Dear President Obama, What does justice in Libya look like?

[cali]

I understand that you've informed Congress that you've sent troops to Libya (and Yemen) as well as drones.

If justice includes more drone strikes that terrorize already traumatized populations and kill innocents, as they so often do, than that is injustice, not justice and sets us up for further unrest, rage and hate.

[MADem]

1. I rather suspect the forces dispatched by the President will be working WITH the

Government of Libya in this effort, as they did with the Governments of Pakistan, Yemen and other governments in coordinating actions against terrorists.

[cali]

3. dozens of civilians in Yemen and more in Pakistan have been killed in drone strikes

just over the past year. Furthermore, the sentiment in both countries (and Afghanistan) is overwhelmingly negative about these drone strikes.

It's insanity to be doing this.

[MADem]

10. And if you think those strikes were done without any coordination with governments in those

nations--despite any bullshit deniability phrases you might hear that are put out by the leadership to appease the locals--I have a bridge to sell you. I prefer the odd drone strike to boots on the ground any day.

[cali]

11. so what? Are governments more important than people?

and why must there be drone strikes at all? To keep America safe, georgie?

[MADem]

21. Governments have the might to prosecute military and law enforcement actions.

Surely this isn't news to you. Someone in Libya murdered four people. Both governments have an interest in finding out who did this deed, and calling them to account for it.

"Georgie" hasn't been President for some time. Obama was elected, perhaps while you were sleeping...?

Or was that "Georgie" a not-so-veiled attempt to "insult" me, because I have pointed out facts not to your liking?

Here's a hint--getting angry and petty with me is not going to change anything, nor will it elevate the tenor of this discussion. Think on that, why don't you?

[sabrina 1]

23. Of course they were. We always have our dictator allies who are more than

willing to suppress their own people. Do you think that the people of these countries are happy that their oppressive leaders who they are already trying to deal with, is not giving other countries permission to bomb them IN their own countries?

Why do you think there were revolutions all over the place? Mubarak?? Our 'friend and ally' who was willing to torture his own people on our behalf??

How about our good friends the Royal Dictatorship of Bahrain, whose population has been protesting their human rights abuses for years, only to be shot, tortured and jailed? Do you really think that when they allow us to do what we want in their country, the PEOPLE are happy about that?

[MADem]

25. Comparing Mubarak to the Khalifa Royal Family is just not on.

You're talking entirely different governmental systems. Mubarak was Sadat's heir, in essence, but their connection was that they came up in the military together. Egypt had a "tradition" of military rule ever since King Farouk was toppled by Naguib, Nasser, et. al. and waddled off into exile.

The Khalifas have a royal imprimatur that is historical, generational, and has been acknowleged by the population for well over a century, and is still recognized even those who oppose their rule. You'd be better off comparing them to the House of Saud.

The world is full of "people" who don't like what their governments do. When they get sufficiently irritated, they change the dynamic. Sometimes that works out. Other times, it's "the devil you know." Ask the population of Iran, most of whom are far too young to remember life (and relative liberty--to include rights for women) under that Shah guy. Those young adults and kids look at old pictures of their fathers/grandfathers in their disco shirts, and their mothers/grandmothers in hot pants and miniskirts, attending co-ed classes at the Uni of Tehran, and who knows what they think?

All they know is that they'll not live like that, at least not anytime soon.

[sabrina 1]

26. Kings, Monarchs, Dictators. When the people are oppressed as they have

been throughout history, which is one reason we got rid of Royal Families no matter how traditional they might be, by any kind of ruler, it makes little difference to the tortured and the dead whether their dictator was King who has long lineage or a secular Dictator who doesn't.

Bahrain's royal dictatorship is among the most oppressive and brutal in that region of the world. The attempt to get some reform there has been met with torture and killing by the regime who have brought in troops from Qatar and Saudi Arabia to help them keep their people under control.

From physicians for Human Rights on Barhain's brutality towards its own people:

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/about/places/bahrain/

Thousands of protesters in the small island Kingdom of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf took to the streets calling for government reform in February and March 2011. The Bahraini government’s response was brutal and systematic: shoot civilian protesters, detain and torture them, and erase all evidence.

On the frontline, treating hundreds of these wounded civilians, doctors had first-hand knowledge of government atrocities. As a result of their efforts to provide unbiased care for wounded protestors, the government initiated systematic and targeted attacks against medical personnel. PHR went to Bahrain to investigate and document these attacks.

More than 50% of their population oppose the regime now.

And most of those people did not like their leaders giving permission to foreigners to come into their country to brutalize them.

That was my point. You seemed to be saying that just because a dictator gives US permission to go bomb of their citizens, that makes it okay with the country. It does not.

[MADem]

29. I don't "seem to be saying" anything of the kind.

I get very tired of that particular exhortative hector. It's a cheap shot to distract from discussing the substance of the conversation.

I said what I said--you're lumping two VERY different nations, with very different histories and very different leadership paradigms, to fit a thesis that you have.

You keep griping about "the people." If you checked Egypt recently, you'd see that "the people" have changed the game (as "the people" did in Iran back in 1979). We'll see how they like that game in the long term.

In case you're unsure or unaware, the Government of Iran has cozied up in many ways, some benign, some nefarious, with other nations, sanctions notwithstanding (North Korea comes immediately to mind) to prosecute their particular agendas. I'm quite sure "the people" might take issue with these alliances, too, but their government won't pay them any mind so long as critical mass isn't in evidence.

This IS the way the world works, you know. No population is a borg, and for every group of cheerleaders, you're quite likely to find an opposition squad.

Or is it only when governments make alliances with America that the poutrage comes into play? If Egypt jumps into bed with China or the Russkies (again, but without the USSR flavor) and pulls the same kind of shit, it's all good?

[sabrina 1]

34. This really is very simple.

You made the point that seemed to be saying, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that BECAUSE the Leader of a country gives the US permission to drop bombs and kill some of their citizens, that makes it all okay.

I responded that just because the Leader of a country takes it upon himself to do this does not mean it is okay with the people. If anything it only makes things worse and is even more incendiary, since the people would like to have some say in who gets to drop bombs on them.


If that is not what you were saying, then what were you saying?

[redgreenandblue]

4. I remember that "no troops in Libya" was a standing dogma when we got involved.

Guess that is off the table now.

Then when the first targeted strikes hit some of these troops, we'll have an excuse to send more troops. Ad infinitum.

[MADem]

9. You always send troops when you are doing a NEO, and they did one

in Benghazi. There is absolutely no reason to assume that we would "go to war" with Libya.

But your concern is SO touching.

[sabrina 1]

24. We always had people on the ground in Libya, so did the French, the Brits

Qatar. We were using mercenaries though. There was no revolution in Libya, there was an invasion and we backed the extremists because it suited our purpose then.

Only a few delusional people ever thought that after the first month of peaceful, unarmed protests in Libya, what resulted was any kind of grass roots revolution.

[joshcryer]

31. Should we withdrawl all diplomats from all countries when attacked by counter-revolutionaries?

Because these people attacking have been denounced by the revolutionaries in Benghazi. They will be brought to justice.

Libya's security situation is still a mixed bag. It's of course still safer in Libya than, say, Venezuela, but when your diplomats are attacked directly you will want to assure that their security is intact and the criminals are brought to justice.

[Sherman A1]

2. I think a valid question, yet

The responses thus far by the WH have been very measured. There has been no rush to launch airstrikes. If the drones help find the folks involved & allow the Libyans to then deal with them super. The forces moved into the area are small and designed to support & protect our diplomatic interests. I would at this time give the President the benefit of the doubt.

[Confusious]

5. There's more then one type of Drone

Do you know for a FACT that they ONLY have warheads?

I would think intelligence drones would be more useful.

[backscatter712]

7. I wouldn't object to unarmed Predators working as eyes in the sky. That's what they were made for.

[cali]

8. I realize that there are survillance drones but given our

history of using weaponized drones in that region, forgive me if I'm leery about the subject.

[Vattel]

18. Being leery is reasonable, but maybe your OP jumped the gun a little by expressing opposition.

This from the Associated Press:

"To fill in the gaps in spies on the ground, the U.S. intelligence community has kept up surveillance over Libya with unmanned and largely unarmed Predator and Reaper drones, increasing the area they cover, and the frequency of their flights since the attack on the consulate, as well as sending more surveillance equipment to the region, one official said."

What "largely unarmed" means is a big question, of course.

[limpyhobbler]

6. justice in Libya is when all the evil doers either renounce evil-doing or they are brought to

gitmo for enhanced interrogations for a few years, then to be released back into Libya once they are certified evil free. Duh.

[The Magistrate]

12. Execution Of Those Responsible For Killing Our people, Ma'am

What did you think it meant?

[cali]

14. I think that it too often means "collateral damage", sir.

Didn't you think that was obvious from my op?

[The Magistrate]

15. Probably A Good Idea To Give Those Fellows A Wide Berth, Ma'am, Certainly....

"There is nothing 'surgical' about a quarter ton of high explosive."

[Dokkie]

16. How about justice for those

100k or so Libyans that died during the NATO bombardment of Libya? or is justice only reserved for only the pale skinned folks?

We all mourn and raise hell when one American die but do nothing when the lives and property of thousands of foreigners is damaged by our people.

[The Magistrate]

17. Nice Try At Deflection, Sir, But Far Short Of the Mark

There was a revolution in Libya. People who supported the Gaddafi regime came out on the losing end. Their fate is the justice for the deaths and maimings among those who pressed the revolution, and there is no justice for the losing side. That is just how things are.

[Dokkie]

19. Ofc they came out on top because of the

superior fire power of NATO and seeing how NATO arsenal is no longer turned on them, they are taking the liberty to enact their own form of justice on those people they believe destroyed their country. Stevens was reported to have visited Benghazi to guarantee western support before the revolution started and most Libyans probably blame him for kick starting the revolution.

Remember, Libya unlike Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco did not have economic problems or high food/bread prices. But their revolution turned extremely violent and destructive. It may be hard for you to understand but some people see thing very differently from you.

[joshcryer]

27. Where do you get that absurd figure?

[joshcryer]

28. Pretty much. Obama doesn't fuck around.

And the American population loves a good drone execution.

[Zax2me]

13. Give him TIME.

A week, geez. He'll take care of it.

[randome]

20. Some arrests were already made, weren't there?

I bet some security cameras took a few snaps. No need to assume the worst.

[MADem]

22. I heard they've got people who know who did the deed, maybe.

They don't have the perpetrators of the event. Yet, anyway.

[randome]

30. Unfortunately, we may never know if they have the 'right' people.

Or arrested those it was politically expedient to arrest. It's possible nothing good will come of this no matter how it's played.

[MADem]

33. el-Magariaf was on TV briefly vowing to not play around.

Hard to know for sure. I don't think USA will be mollified with a fake suspect. It could be they already know who the guilty party is, and they arrested his buddies because they figured they might know his best hideouts....

[randome]

35. Here's hoping for the best, then.

If the idea spreads that justice can and will be meted out, that will be a good thing for all.

[MADem]

37. That's really all we can hope for--an ideal result would be the apprehension of ALL the right people

and a meting out of appropriate, culturally consonant justice by the Libyan authorities.

That might come down to a firing squad or life in prison; I'm not 'up' on Libyan justice at all...!

[joshcryer]

32. Running theory is that it's an islamist militia aligned with Yemen's Ansar al-Sharia.

This is why Obama is also focusing on Yemen, I suspect, to root out the entire sect. It's nasty business and the American people loves them some drone wars.

I think that the Libyan people on the ground know of this militia, recognized people in it, and no doubt even pictures were taken of them as they attacked. So if that's what's happened here I think they ought to hunker down deep in a bunker because Obama does not fuck around when it comes with drones.

[joshcryer]

36. If he has the opportunity to use drones and the intelligence is good, he'll do it.

There's no doubt in my mind about that.

I agree with you that that's not justice. But Obama doesn't want headlines of a whole group of marines being killed either, and the American public is behind the drone wars, so he's going to do what he's going to do.

We can only hope that the Libyan government is stable enough at this point to go after the accused and to arrest them and bring them to justice, but even that is going to lead to innocents no doubt being killed.

[progressivebydesign]

38. Let's all go pick daisies and sing Kumbaya now. Easy to talk from your comfy chair...

I've lost my patience with DUers lately and their glass bubble commentaries. Maybe if people ventured beyond their home office once in a while, they'd understand the world better.

All I know is that THIS President, for all of the bitching that the purists do, has kept us safe. Has knocked the crap out of AQ and killed OBL. He got the troops out of Iraq, and is withdrawing us from Afghanistan. And if drones are needed to murder the SOBs that killed our Ambassador, then so be it. War is hell...