THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[Coito ergo sum]

NATO's charter doesn't allow it to initiate war. Not that it matters.

Neither does the UN Charter allow the UN to initiate war. But either entity may engage in war if it is a lawful war, and the primary reason for a lawful war after 1945 is self-defense (including the idea of preemptive self-defense).

[MrJonno]

Part of the UN Charter

1.To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

The suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace can basicallly justify anything the UN agrees on which can mean bombing Libya for killing its own people or invading Canada for the war crime known as Bryan Adams (if thats what the UN decides)


Basically if the UN says the use of force is legal it is, if it says its not well you are a naughby country but most the time the UN is too weak to do much about it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Part of the UN Charter

1.To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

The suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace can basicallly justify anything the UN agrees on which can mean bombing Libya for killing its own people or invading Canada for the war crime known as Bryan Adams (if thats what the UN decides)


Basically if the UN says the use of force is legal it is, if it says its not well you are a naughby country but most the time the UN is too weak to do much about it.

The Charter also says -

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state

and

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The humanitarian crises under international law that can justify military action are those that rise to the level of threats to international peace. There was no threat outside of the confines of Libya, and there was no aggression by Libya, and there was no killing of its own people there was only the "possibility" that Qadafi would kill his own people.

Something smells funny about the UN picking Libya, given how low on the list of "threats to international peace" it ranks.

My theory has been that it was the Arab League throwing Libya under the bus to give the western countries political cover regarding massive suppression of unrest in places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Those are places where intervention is basically impossible without starting a world war.

[MrJonno]

Something smells funny about the UN picking Libya, given how low on the list of "threats to international peace" it ranks.

My theory has been that it was the Arab League throwing Libya under the bus to give the western countries political cover regarding massive suppression of unrest in places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Those are places where intervention is basically impossible without starting a world war.

Probably some truth in that but not a reason in itself not to intervene. As for the UN charter like all fluffy nice bits of philosophy and good intentions(which includues the US constitution) it inevitable produces contraditions.

Could argue once you start breaking fundamental human rights as defined by the UN your actions are no longer domestic

[Coito ergo sum]

[\

Could argue once you start breaking fundamental human rights as defined by the UN your actions are no longer domestic

That's never been the law before. And, if so, then all objections to the War in Iraq in 2003 are gone, because there were humanitarian issues raised among the justifications for war. I.e. - the justifications for the Iraq were included, but were not limited to humanitarian reasons and the protection of civilians from oppression and murder by the Iraqi state. So, once we go there and state that aggressive war can be waged to stop a government from violating fundamental human rights, then no war is illegal as long as the aggressor can point to some violation of fundamental rights by a government. As the old saying goes, treat every man after his just desert, who among us shall escape whipping?

[Santa_Claus]

"we" are intervening in Libya because it's on Europes doorstep. Gaddafi has no freinds. and is owed some. He has no real weaponary to threaten us. it's a coastal country with all the good stuff in easy bombing range. and with the oil it should be self-financing, if not profitable.

Plus we like killing Muslims.

[Coito ergo sum]

Now even the rebels want NATO out of there... http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... low_To_Act

[Seth]

Yup. Pretty typical of ignorant Arab Muslims, but not a justification for levying war on a sovereign nation

Obviously in Seth world a soverign nation trumps everything

It did to almost every left-leaning or liberal person five years ago, too. Remember - back then we needed an "imminent threat" to the US in order to justify an attack, and nothing less would do. Where there is no imminent threat, you have to use measures short of military force. A preemptive war was illegal and a war crime back then. Here, we have nothing even remotely hinting at a threat from Libya, and the humanitarian crisis had not yet occurred and we moved in to PREEMPT it.

I remember hearing the arguments "but, there are humanitarian crises and dictators killing their people all over the world - why pick Iraq?" That argument was even used by those opposing the UN effort to free Kuwait of the Iraqi invasion in the early 90s. It was an insufficient reason to go in, that we were trying to help the Kuwaiti people who were being tortured and killed by Hussein. Why not Darfur, Sudan? Why not one of 10 or so other countries?

Because we had a treaty with Kuwait that gave us authority to respond to an INVASION of Kuwait, that's why. We did NOT enter Kuwait with troops to change the Kuwaiti regime, we entered to eject Saddam, and we pursued Saddam into Iraq in order to destroy his capacity to invade Kuwait. We fucked up badly by not taking him out then.

Our Constitution and our laws simply do not authorize the President to take unilateral action to commit US troops to combat ANYWHERE unless there is a direct threat to the US or our allies. Only Congress can do so. Whether we should intervene in any particular internal conflict in a non-treaty non-ally state is purely a political question, but it's only one that can be answered by Congress.

[Seth]

NATO is not authorized to wage an illegal war, is it?

Only the UN can authorise miltary action which it has done, the difference between 'no fly zone' and and a restricted war is entirely academic

The UN can't authorize itself to wipe its ass. It's a toothless tiger filled with cowards and political hacks that is the most useless political organ since the League of Nations.

The United States is not under the control of the UN, and we wage war when and where it pleases us to do so, subject only to Congressional authorization. The United States is still a sovereign nation, although there are many, many traitors and enemies out there trying to change that fact, and we can withdraw from or ignore the UN at our discretion, as can any other nation.

[Santa_Claus]

The UN can't authorize itself to wipe its ass. It's a toothless tiger filled with cowards and political hacks that is the most useless political organ since the League of Nations.

FFS that's the whole f#cking purpose of the UN a toothless tiger and talking shop that is not a threat to any of the main players. and can be used to keep the minor countries in line. For the West the UN is a win win.

The United States is not under the control of the UN, and we wage war when and where it pleases us to do so, subject only to Congressional authorization. The United States is still a sovereign nation, although there are many, many traitors and enemies out there trying to change that fact, and we can withdraw from or ignore the UN at our discretion, as can any other nation.

But with the UN in existence it means that US does not have to resort to armed conflict everytime. and nor do others.....it can do, but does not have to. One more option is not a bad thing, even for the US (although i concede that anything slightly complicated is not always understood in those parts).

[Seth]

The UN can't authorize itself to wipe its ass. It's a toothless tiger filled with cowards and political hacks that is the most useless political organ since the League of Nations.

FFS that's the whole f#cking purpose of the UN a toothless tiger and talking shop that is not a threat to any of the main players. and can be used to keep the minor countries in line. For the West the UN is a win win.

Yup. So far. There are those who will try to invoke the UN against the interests of the United States, but so long as we have a single-nation veto, it's not a problem. But I can tell you this, one of the metrics for taking up arms to defend against foreign enemies is the deployment of troops in blue helmets inside the United States to suppress American civil rights...like taking guns away. If that happens, many Americans will start putting holes in blue helmets very quickly, no matter what Obama says.

The United States is not under the control of the UN, and we wage war when and where it pleases us to do so, subject only to Congressional authorization. The United States is still a sovereign nation, although there are many, many traitors and enemies out there trying to change that fact, and we can withdraw from or ignore the UN at our discretion, as can any other nation.

But with the UN in existence it means that US does not have to resort to armed conflict everytime. and nor do others.....it can do, but does not have to. One more option is not a bad thing, even for the US (although i concede that anything slightly complicated is not always understood in those parts).

Diplomacy existed long before the UN did. The US is one of the most peaceful nations on earth...unless you fuck with us. That's why this invasion of Libya is such an egregious and evil violation of our Constitution. It's the President acting alone in a blatant display of disrespect for the Constitution and it's nothing but military adventurism intended to probe the willingness of Americans to accept unilateral Executive action without consequence. It's an incredibly dangerous precedent and Obama should be impeached for doing it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has appealed directly to President Barack Obama to halt what the Libyan leader called "an unjust war," and wished Obama good luck in his bid for re-election next year.
In a rambling, three-page letter to Obama obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, Gadhafi implored Obama to stop the NATO-led air campaign, which the Libyan called an "unjust war against a small people of a developing country."
"You are a man who has enough courage to annul a wrong and mistaken action," Gadhafi wrote in the letter that was sent to the State Department and forwarded immediately to the White House, according to a U.S. official who has seen the letter. "I am sure that you are able to shoulder the responsibility for that."
"To serving world peace ... Friendship between our peoples ... and for the sake of economic, and security cooperation against terror, you are in a position to keep Nato (NATO) off the Libyan affair for good," Gadhafi wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110406/ap_ ... s_us_libya

[JOZeldenrust]

Could argue once you start breaking fundamental human rights as defined by the UN your actions are no longer domestic

That's never been the law before. And, if so, then all objections to the War in Iraq in 2003 are gone, because there were humanitarian issues raised among the justifications for war. I.e. - the justifications for the Iraq were included, but were not limited to humanitarian reasons and the protection of civilians from oppression and murder by the Iraqi state. So, once we go there and state that aggressive war can be waged to stop a government from violating fundamental human rights, then no war is illegal as long as the aggressor can point to some violation of fundamental rights by a government. As the old saying goes, treat every man after his just desert, who among us shall escape whipping?

Actually, the distinction is pretty clear: no state may use military force against civilians, including its own. Do so, and your actions are out of your country's jurisdiction, and the UN can legally sanction military action.

[Coito ergo sum]

Could argue once you start breaking fundamental human rights as defined by the UN your actions are no longer domestic

That's never been the law before. And, if so, then all objections to the War in Iraq in 2003 are gone, because there were humanitarian issues raised among the justifications for war. I.e. - the justifications for the Iraq were included, but were not limited to humanitarian reasons and the protection of civilians from oppression and murder by the Iraqi state. So, once we go there and state that aggressive war can be waged to stop a government from violating fundamental human rights, then no war is illegal as long as the aggressor can point to some violation of fundamental rights by a government. As the old saying goes, treat every man after his just desert, who among us shall escape whipping?

Actually, the distinction is pretty clear: no state may use military force against civilians, including its own. Do so, and your actions are out of your country's jurisdiction, and the UN can legally sanction military action.

Yes, I get that distinction. However, wars are not legal or illegal because of UN sanction. Wars are legal or illegal irrespective of UN sanction. If a war is legal, it's legal, whether the UN sanctions it or not. Thus, if it is cause for war that Libya is murdering its people, other nations need not wait for UN sanction in order to proceed, nor are their actions illegal if the UN can't muster the political will to sanction it.

If UN sanction were required, then (by way of example) if Cuba invaded, say, the Dominican Republic, the US would have to wait until the UN sanctioned a response in order to repel the Cubans. The US certainly would not have to wait, and it would not be illegal for the US to join in the defense of an invaded nation.

There isn't a different rule for humanitarian justifications, is there? I mean, if the Dominican Republic started looking like it was going to fire on civilians in a political dispute within its borders, would the UN have to sanction action before anyone was permitted to stop the bloodshed? If so, what's the legal basis for that?

[Aos Si]

Legal basis and moral and ethical basis are tied up in wankery Coito. I just prefer to say illegal when its just wrong. Lets me sleep at night. Sure they should of waited but hell how many people have to die while a UN court gets together and whos going to veto their ass. Sometimes right is just right. As I say we'll have to see on this one. No ones ethics can rest on the Security Council, after all if it did then Russia was right on vetoing its way out of creating an illegal Eastern block. It's a mess as usual.