NATO sources are telling CNN they are now directly targeting Gaddafi

[thewiseguy]

I saw it as breaking news so I thought I would share.

http://twitter.com/#!/BREAKINGNEWS

Not sure if that is legal though.

[Billy Burnett]

1. Waste deep!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXnJVkEX8O4

[Drale]

2. I don't know how to feel about it

maybe if he knows they are gunning for him, he'll be more willing to give up? Or perhaps if people in his own government see the end is near or that they might be killed when NATO is trying to get him, they will take him out and be willing to give up?

[sabrina 1]

14. I do because I know what we would think about it fi Bush was doing it.

Not to mention the fact that the West has no business there just as they had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan and have made those two countries ten times worse than they were before, and killed untold numbers of their citizens.

How dare they think they can go around the world killing leaders of sovereign nations like this. Passing fake laws, so typical of Empires throughout their history, if they wanted to hang someone they would pass a law right before they did it and fit the crime to the person. Made them feel 'legitimate'.

Qadaffi may be a monster, but the West recognized him as a legitimate leader and as such when people armed themselves in his or any country, to suppress an uprising is NOT illegal.

I know waht would happen here if anyone decided they were going to over throw this government.

I am sickend by what this country doing, in Iraq, in Afgghanistan, in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Libya. Where will go next? Who will we assassinate next?

I used to warn Republicans that if they supported giving all that power to the president, they would regret it when a Dem took office. But I never though a Dem would use it, I was just trying to scare them.

How wrong I was. All we seem capable of doing is killing and torturing and incarcerating people.

[Fool Count]

15. If the goal is to make Qaddafi give up, regardless of

any legality or propriety, why not then target his minor grandchildren instead? He doesn't fear death and relishes martyrdom.
Wouldn't he be more scared and amenable to compromise if NATO went directly after the innocent kids? That would show
the tyrant how to be stubborn. I am sure the Benghazi rebels couldn't be happier about killing Qaddafi's spawn too. I mean,
isn't freedom and democracy worth little medieval barbarism? It's all for the kids anyway.

[tabatha]

3. I have searched for direct quotes and have found none.

I believe that the FF will arrest him in Tripoli.

[tekisui]

4. So it is now ok to kill heads of state? More normalization of assassination.

[Distant Observer]

16. Its ok to try hundred's of times with massive bombs. As long as they are not doing it to us

[Riftaxe]

5. Libya is so last month

now we are moving on to Yemen.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. I believe it's legal if it's a war

But we're not at war, right?

[Distant Observer]

7. West has been lying all along. Gaddafi has been on the Saudi hit list for a while. The DEAL was

clear from the beginning -- We serve as Saudi hit men and Get the keep the OIL. And we dare not complain how they deal with problems in their area of "responsibility." DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY HAVE TO DIE.

[tabatha]

8. NATO DOES NOT target people for killings

A NATO official reached in Naples, Italy, late Wednesday emphasized that the Western alliance does not target people for killings, and the official would not confirm that North Atlantic Treaty Organization warplanes had even struck the site Tuesday. "It doesn't sound like that would be the subject of our attention, so I'm not sure what you were shown there," said the official, who under NATO rules could not be identified by name.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/08/world/la-fg-libya-raids-20110609

[Distant Observer]

9. No, they just KILL ANYONE IN THEIR WAY. Elegant, arrogant disrespect for life.

[tabatha]

17. Gaddafi has killed over 12,000

NATO ???

[Distant Observer]

10. Oh Yeh. But other NATO official interprets UN RESOLUTION to justify killing Gaddafi: link

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/110610/gaddafi-legitimate-target-nato-official

Of course this completely goes around the interpretation of international legal scholars. But who cares.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/27/gaddafi-un-resolution-1973

Is Gaddafi a legitimate target?

Assassinating Colonel Gaddafi would be hard to justify under UN resolution 1973 – its limited scope provides a clear message

Some people contend that Colonel Gaddafi may have to be killed in order to protect civilians, but that would be very difficult to justify under international law, especially as the resolution's preamble recalls that the situation in Libya has been referred to the prosecutor of the international criminal court and stresses that those responsible for, or complicit in, attacks against the civilian population must be held to account. It is important for the legality and legitimacy of the military action, and for the efforts to find what the resolution calls "a peaceful and sustainable solution" to the Libyan crisis, that Gaddafi's day of reckoning should come through due process in a court of law.

Recent events have not enlarged the scope of resolution 1973. Only the security council, which remains "actively seized of the matter", can do that. In paragraph 28 of the resolution, the security council:

"reaffirms its intention to keep the actions of the Libyan authorities under continuous review and underlines its readiness to review at any time the measures imposed by this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011) , including by strengthening, suspending or lifting those measures, as appropriate, based on compliance by the Libyan authorities with this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011)."

[tabatha]

19. Please listen to this briefing yourself.

http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/06/audio-nato-press-briefing-on-libya/

[EFerrari]

11. That's rich.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Maybe they're targetting sandals and the people just happen to be in the way.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Ya....that's believable

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Wasn't this supposed to be about enforcing a no-fly zone that Obama said would last days, not weeks?

My how things have changed since then.

[tabatha]

20. This was about protecting civilians

until Gaddafi stopped killing them.

Gaddafi has killed over 12,000 people - NATO probably less than 100.

You make your choices.

Listen to the NATO report directly:
http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/06/audio-nato-press-briefing-on-libya/

[EFerrari]

22. A NATO report is not a neutral source of information. n/t

[tabatha]

18. I listened to the NATO briefing today

and that question was asked. The person responded, paraphrasing

"I am a person ON the record stating that NATO does not target individuals.
The report stating that Gaddafi was being targeted, was from an anonymous source, and thus not credible"

Listen for yourself:
http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/06/audio-nato-press-briefing-on-libya/

[Iterate]

23. Well there's yer problem.

You cite Nato and the LAT: Nevermind them, nevermind authoritative sources or the thousand good journalists worldwide who'd love to get this story, you just need to find the blogger "Nato Investigator" for the real story that they don't want you to find out about.