Prosecute your own war criminals first. Selective justice isn't justice.

It was made clear -- publicly and foolishly made clear -- to the Gaddafi family more than three months ago that if they ever left Libya, they faced certain arrest and, for some members, life imprisonment, likely in solitary. This was a major mistake but it took some weeks for the original non-ICC threateners to recognize it. Too late then.

So Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute when saying this week that "the ICC's arrest warrant [for Moammar Gaddafi alone] symbolizes the dirty underside of international law. … [and] tells Qaddafi to fight to the death" was full of crap, and knew it.

The original pre-ICC threats made it clear that Gaddafi would be insane to consider doing anything other than living and dying in his homeland. Those threats were vainglorious and unnecessary. They have cost Libyan lives and humbled NATO. Not the ICC's fault. Anybody who doesn't have the good fortune to be Michael Rubin might think that the troubled NATO assaults have been the dirty underside of international law. Or lawlessness. Certainly less legal than the ICC warrant.

So accurately and clearly, some things still are not even talking straight as a board, the British generals. But David Scheffer - not canvas boots. He believed - and they say, is justly considered - one of the leading, most stylish, popular and respected American Lawyer, he is a serious theorist, developed the idea of ??"Nuremberg" in a coherent concept, based on which, in fact, is a modern international criminal law .

In short, from that person can expect at least competence. This just does not make mistakes, and if they are lying, then a mere mortal is difficult to calculate a lie gracefully articulated in a stream of beautiful, certainly the right word. And yet, in the first sentence of a detailed article published in more than an influential publication, striking something that can not wait to see - just two coarse manipulation, "the ICC issued warrants" and "de facto Prime Minister Saif Al -Islam. " For lively journalist, writing one-day story is forgivable, but the international lawyer, the level of Mr. Schaeffer can not help but be aware that (a) in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute, no warrant has been issued, granted only to ask the UN Security Council formally authorize the issuance of this warrants, and (b) Mr. Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi in a complex scenario of Libyan tribal relations is not the figure to be satisfied with the role of zits-chairman. The real prime minister of Libya - he and he alone, and safe al-Islam as such is neither a de jure, nor de facto.

Thus, the obvious purpose of Mr. Schaeffer from the outset is to misinform the reader and to impose their point of view. It is worth considering for what ...

First of all, clean up the essence of the beautiful wrappers.
Calling a spade a spade, the author acknowledges that:
(A) The campaign is bogged down in Libya, the bombing did not bring any success, as people rallied around the government,
(B) the popularity of the war decreases with each passing day, which has already led to a series of serious internal crises in NATO countries, primarily the U.S., but at the same time,
(C) curtail military action, thus "capitulate before the odious dictator" can not, consequently,
(D) should send "SWAT" and the arrest of Gaddafi and the other two "criminals"
(E) procured as a formal justification of the paper in Benghazi,
(F) against something (for fast) will not object to criticism of Obama, and among Republicans,
(G) and thus, boring, dangerous war can be collapsed.

The basis for this plan only one thing: al-Gaddafi - "disgusting war criminal."
And what should such a conclusion?
And only from the fact that a warrant that does not warrant based on allegations of crimes, known only by inaccurate tales media, not proven and, moreover, been disproved.

That is, the main evidence of criminal activity, Colonel - the very fact that he was declared a criminal, a very interested person, and they declared him to be, so as not to admit that they themselves committed a crime. Arrest is his (or rather, legally justify the arrest) is proposed on the basis of Filkin letters, written out self-styled "the Council" representing the vast minority of the Libyan people, situated on the content of the foreigners involved in the set of proven (in contrast to the actions of Colonel) crimes, and finally extremely interested. And to put a shadow on a completely clear the hurdle, the name and deeds of the Libyan leader, running in an amalgam of the names and deeds of those already convicted or, or, as in the case of the really creepy type of Joseph Kony, of course denounced as the most difficult crimes. And just at the end should have a transparent allusion to the fact that if the colonel suddenly become docile, his offense will be as if no crime, but something so that you can forgive.

All of this, dare I remind you not from the mouth of market-women, and one of the most prominent lawyers dollars. In addition, the theorist, not just expressing their opinions, and offering, in fact, a fundamentally new concept of international relations. That calling a spade a spade, is reduced to that today the United States for its "cowboy" practices (in their interests) have transformed themselves into the global bogeyman, and it makes it difficult, and therefore any use of force to execute properly, positioning themselves as "rights defenders" because "the right superior force."

Actually, I did not argue.
Of course, above.
I'm just - not afraid to happen again, on the contrary, quite deliberately repeating - please pay attention to the fact that the "right" within the meaning of Mr. Schaeffer would include:
(A) the creation of the accused (and interested) party cause for the prosecution;
(B) formation of uncorroborated evidence and / or deny the rumors and speculation direct;
(C) involvement as perpetrators of persons whose impartiality and independence cause reasonable doubt, and even just sitting on the hook compromising
and, finally,
(D) the original, as a fact, posting the suspect a "criminal"
that is,
(F) knowingly, before the process of a conviction, because any other outcome means "surrender", which was categorically unacceptable.
And what higher, on a planetary scale resort, protected by law, interpret it and give effect to the States are, in themselves infallible initially, all the same way are required to take these things for granted, not that it will be worse - so it goes without saying.

In such a situation, in my opinion, there is no speech is not only not on any state sovereignty, but even an elementary presumption of innocence. Novella, proposed by Mr. Schaeffer, is the first fully designed and voiced by the well-known lawyer, a step to the abandonment of the existing norms of international law, but by and large, and the right to do as such. More clearly and frankly about this - at least for now - was simply impossible. Sglotnet these wonderful initiatives Zaluzha or humanity, realizing stand on its hind legs, do not know, but I have no doubt about one thing: to its reaction now depends largely on what will be a world in which we live is not even (to hell with us), but for our children .

You know, dear buddylist and friends, I remember the good old "The Peasant War in Germany," Engels. Specifically, the passage of the rebels against Bauer for the prisoners. If anyone had forgotten, I remind noble captured rebels were executed very rarely, only if it was a very very monsters, more or less tolerated, and brotherhood to the church - but a lawyer, so if they do not slip away be in luck, chance to avoid the loop was not. Do not even know why I'm not surprised ..

All of this, dare I remind you not from the mouth of market-women, and one of the most prominent lawyers dollars. In addition, the theorist, not just expressing their opinions earnextramoney, and offering, in fact, a fundamentally new concept of international relations. That calling a spade a spade, is reduced to that today the United States for its "cowboy" practices (in their interests) have transformed themselves into the global bogeyman, and it makes it difficult, and therefore any use of force to execute properly, positioning themselves as "rights defenders" because "the right superior force."

Of course the timing of the ICC's sudden issue of warrants for Muammar al-Qaddafi et al was politically motivated and part of the attempt to create an international alliance against Gaddafi. However it did have some benefits - if only to reminding Gaddafi's henchmen that if / when the regime falls there may be war crimes trials waiting for them too. Makes the regime that bit more unstable for Gaddafi which must be a good thing. Being a leading light in the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - Gaddafi's political party - may be something to play down if /once Libya falls I suspect.

The case for calling off the Tomahawks and bringing Muammar al-Qaddafi to The Hague. Let's not waste time wondering why the U.S. refuses to join the ICC. But the U.S. also tries to "convince" other nations not to join the ICC. Example: Costa Rica decided to apply for membership in the ICC in 2004. The U.S. Embassy (Good Cop) "advised" Costa Rica not to join the ICC. But the "ticos" insisted in an application to join the ICC. Thus "Bad Cop" from USA arrived in Costa Rica and made t great post to read It was made clear -- publicly and foolishly made clear -- to the Gaddafi family more than three months ago that if they ever left Libya, they faced certain arrest and, for some members, life imprisonment, likely in solitary. This was a major mistake but it took some weeks for the original non-ICC threateners to recognize it. Too late then. So Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute when