Nigel Farage: 'Bombings, bailouts - what on earth are we doing?'

UN Powers Violate Their Own Resolution By Targeting Gaddafi

Attack on Libya is illegal under both U.S. law and UN charter; Manufactured pretext of “protecting civilians” completely collapses as Russia, Arab League and African Union condemn air strikes

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, March 21, 2011

As the contrived moral high ground behind the absurdly hypocritical “humanitarian” pretext of the attack on Libya collapses in the wake of Russia, the Arab League and the African Union condemning the US-led NATO bombings, so does any pretense of legality that the “no fly zone” resolution holds, because the obvious attempt to assassinate Gaddafi violates not only U.S. law, but the UN’s own charter.



Vladimir Putin’s characterization of the air strikes as a “medieval crusade” and his warning that the attacks prove why Russia has to build up its defenses against NATO is the most damning indictment of the campaign thus far. It follows an Arab League u-turn as well as an African Union condemnation, as all the lies and bluster about a “humanitarian mission” crumble within days of the assault being launched.

The Orwellian delusion that the “no fly zone” anything other than a cruel hoax became obvious within hours, as NATO rejected Libya’s proposal for independent third party countries to patrol the skies and instead launched an instantaneous bombardment of Gaddafi’s military facilities, strikes that have killed dozens of innocent people according to Libyan claims that have been confirmed by Russia.

From the very beginning, this war had nothing to do with “protecting civilians” and everything to do with toppling the leader of Africa’s richest oil nation.
Now western leaders have all but admitted that the sole focus of the campaign is to kill Gaddafi, as air strikes pound targets around the beleaguered Libyan leader.

Asked if Gaddafi could be assassinated to force regime change, British defence secretary Liam Fox said that the Libyan leader was a “legitimate target,” adding, “That would potentially be a possibility,” entertaining a notion that was soon backed up by force as RAF warplanes reduced Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound to rubble last night after a massive air bombardment.

Fox later said that a “bunker-buster” attack on Gaddafi’s residence was also being considered.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister David Cameron have all gone on record to state that Gaddafi “must go,” “needs to go,” and has “lost his legitimacy”.

In addition, Salwa el-Deghali, of the national transitional council, called for, “More attacks on Gaddafi’s forces, and fast. We need these attacks until he is crushed.”

Does this sound like a mission to protect civilians or a mission to topple Gaddafi, especially given the fact that SAS commanders have been on the ground for weeks, again in violation of the UN resolution, directly supporting Libyan rebel armies?

The UN resolution that supposedly gave the air strikes their legal foundation does not authorize the use of military force to enact regime change, and yet that’s precisely what NATO and the United States is pursuing – the murder or removal of Gaddafi.

Once again we are reminded of the fact that the United Nations only abides by its own resolutions when it is convenient. The UN will flagrantly violate its own charter with relish if there is a pre-existing geopolitical agenda to accomplish.
International law codified under the UN prohibits state-sponsored assassination, except under conditions of warfare. By characterizing the attack on Libya as merely a “no fly zone,” and stopping short of declaring war on on the country, the UN along with the powers that signed the resolution, namely America, France, Britain and Italy, are in violation of their own resolution by targeting Gaddafi.

Indeed, killing Gaddafi would be a war crime because it clearly qualifies as an act of “treachery” under Article 23 of the Hague Convention IV of 1907. Even in times of declared war, assassinating a leader under false pretenses is illegal.

“A state that uses “treachery” to kill an enemy may be guilty of war crimes,” states the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. “Article 23 of the Hague Convention IV of 1907 provides that “it is especially forbidden . . . to kill or wound treacherously, individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.” Treachery is usually defined as a breach of confidence, such as an attack on an individual who believes that there is no need to fear the attacker.”

In addition, under U.S. law, employees of the United States are prohibited from engaging in assassination during peacetime. This law has of course been violated numerous times, most notably in 1986 when the Reagan administration attempted to kill Gaddafi by bombing army barracks where Libyan leader was known to be sleeping.

The attack on Libya is not only immoral, with the “humanitarian” pretext transparently a pack of lies, it is also completely unconstitutional having not been authorized by the U.S. Congress. As Francis Boyle, Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, points out, “Without authorization by the United Nations Security Council and express authorization from the U.S. Congress pursuant to the terms of the War Powers Resolution, for President Obama to establish any type of so-called ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya would be illegal and unconstitutional.”

Above all, since the assault was launched under UN auspices with the presumed “legitimacy” of the international community, it directly violates the UN’s own charter in that the entire scope of the mission is about regime change, supporting one side in a civil war, and has nothing whatsoever to do with “protecting civilians”.



*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Bloodbath in Yemen: No UN Action for the Peace Laureate’s Pal

Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque
Friday, March 18, 2011

This just in: spurred on by the United States and Saudi Arabia, the UN Security Council has just authorized immediate military intervention in Yemen to stop the government’s wanton slaughter of innocent civilians engaging in peaceful protest.

The vote came just hours after government security forces in Yemen opened fire on unarmed, peaceful protestors in the capital city of Sana. Tens of thousands of ordinary citizens had turned out for the demonstration, which was part of  an ongoing campaign of non-violent dissent against repression, injustice, inequality and deprivation in the nation, ruled by strongman President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that “we cannot stand by and watch authoritarian governments gun down their own unarmed citizens in the street.”  The Security Council authorized a wide range of military actions against Yemen, although an outright military occupation was not authorized. “These creatures who do terrible things to their own people must know they will be held accountable by the world community,” said Clinton, after arriving in Bahrain for what she called “friendly talks” with King Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa on “securing stability in the region.”

Oh wait, that didn’t happen. The regime in Yemen will not face military intervention by the UN to stop its slaughter of unarmed civilians. There will be, at most, a few stern words from the Obama Administration urging “restraint on both sides” — even as the Peace Laureate carries on his secret bombing campaigns and covert military operations in Yemen, with the eager cooperation of Saleh. “Restraint,” in the degraded imperial parlance of our day, means that unarmed people should allow themselves to be mowed down by American-backed governments without making a big fuss about it. In exchange, Washington will then publicly urge its local client tyrant to “move” on “the reform process” — even as it sells him more weapons and kills more of his people in its covert ops.

Read the rest of the article.

UN Authorizes “All Necessary Measures” Against Gaddafi; Airstrikes Could Start Tonight

FLASHBACK: Obama’s “Humanitarian” Conquest Of Libya 

“Obama may eventually withdraw a portion of troops from Iraq, but mark our words, they won’t be home long before they are sent off to bomb another broken-backed third world country, this time in the name of a United Nations-backed “humanitarian” war, just as Bill Clinton presided over in Somalia and Serbia with the full support of the establishment political left.”

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones, November 4 2008, The More Things “Change” The More They Stay The Same.

FLASHBACK: Obama Encircles US War Machine Around Libya 

FLASHBACK: Russian Military Claims Libya Air Strikes Did Not Happen


FLASHBACK: Globalists Seek To Hijack Middle East Revolution To Topple Iran 

———————————————————

NewsCore
Thursday, March 17, 2011

THE UN Security Council has voted Thursday to allow air strikes to halt Muammer Gaddafi’s offensive against embattled rebel forces in Libya, with the first bombing raids expected shortly. 

The resolution permits “all necessary measures” to protect civilian areas and impose a ceasefire on Gaddafi’s military.

The vote passed 10-0 with five abstentions in the 15 member council. Permanent members China and Russia were among those abstaining, but did not use their veto power.

US Congress officials said Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were among possible participants, in a showing designed to demonstrate that the effort to aid anti-Gaddafi rebels had support from other countries in the region.

Full story here.

———————————————————

The UN decides to take “all necessary measures” against Gaddafi

Peter Hoskin
The Spectator
Thursday, March 17, 2011

“There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight.” Perhaps it was the murderous threat contained within Gaddafi’s latest radio message that shocked the United Nations into action today — because shocked into action they have been. After sweating and toiling over the precise formulation of a resolution on Libya, the UN Security Council finally reached the voting stage this evening. And it has now voted 10-0 in favour of member states taking “all necessary measures … to protect civilian and populated areas, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.” Brazil, India, China, Russia and — staggeringly — Germany all abstained.

What this means, in practice, is a no-fly zone — and more. We are likely to see bombing raids on Gaddafi’s air defences, and perhaps on the serpentine column of troops and tanks that is on the road to Benghazi. It is thought that the first strikes could even come tonight, led — as this entire process has been — by us (UK) and the French, along with a selection of Arab air forces. There is a definite need for urgency. Thanks to the West’s hesitancy over the past week, Gaddafi did appear to be on the cusp of cruelly stamping out the rebellion. Any delay now, and he still might do the same.

As our forces ready themselves for conflict, there is a terrible question hovering over all this: how hard can Gaddafi hit back? His government is certainly putting up a belligerent front, threatening to retaliate in and around the Med.

But, as the useful video below makes clear, their military hardware is likely to be outmoded and dilapidated. Not that this makes the situation any less alarming, though. After all, a musket can still kill. And, as the Libyan people know all too well, Gaddafi has more than muskets at his command.

UN must condemn China ‘one child’ policy: Lawmaker

AFP
March 8, 2011

WASHINGTON – UN SECRETARY General Ban Ki Moon must step up public condemnation of China’s ‘one-child’ policy and investigate the alleged use of forced abortions to carry it out, a key US lawmaker said on Monday.

‘To fail to speak out against what is by far the worst gender-based violence in history would make a mockery of the UN’s claim to promote women,’ Republican Representative Chris Smith said in an appeal to Mr Ban.

Mr Smith also urged Mr Ban to direct special UN envoys for violence against women, torture, and trafficking in persons to travel to China to investigate the way the policy is applied and its effects on women and girls.

Full article here