| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
| | By 2011 the Libyan people seemed to be thriving with Gaddafi as leader. A delegation of medical professionals from [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Belarus]] wrote in an appeal to "Russian President [[Dmitry Medvedev]] and Prime Minister [[Putin]] that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort". Libya then was not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty. | | By 2011 the Libyan people seemed to be thriving with Gaddafi as leader. A delegation of medical professionals from [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Belarus]] wrote in an appeal to "Russian President [[Dmitry Medvedev]] and Prime Minister [[Putin]] that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort". Libya then was not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty. |
| | | | |
| − | On February 24, 2011, no threat was seen to Libya’s Seat on top U.N. Human Rights Body. A European Union draft resolution “strongly condemned” human rights violations sparked by opponents to the government, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them. [https://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human] | + | On February 24, 2011, no threat was seen to Libya's Seat on top U.N. Human Rights Body. A European Union draft resolution “strongly condemned” human rights violations sparked by opponents to the government, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them. [https://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human] |
| | | | |
| | The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country had excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. [http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=77210] | | The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country had excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. [http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=77210] |
| Line 44: |
Line 44: |
| | [[Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron|Cameron]], and [[Obama]] seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of insurgents could win through sheer political momentum, and could then be turned into a successful government. Within the first month it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel tribes can only hang on with the present level of air support" that was provided. | | [[Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron|Cameron]], and [[Obama]] seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of insurgents could win through sheer political momentum, and could then be turned into a successful government. Within the first month it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel tribes can only hang on with the present level of air support" that was provided. |
| | | | |
| − | The assault on Libya set off a frenzy of speculations about the real motive behind the war in the oil-rich country, with many analysts saying that under the guise of protecting civilians, as enshrined in the UNSC Resolution 1973, Washington and its Western allies are basically after the North African country’s vast oil reserves.<ref>[http://2012indyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/presstv-germany-slams-nato-mission-in-libya/ Germany slams NATO mission in Libya.]</ref> | + | The assault on Libya set off a frenzy of speculations about the real motive behind the war in the oil-rich country, with many analysts saying that under the guise of protecting civilians, as enshrined in the UNSC Resolution 1973, Washington and its Western allies are basically after the North African country's vast oil reserves.<ref>[http://2012indyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/presstv-germany-slams-nato-mission-in-libya/ Germany slams NATO mission in Libya.]</ref> |
| | | | |
| | [[Stephen Lendman]]: Libya assault planned months ahead; See interview: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSlXO_X_fE&feature=related in Youtube.] | | [[Stephen Lendman]]: Libya assault planned months ahead; See interview: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSlXO_X_fE&feature=related in Youtube.] |
| Line 50: |
Line 50: |
| | According to a Russian article titled ''Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,'' Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the [[Euro]] as payment for Libya's oil, and called on [[Arab]] and African nations to use a new currency, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively in the United States and the [[European Union]], with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind. But Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. As early September 9, 1999, the first steps towards the formation of the [[African Union]] were taken by the Heads of State of the Organisation of African Unity.<ref>[http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/aboutau/au_in_a_nutshell_en.htm The AU in a nutshell]</ref> | | According to a Russian article titled ''Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,'' Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the [[Euro]] as payment for Libya's oil, and called on [[Arab]] and African nations to use a new currency, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively in the United States and the [[European Union]], with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind. But Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. As early September 9, 1999, the first steps towards the formation of the [[African Union]] were taken by the Heads of State of the Organisation of African Unity.<ref>[http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/aboutau/au_in_a_nutshell_en.htm The AU in a nutshell]</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | In the wake of the global [[financial crisis of 2008]] forcing the United States into [[recession]], both China and Russia called for the dollar’s role in the global financial system to be diluted. Both China and the USSR abstained from UNSCR 1973. | + | In the wake of the global [[financial crisis of 2008]] forcing the United States into [[recession]], both China and Russia called for the dollar's role in the global financial system to be diluted. Both China and the USSR abstained from UNSCR 1973. |
| | | | |
| − | ''Bloomberg News'' reported in September 2010 that China and Russia planned to start trading in each other’s currency as the world’s second-biggest energy consumer and the largest energy supplier seek to diminish the dollar’s role in global trade. Bhanu Baweja commented {{Cquote|Given the risk to the dollar and U.S. assets from their fiscal position they want to reduce their dependence on the dollar as an invoicing currency....It makes sense for two large economies to exclude a third, overly dominant economy from their trading equation.<ref>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html</ref>}} | + | ''Bloomberg News'' reported in September 2010 that China and Russia planned to start trading in each other's currency as the world's second-biggest energy consumer and the largest energy supplier seek to diminish the dollar's role in global trade. Bhanu Baweja commented {{Cquote|Given the risk to the dollar and U.S. assets from their fiscal position they want to reduce their dependence on the dollar as an invoicing currency....It makes sense for two large economies to exclude a third, overly dominant economy from their trading equation.<ref>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html</ref>}} |
| | ===The African Union=== | | ===The African Union=== |
| − | An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi’s motivations for proposing an African Union: | + | An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi's motivations for proposing an African Union: |
| | {{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country. | | {{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country. |
| | | | |
| Line 63: |
Line 63: |
| | Ellen Brown adds, | | Ellen Brown adds, |
| | {{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}} | | {{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}} |
| − | Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them.
| + | Gaddafi's proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them. |
| | ===U.S. State Dept Report on Religious freedom (2009)=== | | ===U.S. State Dept Report on Religious freedom (2009)=== |
| | The U.S. State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2009 said this of religious freedom's under Gaddafi's regime:<ref>U.S. Department of State, [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/rellibya09.html International Religious Freedom Report 2009,] Released by the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Washington, DC, (October 26, 2009). www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org</ref> | | The U.S. State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2009 said this of religious freedom's under Gaddafi's regime:<ref>U.S. Department of State, [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/rellibya09.html International Religious Freedom Report 2009,] Released by the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Washington, DC, (October 26, 2009). www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org</ref> |
| Line 87: |
Line 87: |
| | | | |
| | ==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO== | | ==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO== |
| − | UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public announcement on March 2 he may throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973. | + | UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi's public announcement on March 2 he may throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973. |
| | | | |
| | Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40-year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states, | | Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40-year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states, |
| Line 98: |
Line 98: |
| | {{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}} | | {{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}} |
| | ===Exceeding UN mandate=== | | ===Exceeding UN mandate=== |
| − | Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations. | + | Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council's resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations. |
| | {{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}} | | {{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}} |
| − | NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi’s regime on May 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-officials-france-and-britain-to-use-attack-helicopters-in-libya/2011/05/23/AFTF909G_story.html?hpid=z2] | + | NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi's Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi's regime on May 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-officials-france-and-britain-to-use-attack-helicopters-in-libya/2011/05/23/AFTF909G_story.html?hpid=z2] |
| | <blockquote> | | <blockquote> |
| | On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi’s forces, Britain’s top military commander said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country’s infrastructure.<ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html</ref> | | On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi’s forces, Britain’s top military commander said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country’s infrastructure.<ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html</ref> |
| | </blockquote> | | </blockquote> |
| | | | |
| − | The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya last November, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. We know that NATO doesn’t just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years.<ref>[https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend] June 4, 2011.</ref> | + | The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya last November, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. We know that NATO doesn't just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years.<ref>[https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend] June 4, 2011.</ref> |
| | | | |
| | On Jun 18, Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused [[NATO]] of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-rages-at-nato-after-bombing-2299509.html Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.]</ref> | | On Jun 18, Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused [[NATO]] of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-rages-at-nato-after-bombing-2299509.html Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.]</ref> |
| Line 123: |
Line 123: |
| | ==United States intervention== | | ==United States intervention== |
| | ===Frozen assets=== | | ===Frozen assets=== |
| − | President Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi’s proposal for an African Union with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze all of the Bank of Libya’s $30 billion of funds to which America had access. This was reported in the U.S. press as a freeze of the funds of "Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.<ref>''New York Times'', February 27, 2011.</ref> The second section of Obama’s decree explicitly targeted "All property and interests… of the Government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya.<ref>Executive Order of February 25, 2011, citing International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, seizes all Libyan Govt assets, February 25, 2011, link. The authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose" (50 U.S.C. 1701).</ref> The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for [[Africa]], as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer: | + | President Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi's proposal for an African Union with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze all of the Bank of Libya's $30 billion of funds to which America had access. This was reported in the U.S. press as a freeze of the funds of "Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.<ref>''New York Times'', February 27, 2011.</ref> The second section of Obama’s decree explicitly targeted "All property and interests… of the Government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya.<ref>Executive Order of February 25, 2011, citing International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, seizes all Libyan Govt assets, February 25, 2011, link. The authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose" (50 U.S.C. 1701).</ref> The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for [[Africa]], as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer: |
| | [[File:Treaty of Tripoli PD LC.jpg|thumb|Treaty of Tripoli, Libya was one of the first nations to recognize the US in 1796.]] | | [[File:Treaty of Tripoli PD LC.jpg|thumb|Treaty of Tripoli, Libya was one of the first nations to recognize the US in 1796.]] |
| | {{Cquote|The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.}} | | {{Cquote|The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.}} |
| Line 153: |
Line 153: |
| | ==Bypassing Congress== | | ==Bypassing Congress== |
| | Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat. | | Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat. |
| − | The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. | + | The War Powers Act specifically states that the President's power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. |
| | | | |
| | None of these prerequisites have been met, however, and President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> | | None of these prerequisites have been met, however, and President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> |
| Line 161: |
Line 161: |
| | {{Cquote|U.S. military operations in Libya have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them. In your March 21 letter to the Congress, you indicated that these operations would be limited in their nature, duration, and scope, and focused on protecting civilians and civilian populated areas from attack. Two months into these operations, your Administration is unable to specify what limits will apply to the duration of the operations, and the coalition in which we are participating appears to have expanded its objectives to weakening the Gaddafi regime’s hold on power through strikes on leadership targets and, potentially, infrastructure targets.<ref>http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332967&</ref><ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-above-the-law/2011/05/26/AGL5zyCH_story.html</ref>}} | | {{Cquote|U.S. military operations in Libya have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them. In your March 21 letter to the Congress, you indicated that these operations would be limited in their nature, duration, and scope, and focused on protecting civilians and civilian populated areas from attack. Two months into these operations, your Administration is unable to specify what limits will apply to the duration of the operations, and the coalition in which we are participating appears to have expanded its objectives to weakening the Gaddafi regime’s hold on power through strikes on leadership targets and, potentially, infrastructure targets.<ref>http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332967&</ref><ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-above-the-law/2011/05/26/AGL5zyCH_story.html</ref>}} |
| | | | |
| − | The evidence is President Obama’s war in Libya is illegal and unconstitutional. Columnist George Will laid out the case in, “Is Obama Above the Law?” The war is a violation of the War Powers Act, which says the president can go to war without Congressional approval only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. and there is a 60-day deadline for the withdrawal of forces. [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2467] | + | The evidence is President Obama's war in Libya is illegal and unconstitutional. Columnist George Will laid out the case in, “Is Obama Above the Law?” The war is a violation of the War Powers Act, which says the president can go to war without Congressional approval only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. and there is a 60-day deadline for the withdrawal of forces. [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2467] |
| | | | |
| | The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to | | The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to |
| Line 196: |
Line 196: |
| | In the first decade of the Twenty-first century China quietly has overtaken the United States to become Africa's largest trading partner, particularly in oil, which accounts for 73 percent of all African exports. According to the Chinese government's first white paper on its economic and trade cooperation with Africa, China's trade with Africa has soared to $114.81 billion in the first 11 months of 2010. China uses about 8 million barrels per day (bpd), a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015 and now receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa. China's top oil suppliers are [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], [[Angola]], Russia, [[Oman]] and [[Sudan]]. Saudi Arabia is China's top oil supplier (1.1 million bpd.) China is also buying oil from [[Chad]], [[Gabon]] and [[Nigeria]] as well. China's top African oil suppliers are [[Angola]], [[Sudan]] and [[Nigeria]]. The [[International Monetary Fund]] reports, oil now accounts for 99 percent of Sudanese exports, with China absorbing for 65 percent of them. Energy is Angola's sole export hard currency earner, with China now accounting for 35 percent of Angolan exports.<ref>http://mammutcapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/upcoming-us-china-struggle-for-african.html</ref> | | In the first decade of the Twenty-first century China quietly has overtaken the United States to become Africa's largest trading partner, particularly in oil, which accounts for 73 percent of all African exports. According to the Chinese government's first white paper on its economic and trade cooperation with Africa, China's trade with Africa has soared to $114.81 billion in the first 11 months of 2010. China uses about 8 million barrels per day (bpd), a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015 and now receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa. China's top oil suppliers are [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], [[Angola]], Russia, [[Oman]] and [[Sudan]]. Saudi Arabia is China's top oil supplier (1.1 million bpd.) China is also buying oil from [[Chad]], [[Gabon]] and [[Nigeria]] as well. China's top African oil suppliers are [[Angola]], [[Sudan]] and [[Nigeria]]. The [[International Monetary Fund]] reports, oil now accounts for 99 percent of Sudanese exports, with China absorbing for 65 percent of them. Energy is Angola's sole export hard currency earner, with China now accounting for 35 percent of Angolan exports.<ref>http://mammutcapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/upcoming-us-china-struggle-for-african.html</ref> |
| | ===Competition for resources=== | | ===Competition for resources=== |
| − | After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire. | + | After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America's [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire. |
| | | | |
| | Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is | | Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is |
| Line 203: |
Line 203: |
| | {{Cquote| the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or [[Yemen]] or [[Bahrain]] or [[Tunisia]] and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion...these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html</ref> to head up the Libyan rebellion... China has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya.<ref>http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175076.html</ref>}} | | {{Cquote| the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or [[Yemen]] or [[Bahrain]] or [[Tunisia]] and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion...these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html</ref> to head up the Libyan rebellion... China has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya.<ref>http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175076.html</ref>}} |
| | | | |
| − | Whatever Washington’s ulterior motives, there is no doubt that NATO’s military operations in Libya are harming China’s fiscal interests. According to information from China’s Ministry of Trade, by March, when the military operation began, there were 75 major Chinese companies operating in Libya, and they had concluded $18 billion in contracts. Because of the NATO operations in Libya, the Chinese companies are expecting gigantic losses.<ref>[http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ Washington Using NATO For Proxy Conflict With China In Libya.]</ref> | + | Whatever Washington's ulterior motives, there is no doubt that NATO's military operations in Libya are harming China's fiscal interests. According to information from China's Ministry of Trade, by March, when the military operation began, there were 75 major Chinese companies operating in Libya, and they had concluded $18 billion in contracts. Because of the NATO operations in Libya, the Chinese companies are expecting gigantic losses.<ref>[http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ Washington Using NATO For Proxy Conflict With China In Libya.]</ref> |
| | == Formation of the National Transitional Council == | | == Formation of the National Transitional Council == |
| | The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic announced its official establishment in early March 2011 in the city of Benghazi. The stated goal was to the overthrow of Mu’ammar Gaddafi.<ref>http://ntclibya.org/english/</ref> It has been recognized by France, [[Qatar]], Italy, [[Kuwait]], [[Maldives]] and [[Gambia]]. They have proceeded to form a transitional government for the post-Gaddafi era. Before forming a government, they robbed about $505 million from the Central Bank of Libya in Benghazi. | | The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic announced its official establishment in early March 2011 in the city of Benghazi. The stated goal was to the overthrow of Mu’ammar Gaddafi.<ref>http://ntclibya.org/english/</ref> It has been recognized by France, [[Qatar]], Italy, [[Kuwait]], [[Maldives]] and [[Gambia]]. They have proceeded to form a transitional government for the post-Gaddafi era. Before forming a government, they robbed about $505 million from the Central Bank of Libya in Benghazi. |
| Line 250: |
Line 250: |
| | became the official White House line. President Obama went on the ''Comedy Channel'' to say the deaths of Americans was "not optimal".<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/18/Obama-Benghazi-murders-not-optimal Interview with Jon Stweart of the ''Daily Show''].</ref> When pressed by reporters, who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, Press Secretary Carney argued “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.” | | became the official White House line. President Obama went on the ''Comedy Channel'' to say the deaths of Americans was "not optimal".<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/18/Obama-Benghazi-murders-not-optimal Interview with Jon Stweart of the ''Daily Show''].</ref> When pressed by reporters, who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, Press Secretary Carney argued “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.” |
| | | | |
| − | On September 16, 2012 Ambassador Susan Rice showed up on all five major Sunday morning talk shows to push the administration's spin linking the Benghazi murders and a satirical video. Rice told longtime Democratic partisan [[George Stephanopoulos]] of ABC’s ''This Week,'' the attack was “a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo” – referring to a demonstration in which a mob breached the embassy compound wall and tore down an American flag. Rice repeated the false claims throughout her morning talk-show appearances on all networks.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/18/171933/obama-administration-officials.html</ref> | + | On September 16, 2012 Ambassador Susan Rice showed up on all five major Sunday morning talk shows to push the administration's spin linking the Benghazi murders and a satirical video. Rice told longtime Democratic partisan [[George Stephanopoulos]] of ABC's ''This Week,'' the attack was “a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo” – referring to a demonstration in which a mob breached the embassy compound wall and tore down an American flag. Rice repeated the false claims throughout her morning talk-show appearances on all networks.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/18/171933/obama-administration-officials.html</ref> |
| | | | |
| | Around a week after the attack Obama finally ordered an investigation. The leading suspected jihadis in the murders and terrorist attack were the local Benghazi branch of Ansar al-Shariah, known to have ties to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).<ref>http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/10/19/when-an-obama-adviser-called-benghazi-an-al-qaeda-hotbed/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway</ref> A commander of the terrorist group boasted jovially over drinks with reporters for the ''[[New York Times]]'' in Benghazi<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=2&ref=world</ref> as President Obama's investigators failed to interview him.<ref>https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/frappe-libya-attack/</ref> | | Around a week after the attack Obama finally ordered an investigation. The leading suspected jihadis in the murders and terrorist attack were the local Benghazi branch of Ansar al-Shariah, known to have ties to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).<ref>http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/10/19/when-an-obama-adviser-called-benghazi-an-al-qaeda-hotbed/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway</ref> A commander of the terrorist group boasted jovially over drinks with reporters for the ''[[New York Times]]'' in Benghazi<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=2&ref=world</ref> as President Obama's investigators failed to interview him.<ref>https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/frappe-libya-attack/</ref> |