Qaddafi’s family ready to sue NATO or something
Marcel Ceccaldi, a French lawyer who previously worked for Kadafi’s regime and now represents his family, told AFP on Wednesday that the complaint would be filed with the International Criminal Court in the Hague because the family believes a NATO strike on Kadafi’s convoy led directly to his death…
“The willful killing [of someone protected by the Geneva Convention] is defined as a war crime by Article 8 of the ICC’s Rome Statute,” the news agency quoted Ceccaldi as saying. “Kadafi’s homicide shows that the goal of [NATO] member states was not to protect civilians but to overthrow the regime.”
It was unclear when the complaint would be filed, but Ceccaldi said the lawsuit would target NATO executive bodies and leaders of the alliance’s member states.
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
A clear message must be sent – violate the laws of war, face justice.
Rebar on October 27, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Considering that NATO was allied with Al Qaeda and other unsavory types and many of us easily predicted everything that’s happened, they probably have case.
FloatingRock on October 27, 2011 at 1:21 PM
Does a portion of their settlement go to the family members of the flight 103 victims?
DrAllecon on October 27, 2011 at 1:25 PM
Please haul bho in for putting us there in the first place! holder can represent bho?
L
letget on October 27, 2011 at 1:28 PM
I think that the $2 Billion 0bama spent on his illegal war, should be reimbursed to the American taxpayers by taking it from his reelection campaign.
Rebar on October 27, 2011 at 1:30 PM
So which NATO soldier rammed the knife up Qaddafi’s business? Who shot him in the head?
An old trial lawyer maxim… find the richest entity with even the remotest connection to sue.
mankai on October 27, 2011 at 1:44 PM
What legal authority gave NATO the right to bomb convoys? Fact is without that airstrike the rebels wouldn’t have caught him – hardly a remote connection.
Rebar on October 27, 2011 at 1:50 PM
Well, the United States AKA NATO did violate the UN resolution, which is the only flimsy piece of paper that took away Libya’s sovereignty.
Not that I’m crying over him meeting Karma or anything.
uknowmorethanme on October 27, 2011 at 1:54 PM
What legal authority would you accept?
mankai on October 27, 2011 at 1:54 PM
I don’t know, how about if Libya actually attacked a NATO member, since, you know, it is supposed to be a defensive alliance?
Rebar on October 27, 2011 at 1:57 PM
That doesn’t answer the question.
mankai on October 27, 2011 at 2:00 PM
Since the rebellion was entirely an internal matter of Libya, I see no authority that could legally intervene in it.
Rebar on October 27, 2011 at 2:12 PM
Lord knows I don’t want to be in the position of supporting either Obama from a policy position or the Islamists, but I don’t see how there is any grounds for suing NATO.
Was Vietnam an illegal action? If the argument is that S. Vietnam was an ally, could we not argue that NATO was allied with the rebels? Or could we not argue that Qaddafi was a supporter of terrorist acts against the US/NATO?
mankai on October 27, 2011 at 2:31 PM
Hillary already anticipated this. There was no war, only a time-limited (days, not weeks), scope-limited (protect civilians), kinetic military action. Therefore, in the minds of these pea brains, war crimes are UNpossible.
Christien on October 27, 2011 at 3:18 PM
The surviving Qaddafis, their tribesmen, and allies should be very careful, or Hillary and Barry will help our new BFFs butcher them, too. Then, there will be no one left to file suit.
Christien on October 27, 2011 at 3:22 PM
The argument that NATO could ally with the rebels over the recognized government of Libya is specious. In any event, it would take a full vote of NATO members to ally with any other military force, which didn’t happen. NATO went in under the lie it was to prevent “civilian massacres” which – so far – only the rebels have committed. Qaddafi’s convoy was hit by NATO for the sole purpose of killing Qaddafi, which is simply illegal.
Vietnam was an entirely different case – it was a legitimate recognized government being subject to aggression by a foreign power.
As for terrorism, the dirty secret is that Qaddafi was supporting Western efforts against al qaeda and other islamic terrorist organizations in the last decade or so. Which is why al qaeda is fighting with the rebels.
Wait until an airliner is shot down by one of the 20,000 missiles that are in the wind due to 0bama – then you’ll see lawsuits.
Rebar on October 27, 2011 at 3:23 PM