Libya - UN resolution

7

798686

Guest
Lots of people like to mention Yemen and the issues that are currently going on there as a reason to try and criticize the current actions by the United States in Libya. There's no real perfect answer for this in any shape or form, but if there's one factual observation anyone can draw is this - it was the UN, not the United States alone, that decided to go into Libya to help the rebels. Ten countries which include nine others, not just the Untied States alone, went into this whole thing together. There's always so much talk about the US and distorted talk about how Libya is "Obama's war"... no it isn't.
It's not perceived as Obama's war over here (you may be relieved to know); he's regarded as having been somewhat reluctant and 'just in the nick of time' about it.

I'm pleased the UN backed it, and a large number of other countries. I was totally in favour of the initial action, and don't think there was much choice about intervening, altho I wonder if we're taking it too far now - and what (if anything) could be handled differently.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The new twist is the Moussa Koussa defection.

Right now no-one really seems to know anything much about this other than that it has happened. Of course it is quite possible that the UK might throw him in a cell, and Moussa Koussa must know this. It is far from clear that he has any bargaining chips.

Interesting speculation includes:
* He has proof that Gaddafi authorised the Lockerbie bombing. Therefore the UK can seek trial of Gaddafi for state-sponsored murder, and has a national interest in his arrest which goes beyond the UN Security Council resolution.
* He has proof of criminal wrongdoing by Tony Blair, either in connection with Blair's action in bringing in Gaddafi from the cold or in connection with the Lockerbie bomber's release. Therefore the UK can put Tony Blair on trial.

It is hard to see what Moussa Koussa would get out of either of these other than vengeance. Possibly he wants to be prosecuted.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
The new twist is the Moussa Koussa defection.

Right now no-one really seems to know anything much about this other than that it has happened. Of course it is quite possible that the UK might throw him in a cell, and Moussa Koussa must know this. It is far from clear that he has any bargaining chips.

I have no idea what mud or blood is on his hands, but it seems to me that prosecuting him would certainly discourage other Libyan political figures from defecting ... surely not what would be most helpful in the circumstances.

I suppose this is a very tricky one for the authorities.
 
7

798686

Guest
I have no idea what mud or blood is on his hands, but it seems to me that prosecuting him would certainly discourage other Libyan political figures from defecting ... surely not what would be most helpful in the circumstances.

I suppose this is a very tricky one for the authorities.
That's what I was thinking. :redface:

We're busy telling his supporters on the ground to desert him, then what...put them on trial?
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I have no idea what mud or blood is on his hands, but it seems to me that prosecuting him would certainly discourage other Libyan political figures from defecting ... surely not what would be most helpful in the circumstances.

I suppose this is a very tricky one for the authorities.

Well innocent until proved guilty, but the mud around Moussa Koussa is prety thick and shot through with blood.

I don't think we expect defectors from the Libyan regime to come to the UK - nor do we want them to. It is perfectly possible for Cameron and Hague to say (as they more or less have) that senior members should defect now while they have the chance and go into exile because we will prosecute if we catch them. Equatorial Guinea has been suggested as a home away from home. For that matter I don't think our UK politicians can do otherwise than prosecute. The UK has separate legal systems in England and Scotland, both of which are independent of political control and not likely to consider no-prosecution deals as legally valid. In the end the PM cannot bind the courts - he is not head of state.

All this really does raise the issue of just what Moussa Koussa is up to. One line of thought is that he knows he will be prosecuted and wants to use a legal process as some sort of revenge, possibly on Gaddafi, but also possibly on the UK. Another is that he is offering himself as a new president of Libya to preside over the reforms required (and as a head of state he would have immunity from UK prosecution). This supposes that with coalition backing he could be inserted into Tripoli and pull off a coup which he couldn't pull off while he was in Tripoli - seems unlikely. There's also the idea that he has undergone some sort of crisis of conscience or nervous breakdown and is seeking some sort of spiritual salvation by delivering himself to his enemy (which matches the Tripoli line that he is sick).

Moussa Koussa may well be as dangerous to the UK as to Libya. If he does have the goods on Blair and Brown (as some of the Twitter traffic thinks) then yes he may well be able to get these two into UK courts facing charges, but it is hard to see that the mud would stay with just them. In effect he may be a Trojan Horse. To garble Vergil, we should fear the Libyans even when they are sending us gifts!
 

D_Relentless Original

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Posts
16,745
Media
4
Likes
245
Points
133
Gender
Male
Moussa Koussa may well be as dangerous to the UK as to Libya. If he does have the goods on Blair and Brown (as some of the Twitter traffic thinks) then yes he may well be able to get these two into UK courts facing charges, but it is hard to see that the mud would stay with just them. In effect he may be a Trojan Horse. To garble Vergil, we should fear the Libyans even when they are sending us gifts!

Exactly ^
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
What sorts of goods might he have?

Unfortunately, I don't think it matters. Whatever damaging things he might say would be repudiated by the authorities. However, if he says those things publicly, they may stick, especially if they seem near to our own preconceptions of what our politicians have done.

In the UK, anything to do with backroom dealings on Lockerbie, with Blair, would be dynamite, regardless of its veracity.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
What sorts of goods might he have?

Hypothetically:
* Evidence that Labour politicians including Blair and Brown put pressure on the Scottish courts to release al-Megradi. If this can be proved they will go to gaol. The horror would be if the Palace was aware of tampering with the Scottish judicial process - if so we have a constitutional crisis.
* A Northern Ireland dimension. Libya once armed and gave funds to IRA. Evidence of an agreement between Blair and Gaddafi for the UK not to follow up investigation of some terrorist crimes committed by IRA, including perhaps crimes by individuals now senior in the political party Sinn Fein (which is now in a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland). Gaddafi did seem keen a few years ago to rebuild his image, and new evidence of Libya promoting terrorism within the UK would have been undesirable for him.
* Evidence relating to the "strange death" of David Kelly which points towards the UK turning a blind eye to a Libyan assasination. The idea is that Gaddafi wanted the second Iraq war because it would present the west as aggressors (and he didn't like Saddam) - and Kelly seemed to stand in the way of this war. Kelly was as much a nuisance to Gaddafi as to Blair.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
^
An ugly article to be taken with the whole contents of the salt cellar.

That said in this age of 24/7 news, nation states are still well able to keep secrets. I don't think we know why Moussa Koussa came to Britain, what he told the English and Scottish teams he met, or why he has now left. But I think we can be sure he came for a reason and said something of substance.

Right now it is hard to escape the view that the UK government is keeping the lid on lots of issues it just doesn't want to talk about. We have next Thursday both local elections and a referendum on change to the voting system, and it is quite possible that the government is keen to get this out of the way first. Presumably the LibDems are going to get slaughtered in the local elections and it is looking like a no vote on AV, sinking the LibDems' hopes.

If Moussa Koussa has incriminated the Labour party (or Blair/Brown) there would be a civil service view that this should not be alleged just before an election.