Talk-Polywell.org

I was watching the news about Libya lately, and had this thought. If you checked the records for all military personnel in the western world, maybe three or four thousand must be of Libyan ancestry, (rough guess), maybe a good number in the French Foreign Legion. Enough to create a volunteer regiment, especially effective if allowed to take leave with the weapons they're trained on. Possibly even create a rebel air force to take on Gaddafi's. They could probably use a few stinger missles meantime. It would help if all the western leaders weren't trying to get into the film actors guild on this.

What I am about to say is in no way condoning Gadafi, but I find the whole premise of this questionable:

Let's say a large fraction of LA started rebelling against state authorities and set to work with firearms and ordnance to seize control of California, what lawful means would the US employ to suppress that rebel military action.

Now I don't really need to guess... we've seen what the national Guard did with the east LA riots some years back, and anyone care to debate Wako.. anyone? A group of people who merely refused to co-operate, let alone tried to take the US over - yet they were killed in the ensuing battle with the State authorities with tanks and whathaveyou.

So, what would the US do if a fraction of the population tried to take power and destroy the Government?

As mentioned above, this is not picking sides. It is merely asking "what would any state authority do?". I don't think Gadafi is doing anything any other country wouldn't.

Now, if the argument is that Gadafi should be pushed out of power by external military force, well, make that statement. I would have no opinion whether that should or should not happen. No-one has made such a statement, though. And no country can because it would be against international law. You may argue that this isn't right. Sure, go ahead and argue it! Write to your UN representative and go through the legal process with your argument.

Such countries only change slowly, and their leaders merely get gradually less and less like the strong-man. 'Peaceful', western-style democracy can never turn over in such countries within one generation. The 'people' are not capable of believing such a reality, and will therefore be reluctant to fulfill their civic obligations while they still think someone is taking advantage of them in the way they always have. It's taken western countries >500 years to go from a country with a leader like Gadafi to western 'democracies'. There is a very long process wherein the people slowly, very slowly, begin to invest trust in their leaders and begin accepting the 'rule of law' they bring into force.

So I think the west would help Libya the most by advising the rebels to stand down and to address their grievances by other means.

I would argue that cellular technology combined with internet\social media are having a dramatic effect on the timeline for social change in the ME. Also, the rebels can't stand down, the Gaddafi regime would wait a few months after the surrender for media attention to be diverted, then gradually arrest and kill off all the rebel fighters and protesters.

I recall a book written by a Russian defector during the 80's. In it the author said those KGB agents who were close enough to Gaddafi were disgusted by him. Their professional evaluation was that he had advanced syphilis. An Italian jounalist who interviewed him aroung that time claimed he started off by staring up at the ceiling and screaming over and over, "I am the Gospel." Not someone who should be allowed to control a country with large cash reserves and access to WMD's.

choff wrote:[1] the Gaddafi regime would wait a few months after the surrender for media attention to be diverted, then gradually arrest and kill off all the rebel fighters and protesters.

[2]he started off by staring up at the ceiling and screaming over and over, "I am the Gospel." Not someone who should be allowed to control a country with large cash reserves and access to WMD's.

Two points. Both totally non-sequitur in their response to the question, and my answer.

You may think that one country deciding, unilaterally, that the leader of another country is mad and that this is justification for external military intervetion. Morally it might even be so. But it is unlawful and, as Iraq has shown, merely leads to a massive penalty on the innocent population.

You, like Bush and Blair, have totally confused what is a moral position in ousting a leader, with what is lawful.

I do not understand the absence of critical thought in such a response. If the leaders of Burma or North Korea think western leaders are mad for allowing private citizens to goa bout having uncontrolled thoughts, then does this give them sanction to invade us? One man's mad leader is another man's gospel!

Again, to repeat, I am not disagreeing with you. I am simply saying it is non-sequitur in respect of 'what to do' about Libya. Libya is a sovereign state under attack by rebels from within that country. If it is the decision of that country's leadership that summary executions of all those who have rebelled is in order, it is not for international law to condemn, if the charges are held up against them and that there is a death penalty for such action. I am not saying that is right. Far far from it. What I am saying is that if one country sees fit to take military action for what it perceives is an abuse of lawful power, then where can that stop. Or is is simply a case of 'if American says it is right, then no one can say America is in the wrong, but if America decides someone else is wrong, then it is wrong.'.

If you are proposing military action so as to prevent the execution of individuals involved in the bearing of arms against the state's lawful forces, then does that mean N Korea has a right to invade the US if a cop-killer in the states is up for the electric chair?

Draw your moral compass where you will, but this cannot end by unilateral military actions against a sovereign state. Like it or loathe it, this is how it is.

Now I don't really need to guess... we've seen what the national Guard did with the east LA riots some years back, and anyone care to debate Wako.. anyone? A group of people who merely refused to co-operate, let alone tried to take the US over - yet they were killed in the ensuing battle with the State authorities with tanks and whathaveyou.

Dude. You miss the point. You also are not well informed about what went down at Waco. The Branch Dividian Cult had illegally purchased heavy weapons, and the ATF went to investigate. When denied, they tried to enforce a warrant (stupidly), and got shot up by the Cult members. Great video on how not to make a tactical entry if you haven't seen it. The ATF then withdrew, and called in other Federal and state authorities for backup, as the Cult had gone into full lockdown, completely armed up and said effectively, "We are our own little planet, and you can't land here". In the standoff, things kept getting sillier with Koresh. In the end, authorities decided to storm, as they had gotten indications the Koresh would enact a mass non-optional suicide for the Cult (Think Jim Jones here, but no cool-aid). What actually happened during the entry was that Koresh packed everyone he could into a buried bus, which he had set up with fire bombs, then had a few token "fighters" man up the heavy weapons they had, .50cal machine guns etc. and made a "fight". During the fight he set off the Bus, killing the bulk of his cult. The reason the Gov. brought in armored vehicles was the heavy weapons they faced. They used the armor to move up to the compound as protection from fire. Koresh killed off his cult members, not the Gov. I talked with a guy who saw the Bus remains in the aftermath/cleanup. He will carry that image for his life.

The big issue in your Los Angeles scenario that you are missing, is that in the US and other western countries, the population (people) have means to address governance.
In countries like Libya, they do not. So eventually, it becomes a contest of force.
If there is an armed uprising in LA, then I would happily go to the front line and fight it. Folks like that do not belong in a society that controls its governance. They don't get it. And in fact, they end up creating dictatorships for themselves.

ladajo wrote:

Now I don't really need to guess... we've seen what the national Guard did with the east LA riots some years back, and anyone care to debate Wako.. anyone? A group of people who merely refused to co-operate, let alone tried to take the US over - yet they were killed in the ensuing battle with the State authorities with tanks and whathaveyou.

Dude. You miss the point.

err... no I think you have still missed mine

You also are not well informed about what went down at Waco.

&c., &c.... So what what happened? The point is that it is legal for the state to use military force against those who would seek to undermine the state's authority. Doesn't matter what is claimed, the point is that it is not for another country to interfere in a sovereign's state suppression of unrest and failure to comply with the demands of the state's agents.

"The use of lethal force has been approved."

The big issue in your Los Angeles scenario that you are missing, is that in the US and other western countries, the population (people) have means to address governance.
In countries like Libya, they do not.So eventually, it becomes a contest of force.

Again, non-sequitur. Is you argument that military force against another sovereign state is legitimised if those in that country do not have means to address governance! Is that really a legitimising criterion?

...and when such a scenario does become a contest of force, should outside countries really play politics in that country and pick a side?

You see, any criterion put can be anticipated to be non-seqitur whilst it is being used to single out Libya but is equally valid in other countries yet no such proposal of military force is being prescribed. If we do it for one, why are we not doing it for all such countries where those criteria are met?

If the grounds on which to use military force in another sovereign state are that some people have been disenfranchised from political processes to the preference of others and that those people seek to use lethal force against the government of the day... do you not see where this moral corkscrew ends up?

ladajo wrote:
Quote:
Now I don't really need to guess... we've seen what the national Guard did with the east LA riots some years back, and anyone care to debate Wako.. anyone? A group of people who merely refused to co-operate, let alone tried to take the US over - yet they were killed in the ensuing battle with the State authorities with tanks and whathaveyou.


Dude. You miss the point.
err... no I think you have still missed mine

The point I see is that when, in a state where the people control the Government, there are those who step outside of the rule of law (the rule of the people), and cause harm to innocents, that the Government is repsonsible to the people to act, and when faced with lethal use of force, to respond. I have no issue with what went down in Watts, and Waco.

Quote:

You also are not well informed about what went down at Waco.

&c., &c.... So what what happened? The point is that it is legal for the state to use military force against those who would seek to undermine the state's authority. Doesn't matter what is claimed, the point is that it is not for another country to interfere in a sovereign's state suppression of unrest and failure to comply with the demands of the state's agents.

"The use of lethal force has been approved."

Yes, use of force rules dictate that an authorization must be given in a planned event. Also, in Waco, Koresh escalated first with threat of lethal force. He physically displayed means and intent.

Quote:

The big issue in your Los Angeles scenario that you are missing, is that in the US and other western countries, the population (people) have means to address governance.
In countries like Libya, they do not. So eventually, it becomes a contest of force.

Again, non-sequitur. Is you argument that military force against another sovereign state is legitimised if those in that country do not have means to address governance! Is that really a legitimising criterion?

...and when such a scenario does become a contest of force, should outside countries really play politics in that country and pick a side?

You see, any criterion put can be anticipated to be non-seqitur whilst it is being used to single out Libya but is equally valid in other countries yet no such proposal of military force is being prescribed. If we do it for one, why are we not doing it for all such countries where those criteria are met?

If the grounds on which to use military force in another sovereign state are that some people have been disenfranchised from political processes to the preference of others and that those people seek to use lethal force against the government of the day... do you not see where this moral corkscrew ends up?

I agree that there is fully a valid question as to the validity of responsibility of states in regards to other states. This is based whole heartedly in the principles of defined sovereignity. However, I would also point out that the concept of defined sovereignty is realtively new on the world stage. Its foundation lays with the treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

There are currently many debates on the heart of the definition in the circles of the largest power bases. Of particular note would be the ongoing UN debate centered around several "states", the most prominent being Taiwan.

However, given that the choice of civilization is one at the end of the day of people agreeing to co-exist. When faced with a group that does not want to co-exist, what is the responsibility of others? Force them? Ignore them?

The UN as a membership condition, requires states to agree to its charter. Violence and laws of conflict are in the charter. So in the case of Lybia, the UN is rightful to address use of force by the Government of Lybia as a member state. Also, the African Union has also established in its Charter, the principle of Intervention. Lybia, as a member of the African Union also legitimately faces consequences from there as well.

Regarding the "violation" of sovereignty, as your principle argument. I say it is one that is situationally driven. If you face a state that clearly has no compunction of taking on major population groups under its "control", and those groups have no means to resist or avoid the attack, then I say yes, if you have the ways and means to intervene, you should do so, preferably with all the friends you can bring, and seek an end that reflects the concepts of "Universal Human Rights" that the state has tossed out the window.

ladajo wrote: If you face a state that clearly has no compunction of taking on major population groups under its "control", and those groups have no means to resist or avoid the attack, then I say yes, if you have the ways and means to intervene, you should do so

...'friad I still don't understand. If 55% of the population of the US came out with their guns and marched on Washington with the specific intent of bringing down the government, and the government responded with national guards using lethal force, how is this 'have no means to avoid the attack' when all they had to do was to not bear arms and march on washington? What would the difference be? I am afraid I don't see it. All the Libyan 'rebels' had to do was not resist the gov in the streets and to go home.

As has actually happened a few times in the west, [last occasion in Switzerland, I think] some guy has his home forcibly purchased for demolition and he goes to the local council offices with his gun and says he'll shoot them for doing this, the conditions are met; we have a person who has no redress and has picked up arms to fight the authorities.

His best course to avoid being shot by the police is to go home. His cause may be just, but it does not demand a conclusion that he has 'no means to avoid the [police] attack'. All he has to do is not to pick up his gun and not to bear them against the council officials. What he has to do is put up with having his house knocked down.

What's the difference between his experience and the experience of a Libyan? Both have had oppressive state authority destroy their lives and all they have worked for, both have picked up arms, yet one is reviled as a lunatic criminal who deserves to be shot by the police, and the other one gets international support!?!?

ladajo wrote:

Now I don't really need to guess... we've seen what the national Guard did with the east LA riots some years back, and anyone care to debate Wako.. anyone? A group of people who merely refused to co-operate, let alone tried to take the US over - yet they were killed in the ensuing battle with the State authorities with tanks and whathaveyou.

Dude. You miss the point. You also are not well informed about what went down at Waco. The Branch Dividian Cult had illegally purchased heavy weapons, and the ATF went to investigate. When denied, they tried to enforce a warrant (stupidly), and got shot up by the Cult members. Great video on how not to make a tactical entry if you haven't seen it. The ATF then withdrew, and called in other Federal and state authorities for backup, as the Cult had gone into full lockdown, completely armed up and said effectively, "We are our own little planet, and you can't land here". In the standoff, things kept getting sillier with Koresh. In the end, authorities decided to storm, as they had gotten indications the Koresh would enact a mass non-optional suicide for the Cult (Think Jim Jones here, but no cool-aid). What actually happened during the entry was that Koresh packed everyone he could into a buried bus, which he had set up with fire bombs, then had a few token "fighters" man up the heavy weapons they had, .50cal machine guns etc. and made a "fight". During the fight he set off the Bus, killing the bulk of his cult. The reason the Gov. brought in armored vehicles was the heavy weapons they faced. They used the armor to move up to the compound as protection from fire. Koresh killed off his cult members, not the Gov. I talked with a guy who saw the Bus remains in the aftermath/cleanup. He will carry that image for his life.

The big issue in your Los Angeles scenario that you are missing, is that in the US and other western countries, the population (people) have means to address governance.
In countries like Libya, they do not. So eventually, it becomes a contest of force.
If there is an armed uprising in LA, then I would happily go to the front line and fight it. Folks like that do not belong in a society that controls its governance. They don't get it. And in fact, they end up creating dictatorships for themselves.

Dude, I hate to contradict you, but there are some very important points I think you got wrong. Now I haven't read any details lately, but back when I was studying this I kept very close tabs.

The ATF is much more to blame for the fiasco in Waco than you have mentioned. First of all, the Branch Davidians DID NOT have automatic weapons. They had Semi-automatic weapons with "Hell fire switches." They also didn't have a .50 caliber machine gun, they had a .50 caliber single shot rifle.



The ATF staged the high publicity raid for the purpose of detracting attention from the fact that there was a massive ongoing sexual harassment scandal within the ranks of the ATF, and they needed some real quick positive publicity because the new President (Bill Clinton) was supposedly big on Women's rights and presumably would see the agency in a less than professional light. (ATF had invited news camera crews to come along for the big raid.)

Another link.
http://www.legalspring.com/articles/mis ... -Waco.html



The Branch Davidian complex had previously been repeatedly searched by Other law enforcement agencies with no difficulties or ill effects. When Jackbooted Black dressed goons show up with machine guns, battering rams and assault tactics, the stuff the Davidians had been preaching about for years (Government assault against Christians) had finally come to pass. (in their minds.)

I am well familiar with this mindset, because i've known dozens of people in many different denominations that have been told for years that one day it will be illegal to be a Christian and that they will all be rounded up and killed. I could show you book after book which was written with this central premise as well as dozens of movies.

some tittles.

A Thief in the Night
Distant Thunder
Image of the Beast
The Prodigal Planet

an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPBQsOxHX4g (I saw this movie when I was young. Scared the Sh*t out of me.)


Anyway, I could go on and on about how the Federal authorities completely screwed up the Branch Davidian incident, but I don't have time at the moment. Suffice it to say, I thought it was such wide spread common knowledge about the Lies, screwups, illegalities and bad decisions by the Feds that there was no need to mention them.

The ATF is the most non professional Law enforcement agency this nation has ever beheld. It is a routine screwup and clusterf*ck. Recent stories regarding the ATF "GUNWALKER" fiasco is proof that they are STILL the stupidest law enforcement agency in the nation.

For your review:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Also, in the case you present, it is unrealistic that 55% of the US would take up arms and march on DC. Lybia and the US are Apples and Oranges in this regards. See the above link.

The walking into a local government office in a free western country with stated intent to kill with the gun in your hand is not acceptable behaviour to the standards of the society. Period. Whether one feels that there are no other recourse, that is myopic at best. An Open Society provides many means to contest without killing or violence. If the court system does not do it for you, then there is the media and now-a-days social networking mechanisms to get the word of your dilemma out. This is a free exercise of the will of the people for self governance. In countries like Lybia and Iran, North Korea, etc, this opportunity does not exist.
If the issue one has is not supported well enough by the public at large, and redress or justice is denied, then one needs to accept that as part of the bargain of a free society that the big issue for you, was maybe not that big. Violence is not justified.

Have you ever read Thoreau's Civil Disobediance? He made great argument that is still well respected today in regard to the people exercising self governance. However, his argument was never a advocation for violence. It was a advocation for free will.

ladajo wrote:The walking into a local government office in a free western country with stated intent to kill with the gun in your hand is not acceptable behaviour to the standards of the society. Period. Whether one feels that there are no other recourse, that is myopic at best.

I tell you what, if you were forcibly bastardised by those in authority over you, whether in Libya or Switzerland, you still feel forcibly bastardised. Whether someone argues they have moral or immoral ground for doing that to you, it feels the same from where that poor dumb soul was standing.

Each person has to make their own decision in things. The claim that all individuals in a western society have to accept abusive authority peaceably for the sole reason that, on the whole, people are generally treated well doesn't really cut it for those on the abusive end of their government.

The standard you must use to determine if one person's right to bear arms against his government must be the same for all individuals. It is an immoral claim to suggest that if two people in two different countries get treated exactly the same way by those governments, that one may have a legitimate right to shoot at the government but the other does not simply because one is thought of as more legitimate than the other.

It must be a function of what they do to an individual that makes a government's actions right or wrong in that case, not what others hope they might have done!

I disagree.
The fact that there are avenues available in one state to pursue your issue is the differentiator. In Lybia (and others), there were no real avenues available. This is what brought about the insurrection.

I know that the UK still smarts over the loss of the colonies, and the argued basis for it. But it was and is the same issue. The future americans at the time sought redress within the system, and even wanted to remain loyal subjects, just equal loyal subjects. Denied methods of redress, they decided (rightfully) that they no longer wanted to be governed by a system that would not represent them. The violence came with that decision.
If you have means of redress, then do so. Violence is for when opportunity for redress does not exist.


On a related note this is an related point from the UN Special Tribunial for Lebanon:

Article 28 requires, among other things, a close link between the various national legal orders and the international community, in that the international community must be shaped and articulated in such a manner as to enable fundamental human rights to be enjoyed at the domestic level. The Article postulates a two-way, reciprocal relationship between domestic legal systems and international society: Human rights can be enjoyed at the national level only if the international order is structured in such a way as to make this enjoyment possible; the postulates of human rights must therefore be projected onto the international society. By the same token, whenever human rights may not be exercised or fully enjoyed at the domestic level, it is the task of the international order to take all the measures necessary for the full realisation of human rights at the national level. The establishment of the STL to a large extent incarnates the seminal idea sowed by Charles Malik in Article 28: when it proved impossible within the Lebanese society to proclaim the principle of judicial accountability in reaction to those most callous and despicable crimes committed in 2004-2005, so as to reestablish peace and tranquility in a fractured society, recourse was made to the international community. The international community was asked to set in place the international mechanisms necessary both for restoring the order and security breached by those crimes and for ensuring renewed respect for fundamental human rights.

http://www.stl-tsl.org/x/file/TheRegist ... ort_EN.pdf

edit: added link

ladajo wrote:I disagree.
The fact that there are avenues available in one state to pursue your issue is the differentiator. In Lybia (and others), there were no real avenues available. This is what brought about the insurrection.

That may or may not be true [actually, I do not think it is true - what 'avenue' is there if a local council decides to knock down your house and the government agrees with the council? And do people in Libya really have no-one to ask for matters to be reviewed?] but you are not addressing the point I have made that it is non-sequitur.

It is non-sequitur because [otherwise] you are saying that anyone who uses arms against the officials of the country they are in, wherein they do not have avenues to pursue their issues, should receive military support from other countries when they bear arms against those officials.

Is this your position?

If the population has no right to rebel, perhaps the US should dissolve itself and return to British control. Keep in mind that George Washington had a little help from the French. In the case of Libya, I've come to suspect that the real reason we don't help has nothing to do with international law and more to do with the realpolitik of oil.
Specifically, if Libya sucessfully threw off the rule of Gadaffi, it might inspire the citizens of Saudi Arabia that the time is now, and as a result the flow of oil gets disrupted. Our leaders have become whores for a tank of gas.

I never said anyone can do it. My point is that if the people reach a point (not an individual) that they cannot get redress from government for legitimate rights and justice, then absolutely they should rebel. I just think that there are many steps to take prior to violence.

In the case of the colonies and England, they tried MANY steps before reverting to violence. And for the record, they got help from more than just the French. In fact, most folks do not realize that the American Revolutionary War was in fact a World War that had more or less everyone against the Empire. For example, are any of you guys aware of naval actions that were fought the Indian Ocean under the auspices of the American Revolution?

In regard to the dude in Switzerland with the house beef. Yes he had avenues via the system and his fellow populace that did not require violence. In fact, well played on his part, I am sure he could have gotten a new house and apology out of it. But by showing up as the lone gunman in the local Government office he pretty much voided his rights to justice of his own accord.

If a bankrobber can gun down cops wearing body armor and using machine guns, and then his famliy can sue to city for several million dollars, after the surviving cops blow him away during the fight, I am sure that the dude in Swizterland, properly played, could have gotten redress via society for his injustice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

And for the record, my opinion is Saudi Arabia would be way better off if they tossed the Royal Family.
There are to many a-holes and their families "ruling" countries and hiding behind principles of sovereignty to hide widescale corruption and violations of Universal Human Rights. It is high time that the last years has seen "the people" waking up and realizing they have the power, not the rulers.
The fundamental point is that in America the average citizen knows that the populace controls the country, not the government. In Lybia, they are just now figuring that out. Ask the Democrats about it, they would love to talk about the mass firings they sustained in the last election.
You can not compare two fundamentally different societies and say that armed up rising is correct in both for any given day. In Lybia, today it may well be correct, today in the US, not so much. As I said previously it is circumstantial, and rides the bounds of the contract of fair governance between the government and its people. The American Revolution is a great case study in that it argues that before resorting to violence, all other means must be expended. It is a fact, that in starting the argument with the English, there was no intent to seperate the Colonies from England. In fact, the argument was a plea to become closer and more integrated with England. It was a pursuit of equality in citizen's rights.

edit: added link