One year later, Libya mess spreading guns and violence into Mali

posted at 11:35 am on March 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

On Sunday, the one-year anniversary of the declaration by Barack Obama of American military intervention in Libya passed without much notice.  The reason Obama and NATO gave for their undeclared war on Moammar Qaddafi was the “responsibility to protect” civilian populations from military force by the dictatorship, known as R2P, and to free Libya from the grip of the tyrant, which was supposed to produce an orderly transition to a democratic government.  As Daniel Larison points out, that hasn’t exactly come to pass.  Instead, competing militias run Libya, and now guns are flowing into Mali — which threatens to destabilize a key Western ally in the war against al-Qaeda:

But the Libyan war’s worst impact may have occurred outside of Libya. The neighboring country of Mali, which also happens to support U.S. counter-terrorist efforts in western Africa, has been roiled by a new Tuareg insurgency fueled by the influx of men and weapons after Gadhafi’s defeat, providing the Tuareg rebels with much more sophisticated weaponry than they had before. This new upheaval benefits al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM), and the Tuareg uprising threatens the territorial integrity of Mali. The rebellion has also displaced nearly 200,000 civilians in a region that is already at risk of famine, and refugees from Mali are beginning to strain local resources in Niger, where most of them have fled. “Success” in Libya is creating a political and humanitarian disaster in Mali and Niger.

The R2P principle isn’t faring well either:

Paradoxically, the Libyan war and its aftermath have had the unintended consequence of undermining the doctrine of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) that was originally used to justify the intervention. Many advocates of intervention believed Western involvement would strengthen the norm that sovereignty may be limited to protect a civilian population from large-scale loss of life. Instead, the Libyan intervention helped discredit that idea.

A key requirement of the “responsibility to protect” is that intervening governments assume the “responsibility to rebuild” in the wake of military action, but this was a responsibility that the intervening governments never wanted and haven’t accepted. All of this has proven to skeptical governments, including emerging democratic powers such as Brazil and India, that the doctrine can and will be abused to legitimize military intervention while ignoring its other requirements. The Libyan experience has soured many major governments around the world on R2P, and without their support in the future, it will become little more than a façade for the preferred policies of Western governments.

Thus stands the real absurdity — the choice to apply R2P in Libya.  Qaddafi was certainly a tyrant, and wanted to conduct massive military action against his own people to keep his regime from collapsing.  But Qaddafi was at that time no acute threat to the Western governments who toppled him through the lengthy bombing campaign.  On the other hand, Syria’s Bashar Assad helps Iran run two terror networks in Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which aim at Western interests in the region, and who is now conducting the exact same kind of campaign that Qaddafi threatened — with the Western governments not lifting a finger to stop it.

I’m not arguing for military intervention in Syria, which might have produced the exact same consequences as it did in Libya (and as the diplomatic intervention did in Egypt)  by putting radical Islamists in charge.  Even if we wanted to stage such an intervention, we have neither the resources nor the political credibility to do so after the embarrassingly lengthy NATO campaign in Libya and Western reluctance to deal with the consequences of the aftermath.  However, if we had thought about the long-term consequences of intervention in both Libya and Egypt a year ago, we might have held our strength for a place where it mattered most and where it might have done some good — Syria, or even Iran.  Instead, we’re perceived as so weak and ineffective that Russia felt bold enough to land troops in Syria to support Assad in the guise of “anti-terror” units.

Small wonder no one wanted to talk about the one-year anniversary of this intervention.

Update: Of course, Mali just had its government deposed by a coup.  The US issued a statement today condemning it:

“We call for the immediate restoration of constitutional rule in Mali, including full civilian authority over the armed forces and respect for the country’s democratic institutions and traditions,” the White House said in a statement.

The disaster continues.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The disaster is 0′s credibility. Not the West.

Bmore on March 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM

You mean Obama and Ms. Powers didn’t have an exit strategy?

PattyJ on March 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM

The disaster is 0′s credibility. Not the West.

Bmore on March 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM

…and the credibility of the cover-up media!

KOOLAID2 on March 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM

The disaster is 0s credibility. Not the West.

It just reads better the other way.

Bmore on March 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM

This is the O’Doctrine.

If in doubt, make sure you back the wrong side.

CorporatePiggy on March 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Hey, we destabilized the entire region and armed AQ without putting any boots on the ground.

Behold Smart Power!

CorporatePiggy on March 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Thanks, obama.

Pork-Chop on March 22, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Part of the blame:

Repub “neocons” like McCain, and Rubio, that went along with Obama’s counterproductive pro-AlQueda (pro-our-enemy!) kinetic military action.

anotherJoe on March 22, 2012 at 11:46 AM

The disaster is 0′s credibility. Not the West.

Bmore on March 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Probably. But, dubya can share some blame for naivety in his belief that Muslim countries are sincere in a claimed desire for a truly democratic process. I will agree that the R2P concept is equally silly.

a capella on March 22, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Key point, if dear leader thought about consequences

It’s all about re-election and nothing else

cmsinaz on March 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I’m sure the MSM will be writing many fine pieces analyzing the disastrous, counter-productive results of the exercise of Obama’s “Smart Power” in Libya, right?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

AZCoyote on March 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM

a capella on March 22, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Fair enough.

Bmore on March 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM

The Arab Spring/Muslim Miasma is just getting started, and won’t end soon. There are 57 states to radicalize…

Akzed on March 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Was just listening to Larry Sabatow (sp?) on FNC talk about the Senate races this year and how several will stay D as they ride Obama’s wins in various states. Then you’ve got poll after poll showing a tight race between Obama and either Romney or Santorum (even though the R’s haven’t settled on their nominee.) All this without Obama having to answer ONE SINGLE QUESTION from a reporter or moderator or General Election candidate on any specific policy measure.

Folks, Obama’s gonna lose big. I know we shouldn’t be over-confident, but the media and his bully pulpit are easily worth 10 points to him right now. But he can’t claim Libya as a success. He can’t claim Egypt as a success. He can’t claim Iraq as a success though it was Bush’s success. He can’t claim Afghanistan as a success. In fact, there isn’t one foreign policy position he’s taken that has proved markedly successful by any measure. Still, he’s not answered one meaningful question on Hillary’s State Dept since taking office.

He cannot hide his failures- they’re global. Ordinary people don’t want an unmitigated disaster running our country, no matter how much the media tries to convince you that you do.

BKeyser on March 22, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Here’s a little update. There was a coup d’etat in Mali today. The elected government has been overthrown by what is being called as military officers.

Hope and Change has come to Mali, thanks to Obama’s new “Smart Power”.

simkeith on March 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM

This is a good reason why we need to re-think our foreign policy. Stop guarding other countries like South Korea, and guard our own borders. Stop interfering with the internal actions of these nations ruled by despotic regimes fighting Islamists. It’s none of our business.

MoreLiberty on March 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Upside -the death of the R2P philosophy and the possibility of its use in a friendly invasion of ‘palestine’.

slickwillie2001 on March 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Even if we wanted to stage such an intervention, we have neither the resources nor the political credibility to do so after the embarrassingly lengthy NATO campaign in Libya and Western reluctance to deal with the consequences of the aftermath. However, if we had thought about the long-term consequences of intervention in both Libya and Egypt a year ago, we might have held our strength for a place where it mattered most and where it might have done some good — Syria, or even Iran.

Wow.

Even though you said at the beginning of the paragraph that you aren’t arguing for military intervention in Syria.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 12:01 PM

The true root of the problem in Syria, like most Middle Eastern countries destroyed by sectarianism, is in the arbitrary borders that were drawn after colonial powers left. It may have made sense then to put Sunnis and Shiites in the same country when few of them had the transportation means to ever contact the other, but of course, politicization changes things.

We have to change the idiotic arbitrary borders of these states to reflect the cultural divisions within them. To ask Sunnis and Shiites to rule a country together absolutely predictably results in violence.

solatic on March 22, 2012 at 12:03 PM

We just need some more of that “Smart Diplomacy” that Barry is always talking about………but never delivers.

How’s that RESET button working out?

GarandFan on March 22, 2012 at 12:09 PM

“We call for the immediate restoration of constitutional rule in Mali, including full civilian authority over the armed forces and respect for the country’s democratic institutions and traditions,” the White House said in a statement.

Oh, now THAT is RICH coming from this White House.. May we, the US Citizens make the same demands ?????????????????

you just can’t make this stuff up….

ted c on March 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Loss of American life: 0
Cost: ~$1B
Benefit: Libya oil exports to exceed pre-war delivery

Kaddafi spiderholed: PRICELESS

eggs… omelettes

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM

The Libyan-Contras’ victory over Kaddafi’s thugocracy is a LONG overdue triumph for the Reagan Doctrine.

Post-Bush/Blair, it took EU conservatives (Cameron, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Merkel) to successfully revive the Reagan Doctrine by arming and supporting Libyan-Contras.

American conservatives should focus on congratulating our heroic NATO airmen (and our new Libyan allies) for a job well done– and ignore the impotent handwringing of nattering naybobs of negativity.

He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong.”

God bless Ronald Reagan and our heroic NATO airmen.

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 12:32 PM

The anti-Midas touch.

rbj on March 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Fun Fact: ~75% of Libyan oil goes to Neo-con Europe (38% to Berlusconi)

US share is a drop in the bucket

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 12:41 PM

I remember talking to a taxi driver from Mali in the year 2000. I asked about terrorism. He said they were so poor they could not afford guns or ammunition, much less food.

I guess Obama help cure that problem.

pat on March 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Obama and the Clinton’s bringing their special brand of hell to the international stage.

If his middle name wasn’t already “Hussein” it should be “Anti-Christ Jr.”

Hening on March 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Obama’s peeps!

tom daschle concerned on March 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Q: How many months from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation Red Dawn did it take for Coalition Forces to pull Saddam out of his spiderhole?

A: Ron Paul? nine (9) months

Fun Fact: Our heroic NATO airmen and their Libyan-Contra allies outpaced General Odierno and Task Force 121.

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I remember talking to a taxi driver from Mali in the year 2000. I asked about terrorism. He said they were so poor they could not afford guns or ammunition, much less food.

I guess Obama help cure that problem.

That’s the plan, man. Arab Spring goes African. Radical Islam spreads .

hawkeye54 on March 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Flashback: PA103 Victims’ brother on VIDEO

Today is probably the most satisfying day I’ve had in this 24-year odyssey,” Ammerman said… “Our main goal was that our loved ones wouldn’t die in vain,” Ammerman said. “It shows if you want to get involved in this cowardly act you will pay a price.

And when the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Ed Morrissey: “However, if we had thought about the long-term consequences of intervention in both Libya and Egypt a year ago, we might have held our strength for a place where it mattered most and where it might have done some good — Syria, or even Iran.”

Oh right, so you’re all for these wars to force regime change, you just want more populous, bigger, harder targets for more spectacular consequences.

How about skipping the whole thing and protecting America’s borders?

David Blue on March 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

And now Juan McIdiot wants to repeat in Syria. I wonder if little Marco is till with him.

VorDaj on March 22, 2012 at 12:57 PM

solatic: “We have to change the idiotic arbitrary borders of these states to reflect the cultural divisions within them.”

No we don’t.

David Blue on March 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM

How about skipping the whole thing and protecting America’s borders?

A much more apt use of our resources. I have a feeling we’ll need to ramp that up very soon.

hawkeye54 on March 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Ed wrote: Qaddafi was at that time no acute threat to the Western governments

Pernicious nonsense.

Kaddafi had publicly VOWED to resume targeting civilian airliners.

Kaddafi was busy arming al-Qaeda

Please. Ed needs to review his long train of abuses;

Munich Olympic Massacre
Constable Fletcher Murder
Rome/Vienna Airport Massacres
Berlin Discoteque Massacre
TWA840 massacre
PA73 massacre
PA103 Massacre
UTA772 Massacre
IRA proxy massacres
Libyan opposition massacres
Abdullah targeting plot
EU Nurse Prison Rape-Extortion
Swiss hostage extortion
More Libyan opposition massacres

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Looks like Libya got hit by the same jinx as the US – they got Obamacized!

albill on March 22, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I must have missed the Mali headlines in my local newspaper. All they covered was the absurdity of the Ryan budget plan; and, the AP report that 36 years of increased oil drilling has not had any impact whatsoever on gas prices.

Obama’s foreign policy is as bad as Bush’s, he just has different reasons for his involvement and a different set of objectives.

HoosierStateofMind on March 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM

A much more apt use of our resources. I have a feeling we’ll need to ramp that up very soon.

hawkeye54 on March 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM

The funny thing is these same people are the ones who supposedly want fiscal restraint.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM

More overlooked good news!

Gaddafi’s Henchman Arrested

…In 1999, a Paris court sentenced al Senussi in absentia to life in prison for his alleged involvement in an attack on a French UTA airliner a decade earlier that killed 170 people.

This thug also helped mastermind the Lockerbie massacre (among others).

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 1:28 PM

More on Kaddafi’s #2:

He is Gaddafi’s black box,” said Noman Benotman, a senior Libyan analyst at the Quilliam Foundation. “He knows all the secrets about the dirty deals, plots to kill – and even what underwear Gaddafi wore.”

Senussi, 62, believed to be held at the headquarters of the Mauritanian security service in Nouakchott, is accused of playing a central role in repression and torture under Gaddafi.

He is widely suspected of anchoring high profile conspiracies such as the 1988 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, of a Pan Am jet that killed 270 people, the 1989 bombing of a French UTA airliner that killed 170 people, and plots against Arab and African states, including an attempt in 2003 to assassinate Saudi crown prince Abdullah, who is now the king.

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM

kadafi supported many dictatorial regimes in africa and his demise is bound to bring on some readjustments. to defend the status quo on those corrupt nations in the name of stability is not exactly something I agree with.
even if libya and other countries fall apart, it will be because of their own inability to reach political compromise in a region full of tribal and ethnic hatred, not because of western interference. still, we should allays try be on the side of the people, because its unbearable to condone massacres of populations in the the name of regional stability.
sure glad I live in the US…

nathor on March 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM

You brought him out of his mom’s basement, Ed.

Terp, if one opposed Soviet actions in Eastern Europe after WWII, would that make him pro-Nazi?

mankai on March 22, 2012 at 2:44 PM

nathor on March 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Libya: not Obama’s fault

Iraq: Bush’s fault

Gotcha

mankai on March 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Libya: not Obama’s fault

Iraq: Bush’s fault

Gotcha

mankai on March 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM

its funny how Obama follows bush policy of spreading democracy. in a way, Obama is just continuing what bush started.
however, there is a larger point, that is, democracy cannot be imposed on by foreign armies, it should start from within and really wished by the majority of the population.

another point is, we should not be afraid of the democracies in the middle east turning islamic. islamism is popular because the populations see it as a solution to their problems. but as the islamic parties fail to deliver more concrete solutions to the populations problems, in the next political cycle, their popularity will start to fade.
maybe I am too optimistic, but what the hell, those places would blow up sooner or later, so, what is to lose?

nathor on March 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM

@mankai: If one applauds Churchill for defeating Hitler, does that make one pro-Soviet?

But thanks for the predictable demonstration of irrelevant strawman immolation.

Grade: F- (fatuous)

*dismissed*

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Obama’s destruction of Gadaffy was worse than Bush’s wars in two ways.

1. We actively needed Gadaffy alive, to show other dictators that crawling down and giving up their WMD programs isn’t suicide. Good luck getting the Iranians or anyone else to play ball now.

2. We had eight years of watching Bush’s wars go adrift. Somebody should have learned from that, if not the big O then Hillary. These wars are bloody, costly and counterproductive.

The only good thing to say about the attack on Libya is that it has not yet cost American lives.

David Blue on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

natho: “maybe I am too optimistic, but what the hell, those places would blow up sooner or later, so, what is to lose?”

American money, American diplomatic focus, American lives, and the lives of Muslims – that last item not being my top priority, but still human lives should not just be thrown away in wars of a type already demonstrated to be useless.

David Blue on March 22, 2012 at 3:14 PM

American money, American diplomatic focus, American lives, and the lives of Muslims – that last item not being my top priority, but still human lives should not just be thrown away in wars of a type already demonstrated to be useless.

David Blue on March 22, 2012 at 3:14 PM

no, if you agree that those places would blow up in some sort of islamic revolution sooner or later, then there is nothing to lose.
American money, American diplomatic focus, American lives, and the lives of Muslims would indeed be lost if we supported those dictatorial regimes against the will of their populations.
so again, what is to lose?

nathor on March 22, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Obama’s destruction of Gadaffy was worse than Bush’s wars in two ways.

1. We actively needed Gadaffy alive, to show other dictators that crawling down and giving up their WMD programs isn’t suicide.

well, I think the larger message is, the world will not ignore when dictators slaughter their population. we are afraid WMD be used in the killing of populations, and for that, we let other populations be killed?

Good luck getting the Iranians or anyone else to play ball now.

what about tyrants being afraid of slaughtering their own population?

2. We had eight years of watching Bush’s wars go adrift. Somebody should have learned from that, if not the big O then Hillary. These wars are bloody, costly and counterproductive.

The only good thing to say about the attack on Libya is that it has not yet cost American lives.

David Blue on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

very important, libya, so far, cost very little and 0 lives where lost and we dont have our military stuck in the area. criticism of the libya operation is very thin considering the results….

nathor on March 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I think the larger message is, the world will not ignore when dictators slaughter their population.

Except when we do. Like right now, in Syria. And two years ago, in Iran.

very important, libya, so far, cost very little and 0 lives where lost and we dont have our military stuck in the area. criticism of the libya operation is very thin considering the results….

nathor on March 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM

So as long as it doesn’t cost more than a few billion U.S. tax dollars and no U.S. lives are lost, it’s okay to conduct unauthorized (by Congress) military interventions in foreign countries, even if those interventions result in destabilizing not only the country whose government we attack, but also neighboring countries which were formerly friendly to us? That’s your idea of a successful operation? Seriously?

AZCoyote on March 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM

nathor: “American money, American diplomatic focus, American lives, and the lives of Muslims would indeed be lost if we supported those dictatorial regimes against the will of their populations.”

There’s no need to send in the Marines to prop dictators up. Just stay out of it.

As for the will of their populations, I don’t care. Focus on the good of the American population.

David Blue on March 22, 2012 at 3:41 PM

And that is why western democracies tolerate tyrants, host them in western capitals, and smile and shake their hands for the press.
Because the alternatives are what we see in Libya.
At least a given dictator makes order out of the chaos, being the worst option except all the alternatives.

AlexB on March 22, 2012 at 3:42 PM

@mankai: If one applauds Churchill for defeating Hitler, does that make one pro-Soviet?

But thanks for the predictable demonstration of irrelevant strawman immolation.

Grade: F- (fatuous)

*dismissed*

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Dismiss it all you want… the logic is on my side.

For one year now you have equated doubt about what the end of Libya will look like with support for Qaddafi. Your analogy of Stalin actually works against you.

Since we supported Stalin in WWII against Hitler, according to your analogy, that would thus make any American who wanted to see the Soviets succeed necessarily “pro Stalinist USSR”. THAT is what you have been trying to do for a year.

In your scenario, Churchill would be a hypocrite/pro-Nazi for making his “Iron Curtain” speech after supporting the Soviets in their war against Hitler. THAT is all you allowed. If anyone made an “Iron Islamic curtain has descended upon Northern Africa” post, you automatically accused him of being pro-Qaddafi… thus YOU would be the one accusing Churchill of being “pro-Hitler” for questioning Soviet control of Eastern Europe after WWII.

The other MAJOR difference is that we HAD to ally with Stalin because we doubtfully could have defeated Hitler alone (and he had already taken France by the time we entered the war). In your sick world, we joined a bunch of Islamists for no apparent reason. We traded a dictator for an Islamic HQ for Al Queda.

Your analogy falls apart at every point.

Don’t try using logic, you’ll only hurt yourself.

I win.

mankai on March 22, 2012 at 3:45 PM

mankai comically rubs his damp rhetorical sticks together hoping his wet strawman will somehow ignite.

But that silly analogy only conflates Fulton with Yalta. Otherwise, Churchill would need a time machine to be the hypocrite you imagine he was.

As usual, your babbling makes no sense. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Grade: F–(fallacious)

*dismissed*

Terp Mole on March 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I’m sure the MSM will be writing many fine pieces analyzing the disastrous, counter-productive results of the exercise of Obama’s “Smart Power” in Libya, right?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

AZCoyote on March 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Any that do manage to get written and published will all have the same conclusion….”Bush’s fault!!!”

runawayyyy on March 22, 2012 at 4:06 PM

The only major military interventions by Republican administrations in the last hundred years were a war initiated by George H W Bush and two by his son. They all ended badly. We need to end this interventionism whether by neoconservatives or by Democrats. Non of the interventions had a positive affect on US interests.

burt on March 22, 2012 at 6:29 PM

burt: “The only major military interventions by Republican administrations in the last hundred years were a war initiated by George H W Bush and two by his son.”

First moral: no more Bushes!

Second moral (more important in the long run): no more neocons near power or even influence!

burt: “They all ended badly.”

Yes.

burt: “We need to end this interventionism whether by neoconservatives or by Democrats. Non of the interventions had a positive affect on US interests.”

Agreed.

David Blue on March 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM

As expected, also as expected is the silence surrounding the misnomer of Arab Spring…stolen by the marxist lovers of the circa 1850 Europe Spring.

There was an informative post about that region at American Spectator, specifically referencing the Taureg people.

John Kettlewell on March 22, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Berlusconi was the architectof the Libyan-Contras’ Mussolini moment– which was a LONG overdue triumph for the Reagan Doctrine.

Post-Bush/Blair, it took EU neo-cons (Berlusconi, Cameron, Merkel, Sarkozy) to successfully revive the Reagan Doctrine by arming and supporting Libyan-Contras.

American conservatives should focus on congratulating our heroic NATO airmen (and our new Libyan allies) for a job well done– and ignore the predictably impotent handwringing of the nattering naybobs of negativity.

He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong.”

God bless Ronald Reagan and our heroic NATO airmen.

Terp Mole on March 23, 2012 at 9:34 AM

More overlooked good news!

Gaddafi’s Henchman Arrested

…In 1999, a Paris court sentenced al Senussi in absentia to life in prison for his alleged involvement in an attack on a French UTA airliner a decade earlier that killed 170 people.

This thug also helped mastermind the Lockerbie massacre (among others).

PA103 Victims’ brother on VIDEO: “Today is probably the most satisfying day I’ve had in this 24-year odyssey,” Ammerman said… “Our main goal was that our loved ones wouldn’t die in vain,” Ammerman said. “It shows if you want to get involved in this cowardly act you will pay a price.

Terp Mole on March 27, 2012 at 11:22 AM