No legal right to kill Gaddafi

wedge_cadman

War Hero
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#2
Well if the Americans are saying that they are not actively targeting him then he's bound to get hit.
 
#4
Personally I don't see what right we have to be getting involved in Libya let alone topping Gaddafi. Looks like Cameron is going the way of Blair.
 
#5
#6
Killing leaders of countries was enshrined into US law after interference into South American regimes on Americas shite list.
Leaders of the worlds countries are obviously anti head-shed killing as they may become targets themselves.
It is not part of our laws tho' and I will always be an advocate of cutting off the head of hydra to prevent the deaths of many.
 
#7
Of course, it is absolutely legal to kill colonel Gadhafi. The UK is de facto at war with Libya. Killing an enemy soldier is quite legal.

Equally Libyan forces being in uniforms could quite legally kill any British soldier in any part of the World.
 
#8
Sounding more and more like a running goat-**** to me.

Half heard on Radio 4 this morning John Humphrys say words to the effect that the RAF 'of all people' are suggesting a 'flat top' be found in order to fly Harriers on and off it! Someone then said: 'Cameron would go ballistic' - implying that this suggestion had better not reach No. 10. Harriers operating from an aircraft carrier would be so much less expensive than the current 'plan'.

It was also postulated that the MOD had to fund this stupidity from its current budget! Has the failed, unlamented oaf Brown risen from the dead in the form of Osborne and the truly dreadful mandarins in The Treasury?

The country resembled a massive train-crash when Cameron took over, now it appears to me that somehow a huge goods train, travelling at great speed, has ploughed into the wreckage thereof.
 
#9
There is no state of war. It's the enforcement of a UN Resolution, war is not mentioned. Gaddafi may use the rhetoric but he hasn't declared war either.
 
#10
Yesterday's Pentagon briefer said something along the lines off - 'we're not targeting the Col, but if he happens to be in one of the facilities we are targeting - unlucky!'.

C_C
 
#11
Yes, I have read that, but there is more atrocities against civilians in other countries and the civilians that the UN is "protecting" are rebels, in other words they have taken up arms to fight their "government" and are doing quite well from what I hear.

As this is a "UN operation" in Africa, why weren't African or Arab countries used for this so called "no fly zone"?


edited to add, the only good thing about this is hopefully they will slot the **** who shot PC Fletcher.
 
#12
Well if the Americans are saying that they are not actively targeting him then he's bound to get hit.
He only has to avoid wearing orange clothing and he will be fine. They might not be targetting him but they are probably sure as hell he might be collateral damage.
 
#13
Yes, I have read that, but there is more atrocities against civilians in other countries and the civilians that the UN is "protecting" are rebels, in other words they have taken up arms to fight their "government" and are doing quite well from what I hear.

As this is a "UN operation" in Africa, why weren't African or Arab countries used for this so called "no fly zone"?


edited to add, the only good thing about this is hopefully they will slot the **** who shot PC Fletcher.
Ah, I see. I thought you said this:

"Personally I don't see what right we have to be getting involved in Libya let alone topping Gaddafi."
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#14
Sergei has it on the nose. No-one 'declares war' on anyone these days - that's forbidden under international law. The UN resolution does, however, certainly allow us to target/kill Gaddafi. he is a key C3 node - who tells the Army what to do, ultimately, if not the dictator? That's the whole point of being a dictator.

The nonsense in the media yesterday was just that - nonsesne - and CDS has been, apparently, put back in his box in no uncertain terms - and lost a bit of lustre in the process :)

In a reversed situation, you would be quite able to target our PM, as he is an integral part of the UK Firing Chain, but NOT HM The Queen, as she is not.
 
#15
Gaddafy Duck is a Colonel, therefore his is a military Officer and a legitimate target.
 
#16
Sergei has it on the nose. No-one 'declares war' on anyone these days - that's forbidden under international law.
I realise states tend not to bother these days in practice, but am not aware that it is forbidden. Do you have a source?

I dug this out, though it doesn't really help (and it's moving off topic):

http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp2607a.pdf
 
#17
Gaddafy Duck is a Colonel, therefore his is a military Officer and a legitimate target.
HM (pick any one of them) also holds military rank does that make him/her a legitimate target as well then?
 
#18
We have no right to stick our noses in - no one (least of all the so-called Libyan rebels) will thank us for it and there appears to be no game plan for getting out. It will end up like Iraq - we will leave with our tails between our legs having not finished the job and embarrassed ourselves.
 
#19
There is no state of war. It's the enforcement of a UN Resolution, war is not mentioned. Gaddafi may use the rhetoric but he hasn't declared war either.
Rarely, if ever the state of war is declared. Let's recall Iraq. Had the USA formally declared the state of war?

But there is de facto a war and all relevant Geneva and Hague convention related to the laws and customs of war are applicable including treating of POWs.
 
#20
Yes, that's correct. Hence the eternal argument over that war's legality. I suppose the last clear case was UNSCR 678 authorising the first Gulf War.

Back on topic, I suppose you could invert the original point and say it would not be illegal if Gaddafi were killed.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top