Defiant Gadhafi threatens attacks in Europe

[PLC1]

Defiant Gadhafi threatens attacks in Europe

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) -- A defiant Moammar Gadhafi threatened Friday to carry out attacks in Europe against "homes, offices, families," unless NATO halts its campaign of airstrikes against his regime in Libya.

Is this joker going to be around for another decade, threatening and planning attacks like that other guy... you remember...

Oh, yes, Bin Laden.

Time to send in the Seals.

 

[BigRob]

Defiant Gadhafi threatens attacks in Europe

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) -- A defiant Moammar Gadhafi threatened Friday to carry out attacks in Europe against "homes, offices, families," unless NATO halts its campaign of airstrikes against his regime in Libya.

Is this joker going to be around for another decade, threatening and planning attacks like that other guy... you remember...

Oh, yes, Bin Laden.

Time to send in the Seals.

Executive Order 11905 issued by Gerald Ford in 1976 and Executive Order 12036 issued by Jimmy Carter in 1978 make it illegal to assassinate foreign heads of state.

Additionally, the UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya does not permit the killing of Gadhafi.

 

[clarkatticus]

With all the defections he's had, he's gonna have trouble when he runs out of money. outside of his bodyguards, his ass ain't worth the pickle on a White Castle Burger.

 

[clarkatticus]

Yes, I know there's no pickle on their burgers

 

[PLC1]

Executive Order 11905 issued by Gerald Ford in 1976 and Executive Order 12036 issued by Jimmy Carter in 1978 make it illegal to assassinate foreign heads of state.

Additionally, the UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya does not permit the killing of Gadhafi.

HMM...., so the US can't do it without violating its own laws.

That hasn't bothered us too much in the past, but perhaps one of our allies could be in charge of the operation. Our seals could be "advisers" or something.

 

[BigRob]

HMM...., so the US can't do it without violating its own laws.

I think Reagan issued an EO along the same lines, but I can't remember the number off hand...and Bush followed it up too.

That hasn't bothered us too much in the past

What head of state have we assassinated since this order was issued?

but perhaps one of our allies could be in charge of the operation. Our seals could be "advisers" or something.

The EO states, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

There can be some leeway in a combat situation, but since Libya apparently is not a war that could cause some problems.

 

[clarkatticus]

I think Reagan issued an EO along the same lines, but I can't remember the number off hand...and Bush followed it up too.



What head of state have we assassinated since this order was issued?



The EO states, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

There can be some leeway in a combat situation, but since Libya apparently is not a war that could cause some problems.

I am sure France has no such law, nor Great Britian. They seem to be the future of action in Libya as soon as they can gear up for it. Britian is still involved with us in Iraq and Afghan and have little resources left to use on Libya. I should mention of all our allies, Britian is the only one to put their asses on the line for us and I have great respect for them, the rest of NATO just voted our way and threw token forces and money at us.

 

[PLC1]

I think Reagan issued an EO along the same lines, but I can't remember the number off hand...and Bush followed it up too.



What head of state have we assassinated since this order was issued?



The EO states, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

There can be some leeway in a combat situation, but since Libya apparently is not a war that could cause some problems.

Assassination of anyone, or just of a head of state? I can think of one rather recent and well known example of assassination, but the subject was not a head of state.

 

[BigRob]

I am sure France has no such law, nor Great Britian.

There is a pretty strong argument that assassinations are illegal under international law..something both the UK and France would be more apt to follow than us.

They seem to be the future of action in Libya as soon as they can gear up for it. Britian is still involved with us in Iraq and Afghan and have little resources left to use on Libya. I should mention of all our allies, Britian is the only one to put their asses on the line for us and I have great respect for them, the rest of NATO just voted our way and threw token forces and money at us.

There is no clear mission in Libya, and nothing in the NATO Charter that would really compel many nations to go along with the attack. We shouldn't be involved.

 

[BigRob]

Assassination of anyone, or just of a head of state? I can think of one rather recent and well known example of assassination, but the subject was not a head of state.

Assassination of anyone....granted in war time you can get a lot more leeway...but again, apparently this is not a real war.

As for Bin Laden, President Bush circumvented the prior EO's by issuing a Presidential Directive that allowed for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, something Obama has shown no sign of doing in terms of the Libyan conflict.

 

[PLC1]

Assassination of anyone....granted in war time you can get a lot more leeway...but again, apparently this is not a real war.

As for Bin Laden, President Bush circumvented the prior EO's by issuing a Presidential Directive that allowed for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, something Obama has shown no sign of doing in terms of the Libyan conflict.

If a presidential directive supersedes law, then the pesky business of assassinating Gadaffi being illegal shouldn't pose a problem.

Is the "war on terror" a real war? Just what is the definition of "war", anyway?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Executive Order 11905 issued by Gerald Ford in 1976 and Executive Order 12036 issued by Jimmy Carter in 1978 make it illegal to assassinate foreign heads of state.

Additionally, the UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya does not permit the killing of Gadhafi.

technically I do not believe he is head of state anymore...so far was we are concerned...As the US has recognized the rebels as the leadership of the nation...also he has stated that he is not ( of course it was his mindless ranting ) and thus there could be a legal argument that he is a just a Col, wanted for war crimes then.

And in the broad sense the US resolution says to protect the civilians...one could argue that the only way to really do so, is kill him..thats being fairly liberal with the terms of course...

though I suspect NATO will be happy if its a accident and try to let the rebels do it if they wish and he does not back down. Also I suspect his ego and self preservation skills will have him in some other nation in exile before that would happen.

 

[BigRob]

If a presidential directive supersedes law, then the pesky business of assassinating Gadaffi being illegal shouldn't pose a problem.

Well an Executive Order can be rescinded by the President whenever he wants...but that would look absurd in the case of Libya after President Obama went out of his way to classify the mission as he did.

Additionally, it would establish a horrible precedent, and President Obama would (even if he did so legally) be accused of being a war criminal, human rights violator etc...That is not something he is likely to do.

Is the "war on terror" a real war? Just what is the definition of "war", anyway?

I am not sure how to answer this...it seems it can change.

 

[clarkatticus]

There is a pretty strong argument that assassinations are illegal under international law..something both the UK and France would be more apt to follow than us.




There is no clear mission in Libya, and nothing in the NATO Charter that would really compel many nations to go along with the attack. We shouldn't be involved.

England and France are no different than us, they will pull the trigger if it suits their national intrest and make up a directive to cover it. Right now they are saying that Gadaffi is the head of their armed forces and as such fair game. This would also include Obama in such a defination so the winner goes to the UN to win this debate. That Gadaffi is still alive after all the bombing and money offered is proof that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.

 

[BigRob]

England and France are no different than us, they will pull the trigger if it suits their national intrest and make up a directive to cover it. Right now they are saying that Gadaffi is the head of their armed forces and as such fair game. This would also include Obama in such a defination so the winner goes to the UN to win this debate. That Gadaffi is still alive after all the bombing and money offered is proof that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.

I think it would have to be a pretty clear national interest to actually do that, which I do not see present in Libya for any of the NATO partners involved.

I think the fact that Gadaffi is still alive shows a pretty clear hesitation on the part of other world leaders to actually kill him.