Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Arming Libya rebels not allowed by UN resolutions, legal experts warn US"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:36 AM
Original message
"Arming Libya rebels not allowed by UN resolutions, legal experts warn US"
guardian uk, 30 March 2011:

The US is likely to be in breach of the UN security council's arms embargo on Libya if it sends weapons to the rebels, experts in international law have warned.

After Hillary Clinton said it would be legal to send arms to support the uprising, lawyers analysing the terms of the UN's 26 February arms embargo said it would require a change in the terms for it not to breach international law.

"The embargo appears to cover everybody in the conflict which means you can't supply arms to rebels," said Philippe Sands QC, professor of international law at University College London.

His view was backed by other experts in international law who said they could not see how the US could legally justify sending arms into Libya under the current resolutions.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/30/arming-libya-rebels-america-warned
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Since when does our government care about international law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Wow EFerrari I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Good to see you. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamuti Lotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. When they're using it as an excuse to bomb others, duh
Edited on Thu Mar-31-11 04:55 AM by Alamuti Lotus
Does not apply to us or any key friends, of course.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Now we know who started the rumor Gaddafi was in Venezuela.
A twofer, there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. Oh, I'm sure we'll fix that little road bump.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anglinajoe Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. good one
This should be the move
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baclava Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
5. The Guardian - "Britain backs Clinton view that UN has sanctioned arming rebels"
Britain backs Clinton view that UN has sanctioned arming rebels

Britain threw its weight behind the US declaration that the UN had provided a legal basis to supply arms to rebel forces in Libya in limited circumstances, though ministers would act with "extreme care" before making any decision, David Cameron said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/30/libyan-britain-clinton-un-rebels

----------------

The Brits worry too much. We don't need no stinking badges from the UN.

The CIA's got this handled. We'll back-door them in from the Saudis, through Egypt, right next door.

Hua!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
6. "You have your experts & we have our experts"
One can only hope that Obama will back out of this shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Bet he doubles down instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Only a fleeting hope. So far this thing has played out so predictably
it like they are just going through the motions. According to the script the CIA is going supply or has already supplied guns & other shit. After that there will be a few reports about some special forces advisers getting snuffed or kidnapped. Eventually a siege on Tripoli. After that it's 100,000 man occupation & a new embassy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Maybe they'll try to keep it to air support and mercs. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
10. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
11. The US is still a rogue state. We have no rules but our own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 05:15 AM
Response to Original message
14. K & R
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
15. We'll go it alone!
Those who aren't with us will be against us! Then we can declare Mission Accomplished!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
16. This kind of reminds me of Ronald Raygun arming the Contras against the law.
I am just saying...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. At the time, Dick Cheney wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing
that Congress had no right to constrain the President and that his funding the Contras did not violate the law.

We've come a long way, baby, when Dick Cheney's radical theory of presidential power is the new normal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. "Dick Cheney's radical theory of presidential power is the new normal"
We've come a long way indeed. Of course we'd wish we come this far but in the opposite direction.

And thanks EFerrari I didn't realize Dick Cheney wrote a dissenting argument. Of course I am not surprised, and of course Dick Cheney was wrong on his dissenting argument because of the Boland Amendment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC