Uprising in Libya

[K. A. Pital]

Would probably cost less money then a couple months worth of airstrikes too.

And a lot less lives. However, people should never expect reasonable behaviour. For example, SS criminals or Latin American terrorists and junta members often walk free despite having zero power and really shouldn't evade prosecution for their crimes. On the other hand, a real head of a nation, a dictator who has an Army and a somewhat loyal populace in Tripoli is being cornered and told he's going to be killed and offered no way out. Same happened with Saddam, really - how much Sunni extremism could've been avoided if the USA said "We're not going to fan the flames of your religious hatreds! Hussein will go to Bumfuckacio and spend his last days there, and we'll try to make Iraq sovereign in the end"...

[Simon_Jester]

This is an unfortunate corollary to the idea of "war criminals" becoming a popular and common idea that circulates through the public. Once you regard the act of waging a war, or of doing things that autocrats throughout history have done to stay in power, as crimes, it's very hard to justify allowing a tyrant to live. It can only be done through rationalization- as with Pinochet, people staying in denial about his crimes long enough to allow him to live out many years after the coup in relative comfort.

So after you have publically declared a man to be an evil dictator, have made a big point of the fact that you are going to punish him for his crimes, rather than merely overthrow him... what else can you do but execute him?

Napoleon was exiled to Elba because the people he fought did not view him as a criminal, merely as a dangerous man who needed to be kept away from power for the sake of the safety of Europe. Hitler would have been executed had he been captured, because he was not just a dangerous man- he was an evil criminal.

Most tyrants in history are no Napoleon and no Hitler. But we can draw endless comparisons and analogies and 'this is a lesser example of's, and the result is clear. Today, we have societies which make a point of once in a while toppling a tyrant in some Third World nation. And because it's all being done as media posturing and crusading impulses, rather than as part of a really necessary war, these nations cannot, for public consumption, admit that it's acceptable to do anything less than treat all the tyrant's actions as a criminal record and punish him accordingly. For which the logical punishment is almost inevitably death because there can never be any doubt of how much harm he's done.

And so, as noted above, you wind up giving these people nothing to lose, and no real incentive to do anything other than try to hold out in the ruins of their palace until the last member of the Imperial Guard dies, then get shot down rifle in hand trying to fight back personally. That's not always how they go, but really- would someone like Saddam Hussein have had a better, realistic choice given what was on offer for him after what he'd done? At least then he'd have been remembered as a man with a certain degree of personal courage who chose to die on his feet, rather than suffering the ignominy of being dragged out of a spider hole, put through a show trial, and hung by the occupying army and its local puppet regime.

It's one of the consequences of total war- all the incentives favor making it more total. And these wars are total for the petty dictatorships that they overthrow even if not for the massive, prosperous countries that decide to fight them.

[Pelranius]

Would probably cost less money then a couple months worth of airstrikes too.

And a lot less lives. However, people should never expect reasonable behaviour. For example, SS criminals or Latin American terrorists and junta members often walk free despite having zero power and really shouldn't evade prosecution for their crimes. On the other hand, a real head of a nation, a dictator who has an Army and a somewhat loyal populace in Tripoli is being cornered and told he's going to be killed and offered no way out. Same happened with Saddam, really - how much Sunni extremism could've been avoided if the USA said "We're not going to fan the flames of your religious hatreds! Hussein will go to Bumfuckacio and spend his last days there, and we'll try to make Iraq sovereign in the end"...

Didn't Bush jr. tell Saddam that he and his sons could leave Iraq for (I think Moscow) on the eve of the war?

Mr. Al Tikriti felt he'd rather do out with his guns blazing.

[Simon_Jester]

Saddam tried to run while staying within the country- and only got to die tired for the trouble.

It's more or less inevitable that a large proportion of men like that will choose to die in place rather than outright resign and leave- if they didn't regard the holding and exercise of power, and their own nation, as integral to their identity they wouldn't be long-standing dictators in the first place.

To make another analogy, I find it hard to imagine Louis XIV abdicating as King of France- and why should we assume that Saddam Hussein or Qaddafi have any less of a sense of "I am the state" than he did? But the habit modern societies have of executing defeated leaders for the crimes of tyranny makes tyrants all the more inclined to die fighting, or at least die trying to coordinate a resistance movement, rather than surrendering gracefully after they have been defeated in battle

[Scorpion]

[...]the habit modern societies have of executing defeated leaders for the crimes of tyranny makes tyrants all the more inclined to die fighting, or at least die trying to coordinate a resistance movement, rather than surrendering gracefully after they have been defeated in battle

Well, we can't just let them go, can we? The words Tyrant and Dictator haven't gained their negative connotations just because. Men who stay in power for long do so supported by the dead bodies of their opposers and wonderous meatgrinder of suppression, censorship and murder. They have to answer before justice. Hell, what kind of message would we be giving if after 30 years of torture and bloodshed, a dictator could just walk into a UN building and say "well, it was good while it lasted, where's my lifelong pension and my estate in the Barbados?"

And, sadly, I don't remember many examples of dictators who were executed by conquering powers. Saddam is one, but I can't think of anyone else from the top of my head. As sad as it is, most dictators live out their lives in peace or live as exiles in one friendly nation. A few get tried in the Hague for crimes against humanity, but most live their lives in peace with the complacency of third parties... And that makes me sick and sad...

EDIT: Spelling.

[Simon_Jester]

[...]the habit modern societies have of executing defeated leaders for the crimes of tyranny makes tyrants all the more inclined to die fighting, or at least die trying to coordinate a resistance movement, rather than surrendering gracefully after they have been defeated in battle

Well, we can't just let them go, can we?

Did I say we should?

Thing is, we should know we're doing it. This is not rocket science: tell a man you are going to kill him, especially a man who is stuffed with pride and power and authority from decades of absolute rule over millions of people, and he will refuse to cooperate. He may even choose to stay to the last rather than try to escape: "The purple is a good burial shroud."

The more devoted we are to regarding the abuses committed by autocrats as crimes against international law, and the more committed we are to punishing those crimes accordingly, the more we must realize that there are, and cannot be, any class of criminal more desperate, more willing and more able to cause harm to the people who come to arrest them, than an autocrat.

[Scorpion]

There's nothing I can say I basicly disagree with you. The thing is, International Law today is woefully unadequate. One of the reasons for this is that it has no muscle. There is an ICC, but it is dependent on it's member states for enforcement. Member states which may or may not be parcial to the decisions. (The EU had to strongarm Croacia with freezing EU acession talks before it would surrender Karadzic! The guy spent 15 years eluding international law, the moment the EU threatens suspending the talks, he ends up getting delivered to the Hague with a neat little bow, gee, what a coincidence!)
It's sad that, in the same way that the authorities can chase and arrest a suspect in his own home, the same can't be done for dictators in their own countries. I know this opens up a whole can of worms: sovereignity issues, ingerence issues, and the fact that some very powerfull countries with very powerfull militaries are also very bad in human rights issues. I mean, who the hell wants to enact an arrest warrant for the King of Saudi Arabia for political and religious persecution?

The ICC can't continuously be trying 80-year-old nazi camp guards and old khmer rouge... International law must be feared and respected by the tyrants and dictators of this world, for the good of all!

[Thanas]

Serbia, not Croatia.

[Scorpion]

You're right, sorry.

[Simon_Jester]

The ICC can't continuously be trying 80-year-old nazi camp guards and old khmer rouge... International law must be feared and respected by the tyrants and dictators of this world, for the good of all!

Great idea.

Who bells cat?

[Shroom Man 777]

Only American-backed dictators get retirement funds. Marcos, Duvalier, Pinochet, bleh.

[K. A. Pital]

I mean, who the hell wants to enact an arrest warrant for the King of Saudi Arabia for political and religious persecution?

Nobody, and for none of the Sheikhs either. Look at it that way - if you benefit the imperialistic system (not necessarily the USA, although it is very important you stay buddies with them, if not outright gay nation-state lovers), you're not going to the Hague any time soon. At all. KSA is beneficial. Libya is counterbeneficial. Haiti, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile... um... I guess I'll just get tired if I try to list all of the authoritarians who persecuted opposition and were supported by the West - they were all beneficial.

If you put yourself in opposition to the world system, you will get crushed. If you carefully cater to the needs of the world system (like, say, Kazakhstan), build yourself into it and feed the hungry needs of domestic and foreign capitalists, the worst "sanction" you'll ever see is Sting cancelling a concert because you repress the bloody fuck out of striking workers (but, kudos to Sting, some socialists in my city actually held a little rally in honour of the guy, despite him being a hypocrite, at least he got Kazakhstan in the news spotlight... somewhat), not a Tomahawk flying into your window and turning you into a pile of guts.

Part of the desire of "more efficient justice" or "international law with a vengeance" hits this big problem head one - "Who Watches The Watchmen?" So before you desire for a stronger international law which would be able to drag select dictators into the Hague, consider the fact that this system might very well be simply used to get rid of undesireables and "rogues" on the world stage, while people who are just like them, but subservient to the world elite, will never face a shred of justice.

[Block]

I mean, who the hell wants to enact an arrest warrant for the King of Saudi Arabia for political and religious persecution?

Nobody, and for none of the Sheikhs either. Look at it that way - if you benefit the imperialistic system (not necessarily the USA, although it is very important you stay buddies with them, if not outright gay nation-state lovers), you're not going to the Hague any time soon. At all. KSA is beneficial. Libya is counterbeneficial. Haiti, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile... um... I guess I'll just get tired if I try to list all of the authoritarians who persecuted opposition and were supported by the West - they were all beneficial.

If you put yourself in opposition to the world system, you will get crushed. If you carefully cater to the needs of the world system (like, say, Kazakhstan), build yourself into it and feed the hungry needs of domestic and foreign capitalists, the worst "sanction" you'll ever see is Sting cancelling a concert because you repress the bloody fuck out of striking workers (but, kudos to Sting, some socialists in my city actually held a little rally in honour of the guy, despite him being a hypocrite, at least he got Kazakhstan in the news spotlight... somewhat), not a Tomahawk flying into your window and turning you into a pile of guts.

Part of the desire of "more efficient justice" or "international law with a vengeance" hits this big problem head one - "Who Watches The Watchmen?" So before you desire for a stronger international law which would be able to drag select dictators into the Hague, consider the fact that this system might very well be simply used to get rid of undesireables and "rogues" on the world stage, while people who are just like them, but subservient to the world elite, will never face a shred of justice.

Who are/were Haiti and Guatemala beneficial to exactly?

[montypython]

I mean, who the hell wants to enact an arrest warrant for the King of Saudi Arabia for political and religious persecution?

Nobody, and for none of the Sheikhs either. Look at it that way - if you benefit the imperialistic system (not necessarily the USA, although it is very important you stay buddies with them, if not outright gay nation-state lovers), you're not going to the Hague any time soon. At all. KSA is beneficial. Libya is counterbeneficial. Haiti, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile... um... I guess I'll just get tired if I try to list all of the authoritarians who persecuted opposition and were supported by the West - they were all beneficial.

If you put yourself in opposition to the world system, you will get crushed. If you carefully cater to the needs of the world system (like, say, Kazakhstan), build yourself into it and feed the hungry needs of domestic and foreign capitalists, the worst "sanction" you'll ever see is Sting cancelling a concert because you repress the bloody fuck out of striking workers (but, kudos to Sting, some socialists in my city actually held a little rally in honour of the guy, despite him being a hypocrite, at least he got Kazakhstan in the news spotlight... somewhat), not a Tomahawk flying into your window and turning you into a pile of guts.

Part of the desire of "more efficient justice" or "international law with a vengeance" hits this big problem head one - "Who Watches The Watchmen?" So before you desire for a stronger international law which would be able to drag select dictators into the Hague, consider the fact that this system might very well be simply used to get rid of undesireables and "rogues" on the world stage, while people who are just like them, but subservient to the world elite, will never face a shred of justice.

Who are/were Haiti and Guatemala beneficial to exactly?

Haiti and Guatemala were beneficial to the US, the former for cheap textile labor and the latter US domination of their fruit industry (e.g, United Fruit Company aka Chiquita).

[Eulogy]

If it's any consolation, Stas, the situation you describe will probably not persist. With America decaying so much, and with sites like Wikileaks revealing the villainy of those in power, sooner or later something's got to give.

[Scorpion]

The ICC can't continuously be trying 80-year-old nazi camp guards and old khmer rouge... International law must be feared and respected by the tyrants and dictators of this world, for the good of all!

Great idea.

Who bells cat?

Herein lies the rub. An organization that polices individuals must be supraindividual, impartial, and a third party regarding the individuals involved in a dispute. Similarly, an organization that polices nations must be supranational, impartial, and a third party to conflicting nations. Unfortunately, the most powerful nations are simultaneously the most capable of providing troops and the most likely to have an interest in any given conflict, so there goes supranationality and impartiality.

But one of the most obvious obstacles to international justice is that most powerful nations would not want to submit to said justice. One of the UN's most obvious weaknesses was also that which allowed it to survive 60 year: the veto power of the 5 permanent members of the security council, meaning, the inability of the UN's decisions to go against the interests of TPTB (or atleast the interests of just one of the oposing camps) which mantained the UN's credibility as a bargaining table. I mean, how long would the USSR or the PRC stay in the UN if the charter for human rights was strictly enforced?

Still, while not immediately practical, such an organization is not impossible. Supranational organizations that delve in international lawmaking and international trials already exist: one is the UN, the other the ICC. Maybe the enforcement arm of the international lawmaking would be a cross between the UN and the French Foreign Legion?

[Scorpion]

If it's any consolation, Stas, the situation you describe will probably not persist. With America decaying so much, and with sites like Wikileaks revealing the villainy of those in power, sooner or later something's got to give.

Do not be so naive to think that only america does that. They only did what the French, British and many other did before them, and what, when their power waxes, the Indian, Russian and Chinese will certainly do... May we learn from history lest we repeat it...

[K. A. Pital]

Maybe the enforcement arm of the international lawmaking would be a cross between the UN and the French Foreign Legion?

Considering French complicity in colonial opression, mass murder and genocides in colonial and post-colonial Africa and Indochina, that's just a terrifying vision.

[Scorpion]

Maybe the enforcement arm of the international lawmaking would be a cross between the UN and the French Foreign Legion?

Considering French complicity in colonial opression, mass murder and genocides in colonial and post-colonial Africa and Indochina, that's just a terrifying vision.

Thank you for completely missing the point! When considering my statement, look not to what the FFL did, but how it recruits.

And regarding "French complicity in colonial opression, mass murder and genocide", there are few peoples in this Earth that are not guilty of atleast two of these crimes, if you look far back enough. We cannot judge people for the sins of their fathers...

[Serafina]

It's hardly just the USA.
Keep in mind that we aren't necessarily talking about actively SUPPORTING the bad guys. Just not stopping them is enough. So instead of kicking out the evil dictator, you engage in trade to "open up the country to western values", or you sell them weapons because they have a "stabilizing influence on the region", or you just claim that a war or rebellion would make everything worse.
Voila, the dictator in question is now firmly established. He can sell oil/other resources and get rich, and rest assured that he is beneficial enough that no strong nation will kick him out.

[Simon_Jester]

Stas, while I think Scorpion's picture of an international enforcement arm leaves a lot to be desired, I think he's only using the Foreign Legion as a recruitment model, not as an idea for who should be running the organization.

The ICC can't continuously be trying 80-year-old nazi camp guards and old khmer rouge... International law must be feared and respected by the tyrants and dictators of this world, for the good of all!

Great idea.

Who bells cat?

Herein lies the rub. An organization that polices individuals must be supraindividual, impartial, and a third party regarding the individuals involved in a dispute. Similarly, an organization that polices nations must be supranational, impartial, and a third party to conflicting nations. Unfortunately, the most powerful nations are simultaneously the most capable of providing troops and the most likely to have an interest in any given conflict, so there goes supranationality and impartiality.

So far, this is all obvious.

Do you have an answer to the question I asked, though? You're using a lot of "musts-" it must be done, dictators must be made to fear international law, et cetera. Someone who feels that strongly on the issue should, I would think, have a solution to the problem of who can possibly be trusted with doing it. Who bells the cat?

Still, while not immediately practical, such an organization is not impossible. Supranational organizations that delve in international lawmaking and international trials already exist: one is the UN, the other the ICC. Maybe the enforcement arm of the international lawmaking would be a cross between the UN and the French Foreign Legion?

How big would it be? Who would fund it? Who would be given power to restrain it from exceeding its mandate, and how much power to restrain would they have?

[Scorpion]

Do you have an answer to the question I asked, though? You're using a lot of "musts-" it must be done, dictators must be made to fear international law, et cetera. Someone who feels that strongly on the issue should, I would think, have a solution to the problem of who can possibly be trusted with doing it. Who bells the cat?

How big would it be? Who would fund it? Who would be given power to restrain it from exceeding its mandate, and how much power to restrain would they have?

Short answer is no. I cannot answer your question, atleast in as a complete manner as you demand. The only thing I know is that it would have to be an organization much like the UN, founded by the mutual agreement of the majority of nation-states. The most obvious obstacle to that would be that several major nation states are not exactly friends of the rule of law and the concept (and aplication of) human rights, which would hinder or water down this organization to a weak, impotent enforcement agency. The current powers would fear giving power to this agency, as it would curtail on their freedom of action.

As for my use of "must", it stems from simple logic. Skipping the philosophical arguments for justice and assuming them as accepted, there is no reason why, in principle, someone who kills 2 people should be incarcerated while someone who orders the killing of 20 000 should go free as a result of his positions as head of state.

[Thanas]

Could we all get back to discussion about the situation in Libya, please?

[Guardsman Bass]

It might be a good idea to split the tangent off into another thread. I think it's already been done once or twice in this long thread.

[Thanas]

Thank you for that suggestion.