant in the next few months where people start trying to claim the LRA in Uganda are the good guys.

[sabrina 1]

61. It's sad that you seem so misinformed about the reasons for

the loss of support for the fake Libyan revolution. First, the US was not the main player, it was France. The loss of support came after it was revealed that the French had been behind the plotting for the fake revolution since at least last Fall. THAT is what began to change people's minds.

Why not ask those most likely to have the answers? As an early supporter these are some of the reasons why, although there were others, the killings and rapes of Black Africans eg, but once it became obvious that what we were seeing was not a people's movement, it was not possible to keep supporting it.

It was thought at first that the US would not go along with France's and then Italy's and Britain's plans to invade Libya, because there seemed to be no benefit for the US. They had major contracts with the Gadaffi Govt earned over long and difficult negotiations..(see Libyan Wikileaks Cables) US Corps like Halliburton eg, wrote to the WH asking them NOT to agree to any NATO bombing of Libya. So from the beginning of the revelations that Western forces were involved long before the initial protests, the US was NOT, obviously at least, a part of that.

How Europe managed to get US support eventually is not yet clear, but the meeting in Brussels of NATO Heads of state including US Reps divvying up the spoils of Libya's 'people's revolution', seems to indicate that the US got assurances of a big share of the Libya Pie being discussed by a bunch of non-Libyans in Europe. Those photos made any claims of a 'people's revolution' laughable. Which was noted in Europe's MSM btw, although not ours. They were literally salivating.

The US was wrong to get involved, they basically had what they wanted from Gadaffi, but I guess they owed NATO for Afghanistan and all of our other wars, so what is an Empire to do?

And what does the Arab World think of all of this? I guess it's old Colonial news to them. A cartoon circulating that part of the world probably says it best:

&xsize=640&ysize=640

[polly7]

62. I saw the same with people supporting the Qaddafi gov't during those

first two weeks in February. Completely filling the streets.

[polly7]

64. I decided to check out how these warrants were issued.

http://www.laguerrehumanitaire.fr/english

[tabasco]

17. Damn. You are seriously uninformed. Or something.

"He is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity against the Libyan people, including torturing and killing civilians."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Islam_Gaddafi

[harmonicon]

18. I think I'm well informed, but I don't just jump on the story of the week...

only to give up caring about it when the next popular thing comes along. As far as Libya goes, I'm more concerned about the conflict in general and the forces and governments involved. I don't know who the "rebels" who murdered their prisoners were as individuals just as I don't know about this one son of Gathafi. However, I would like for all of these people to be brought to justice.

[totodeinhere]

25. Fair enough. I doubt if very many of us have kept up the intricacies of the Qaddafi family

and who his many sons are and what they are alleged to have done. I know that I haven't but like you I consider myself relatively well informed.

[JoeyT]

20. Wow, so people get run down for torturing and killing civilians now?

Someone should tell NATO about the previous administration. I'm sure they'll get right on it.

Oh, you mean we only do something about evil fuckers when they're powerless to fight back. If they have the capacity to fight back, we pretend nothing ever happened. Never mind then.

[sabrina 1]

22. Considering the US sent detainees to Libya for torture, and to

Egypt, it is the height of hypocrisy to even mention that subject, which is being pointed out by people across the globe, including China. I think until we hold our own torturers, who appear to have been far better at it than any of these amateurs, responsible, we have zero standing to claim torture as a reason to punish anyone. I thought we were moving on from all that nonsense!

[totodeinhere]

26. But it's not the USA that has indicted him. It's the International Criminal Court.

And that court represents many other nations that don't make a habit of doing those things you mentioned. Besides that, regardless of what my government may have done, I as a citizen of the world have the moral right to object against crimes against humanity now matter who is perpetrating them, whether it's my own government or anyone else.

[sabrina 1]

28. At the request of whom, did that court indict him?

And if they do not indict those who sent people to be tortured there, they have zero credibility and will be viewed as nothing more than a tool of the Global Warmongers.

They will also hopefully be indicting the murderers and rapists who are currently terrorizing the Black African Immigrant population in Libya, and if they do not, again they will be viewed, and are actually, as nothing but a tool of the Imperial Colonialist nations.

They also need to do something about the Bush torturers and the Blackwater murderers for what they did in Iraq. There are so many horrific crimes that have been committed over the past decade by so many people, it's interesting that they are interested only in indicting someone who is standing in the way of the West's oil grab.

And my very favorite dictator, Karamov, in Uzbekistan, someone I and so many others have tried to stop this country from supporting, has somehow escaped the notice of the ICC, considering there is no doubt that he massacred his own people, that he tortures and kills those who oppose him etc. etc. But he is an 'ally' of the US, could that be the reason why?

All these institutions have been corrupted or pressured to do the bidding of the Imperial countries. Until they are less selective in who they prosecute, they will have little credibility. That is what I hope will begin to change now that the PEOPLE of the world are uniting against all these injustices.

[totodeinhere]

33. There is no doubt that the system needs to be improved and sometimes it can be selective.

I wonder however if you would have advocated that the Nazi and Japanese militarist war criminals not be tried for war crimes committed during WWII since war crimes where committed by other parties as well. And do you advocate setting Charles Taylor and Goran Hadzic free as well since other alleged criminals have not been charged? Yes it's true that in war it's usually the case that only the losers get charged with war crimes. I wish we had a better system than that but it's all we have right now. And after all, who said that war is fair in the first place? It isn't and it never will be and until we get to a utopian world with no war these things will continue. We just have to try to make the best of it.

[sabrina 1]

36. Well, I am not advocating that war criminals NOT be prosecuted

I am questioning the selective prosecution, which has some problems since Saif Gadaffi was part of his country's military. Libya was recognized by the International Community including the US, as a sovereign state. When a small faction takes up arms against the government of a sovereign state, what should that government do? What would THIS government do? And when they were found to have been plotting with foreign entities with interests in their resources, against that government, and do not forget, a government recognized by the International community, was it a 'war crime' for that Government to defend itself?

Otoh, when we invaded other countries and killed and tortured and maimed untold numbers of people who had done nothing to us, we declare our righteousness to do so and dare anyone to accuse us of war crimes.

Sorry, I can't get too excited over Saif Gadaffi who was the favorite future leader of Libya by the same people now flip-flopping for some reason and calling him a criminal. Just one year ago, he was the same person. Why were they supporting him? There was nothing we know now, that they did not know them.

Hypocrisy is rampant and frankly, didn't this administration tell us not to worry about war crimes, that it is best to 'move on' from those crimes? I thought we didn't care about war crimes anymore, and now I am expected to suddenly care again??

I don't. He is not my problem, Our war criminals are our problem, but we decided to overlook them. I can far more easily overlook someone who has zero affect on my life, than I can overlook people who killed and tortured in our name, untold numbers of innocent people, men women and most tragically children. I saw the photos and heard the testimony of witness, but hey, let's move on. And I say, if we could move on from all that, why should I or anyone else, care about the pretext now that we all of a sudden DO care about war crimes?

[Posteritatis]

52. You *do* know how far out of the way the US has gone to try to undermine the ICC, right?

Claiming the International Criminal Court of all things is one of its tools is the kind of stretch that would make Gumby cringe.

[ellisonz]

58. I deeply wish the United States would sign the Rome Statute.

I have always thought the supposed argument against its ratification, that American soldiers and politicians could be subject to it is ludicrous. If you commit the crime, you should do the time.

[sabrina 1]

60. And the pressure on the court apparently worked, they accepted

material much of which has now been admitted to be very questionable at best. He will be killed before any real evidence has to be introduced and that is the plan. This is for show, that's all. The old British Empire used these kinds of tactics also. They always, for some reason, wanted a stamp of legal approval on their murders. We've learned well from our old royal rulers.


People are just sick of the hypocrisy and the takeover and/or intimidation of all institutions that were meant to help this world to operate as a civil world.

Hopefully now the world's people will begin to change all of that. They can't be fooled by these old tactics anymore. And this is a tactic. Massive war crimes have been committed and still are being committed daily, and this is the only issue for the ICC. They have been undermined as was the Spanish court. But hopefully not for long.

[Posteritatis]

51. Let's just ignore it all then! Yay! (nt)

[polly7]

66. Based on complete lies.

http://www.laguerrehumanitaire.fr/english

[Posteritatis]

19. Okay, you just recalibrated my opinions on exactly how naive someone can be. (nt)

[flamingdem]

4. I wonder if he's hidden himself behind a veil

That would make for a good photo

[Muskypundit]

5. I hope he gets captured

and embarrasses the SHIT out of the elites.

[Taverner]

7. Call me a dirty stinkin' hippie, but I hope he survives

There has been enough death already

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

11. Your a dirty stinkin' hippie and I agree with you - I hope he makes it too. nt

[sabrina 1]

24. He has many friends in the West. Although for now, they will

probably feel obliged to remain silent. A recent article about him was published by someone who worked with him from a US Corporation for which I give him credit as it took courage to write, now that our former best friend, is not our friend anymore (it reminds me of Britain during the Henry V111 period, where you had to keep changing your religion depending on who was king or queen) and in it he described someone who was very progressive in terms in what he wanted to do for Libya and was doing. He was disbelieving of what he was now hearing and clearly confused since just weeks earlier US policy was to engage Saif as a reasonable, moderate and hopefully, they said, future leader who would be easy to deal with.

He said that he could not believe what was happening, and felt that the man he had known and worked with, would probably die in this war, which he called 'a great tragedy'.

We are so uninformed in this country. Even those of us who try to keep up, it's hard to get past the propaganda, especially when it keeps changing, as it has so rapidly, with Libya. I am sick to death of the bloody wars the Imperial Western nations have instigating for centuries. I too hope he survives and lives a life of relative peace. He defended his country from a foreign invasion and since we now know that the presentation to the UN for the Resolution was riddled with lies, and there's hardly any doubt left about that, I would trust nothing coming from NATO who are guilty of so many crimes themselves.

[totodeinhere]

29. Under the international legal system, since the ICC indicted him, he is legally

obligated to stand trial. Of course it should be a fair trial and he should have competent legal representation with sufficient resources to adequately defend him. Then the court can sort all of this out and he can either be convicted or acquitted. That's the way the system should work.

[sabrina 1]

38. We care about war crimes?? Since when?

Weren't we told to move on from war crimes, that it was best to forget them and move forward? And what does Libya have to do with us? I see more passionate caring about war crimes in that country than I do right here, where it actually matters to us. Seem pretty hypocritical to me.

I was told to stop talking about war crimes. Now I am supposed to suddenly turn around and care about war crimes. Interesting. Will this government support that indictment?? Please tell me they will not dare to be that hypocritical unless they hand over the their own wanted war criminals and torturers to the courts who have been trying to prosecute them for years now.

Do you know what people around the world say when Americans claim that someone from another country is wanted for crimes? See what China had to say the last time Hillary Clinton tried to talk about human rights abuses. We have no moral standing on these issues anymore. I say everyone should do what we do and ignore these silly indictments. The way we ignored the Spanish court regarding our torturers and war criminals.

[totodeinhere]

40. I am not xenophobic enough to think that only my country matters to me.

What does Libya have to do with us? The whole world is interconnected and it is the responsibility of all of us to stand up for justice world wide, not just in our own country. I have been advocating for a long time that Bush Administration and other officials be charged with war crimes. In fact, I would also support charging Obama Administration officials and even Obama himself with war crimes it it's justified. (I'm not saying that I believe it is.) This is not just about America and the ICC is more than America. America does not have control over the ICC's proceedings.

[sabrina 1]

44. I agree, I am for prosecuting all war criminals. If we were to do

so, there were would be fewer wars. We were not attacked, we initiated the hostilities and then killed and tortured citizens of sovereign countries for no reason.

In the case of Libya, the government did not initiate the armed revolt, they responded to it. If during the battles there were crimes committed by both sides, which we know there were, then my question is why is only Said Gadaffi indicted? Horrible crimes were committed, lynchings, rapes etc. (which is why I stopped supporting those people) against Black Africans by the 'rebels', yet there are no indictments of those people and Human Rights Orgs have been reporting those crimes from as early as last March and as late as this past week.

I think the Obama administration's dismissal of war crimes has had a profound effect on the world. No one now takes us seriously when we accuse someone, like Said G. of war crimes. They just don't believe it. I think We should mind our business and say nothing, but unfortunately Hillary Clinton constantly lectures other countries on human rights no matter how many times people have responded by pointing to the unindicted criminals in her own government.

But yes, I agree with you. All war criminals need to be held accountable.

[Taverner]

56. Make him stand trial then. I'm just sick of the death.

[totodeinhere]

27. I see no problem with hoping he survives and faces a fair trial for the crimes

he is alleged to have committed. In fact I think that's the proper attitude to have.

[sabrina 1]

30. So long as all those who have committed atrocities are also

indicted and tried. I am hoping the brutal murderers and rapists of the Black African immigrant community in Libya and of POWs, plus the targeting of those who are merely suspected of being supporters of their former government, will be indicted. But that most likely will not happen since they are OUR allies. And OUR torturers are not as criminal, or something!

[totodeinhere]

35. You will get no disagreement from me that others who have committed war crimes should be

apprehended and tried. But it's a process. We don't have the wherewithal to arrest each and every one of them at once. Do you advocate that nobody be tried for war crimes as long as any other alleged war criminals are free? If that is the case nobody will ever be tried.

[sabrina 1]

39. We had the wherewithal and still do, to hand over to the Spanish

court the six Bush torturers named in their case against them. That court has the right and standing to prosecute those people since some of their own citizens were victims of their alleged crimes. There was nothing difficult about it. There was no need to round them up. They were named in the charging papers, they could have gone and stood trial like anyone else.

But the Wikileaks cables revealed that this President intervened and placed pressure on the Court, while our smear machine went into effect to try to damage the judge, to prevent that process from going forward. The case is still open, but the pressure worked and the torturers are being protected here and treated like celebrities, making money from their crimes.

So basically we have stated to the world that torture is not a crime. Why are we now attempting to claim that it is?

I think the rule of law has been abandoned. So why should anyone care about it now?

[Taverner]

34. Even still, I think he deserves a break where the rest of his family wouldn't

He tried to reform the "Green" government

He couldn't

He chose family over reform - let's hope that decision doesn't kill him

[joshcryer]

43. It's ironic because he was the first domino to cause the entire thing to fall apart.

He should've defected early on, but I suppose family loyalty was more important. If he defected he would've been Libya's new leader and still been able to continue his playboy lifestyle. As it stands now he will likely be tried and killed.

[Taverner]

45. "Playboy" lifestyle is something the media defines.

You and I would call it "normal" it were you or I

[Posteritatis]

50. His choosing family over reform certainly killed its share of Libyans. (nt)

[Taverner]

54. But does one deserve death for that? Or anything, really...

[joshcryer]

42. I hope he survives too, they sid they captured him *alive*, and they'll try their best to keep...

...him that way. I just don't understand why he's being taken to Misrata when Misrata got the worst of the worst from Gaddafi (as bad as Sirte did the rebels, if not worse). It's like taking him into the lions den.

[al bupp]

49. Why because hippies root for indicted war criminals?

That might be news to the ones who protested against the Me Lai massacre.

This old hippie hopes he's captured and put on trial, as should have happened to his father.

[Taverner]

55. Trial, sure. Death, no.

[dipsydoodle]

8. More likely a smokescreen.

.

[SoapBox]

9. Or....send in the drones and blow the crap out of him...

But, much more fun to parade the "playboy" around and let the 99% see him, in all his rich glory!!!

[EFerrari]

13. More fun with war crimes.

:shrug:

[pampango]

31. MSNBC: Rebels: Gadhafi's son Saif al-Islam captured alive

Slain dictator Moammar Gadhafi's influential son and heir-apparent, Saif al-Islam, has been captured alive and uninjured, rebel sources told NBC News on Saturday.

Saif al-Islam and Moussa Ibrahim, the former spokesman for the Gadhafi's regime, were both captured in the Libyan city of Nessma, near Bani Walid, and were currently being transported to Misrata, rebel forces told NBC News.

The collaring of Gadhafi's fugitive son and spokesman could not be immediately verified. Rebel forces have been incorrect in the past with their reporting of the conditions and whereabouts of Gadhafi's loyalists.

Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, whose name means "Sword of Islam," was the most elusive of the late Libyan leader's eight offspring. He was wanted on war crimes charges but evaded a manhunt for months to remain the only leading family member still at large.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45000464/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.TqNawHGGwy4

[Tx4obama]

46. This will be the THIRD different time that's been reported. Let's see if there's a confirmation :)

1) August 21, 2011 (turned out not true)
2) October 20, 2011 (turned out not true)
3) Now today, October 22, 2011 (???)

p.s. I hope they got him and he stays alive long enough for a trial.


Edited to add

I don't see anything about the capture on the alJazeera blog yet: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya

[Tx4obama]

53. Here's another UNconfirmed report that he has lost an arm

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi loses arm
http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcgt79qxak9zx4.5jra.html

and here: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/middle-east/3803-saif-al-islam-gaddafi-loses-arm?tmpl=component&page=

and here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8841848/Mystery-surrounds-fate-of-Saif-Gaddafi-amid-claims-of-capture-in-Zlitan.html