Libya rejects ICC's Gaddafi decision

Reuters reports that they are suspected of committing atrocities "against political opponents".

Justice Minister Mohammad al-Gamudi said that the court was "an instrument of the western world to persecute Third World leaders".
B92

That's exactly what the ICC is,an instrument of the western corporate fascists in their drive for world domination.The so called "judges" of the ICC have much in common with their predecessors, the "judges" of the Third Reich for their decisions about who to charge are entirely political and propagandist.

Libya (like the USA) is not a signatory so the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Gaddafi.Now if the ICC was really serious about prosecution of political opponents they should look at Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Thailand, post-Tahrir Egypt, Pakistan, Iran to name a few.

Any objective observer of world affairs will testify to the fact that it shouldn't be Gadaffi who should be in court but President Sarkosi Prime Minister Cameron and nato who have conspired to manipulate a UN resolution in order to wage aggressive War, they have committed murder against civilians and are actively attempting to destroy a nation state and condemn its people to the genocidal chaos that the West have inflicted on Iraq and Afganistan.

The ICC should stop persecuting innocent leaders and put out warants for Obama, the Bush & Clinton.

So they indirectly admit that Libya is not a democracy, but a dictatorship. Or should we call kind of a monarchy with Gaddafi as the big king, where the power is handed over from the father to the son?
(Analyst, 28 June 2011 10:55)
In a democracy one expects to have many parties offering different policies and solutions to problems, but how many parties have won office in the last 230 years of US independence that do not bear the names Republican or Democrat?
If the answer is many, then you have a democracy, but if no then your country is no better than Libya.
As Gore Vidal stated when asked why did he not vote in US elections, “we have one conservative party with two branches so why vote when you get the same result every time”.

Analyst, 28 June 2011 17:33)

A government will come down heavy handed if they see the actions as a threat. You might Google “Kent State shootings” and how authorities killed students for protesting against the Vietnam War. There were others at that time so even your beloved US government would do the same as Gaddafi.

Having people alternate being President is only one step away from being a dictatorship mate. How about updating your system where other parties can gain power. Don’t you think that 220 years of Twiddle Dee Twiddle Dumb is enough?

I’m not talking about Germany or Italy or France. My comments are aimed at the US.

Analyst, 28 June 2011 17:33)

A government will come down heavy handed if they see the actions as a threat. You might Google “Kent State shootings” and how authorities killed students for protesting against the Vietnam War. There were others at that time so even your beloved US government would do the same as Gaddafi.

Having people alternate being President is only one step away from being a dictatorship mate. How about updating your system where other parties can gain power. Don’t you think that 220 years of Twiddle Dee Twiddle Dumb is enough?

I’m not talking about Germany or Italy or France. My comments are aimed at the US.

"The leader of the revolution and his son hold no official position in the Libyan government, and therefore have nothing to do with the accusations ICC leveled against them," reports quoted the minister as saying.

So they indirectly admit that Libya is not a democracy, but a dictatorship. Or should we call kind of a monarchy with Gaddafi as the big king, where the power is handed over from the father to the son?

"In a democracy one expects to have many parties offering different policies and solutions to problems, but how many parties have won office in the last 230 years of US independence that do not bear the names Republican or Democrat? "
(sj, 28 June 2011 13:22)
In a democracy, people can simply form/create new parties if they are not satisfied with the existing ones and think they are all the same. If they find enough supporters, they can get into power. If not, then maybe the poplulations doesn't feel the need for a new party and are satisfied with two conservatives parties? For example in Germany, the Green party was founded in the 70s/80s, gained power over the time, now even the prime minister in some province come from this party. Furthermore, you can protest peacefully and don't have to fear to be killed by state police or army (like in Libya or Syria). In the USA, there are have always been presidents of both parties, alternating, and not a 'big leader' who has all the power for 30 years or more and can hand it over it his son (like in Libya, or North Korea). Then it's a monarchy, or dictatorship.

"The leader of the revolution and his son hold no official position in the Libyan government, and therefore have nothing to do with the accusations ICC leveled against them," reports quoted the minister as saying.

So they indirectly admit that Libya is not a democracy, but a dictatorship. Or should we call kind of a monarchy with Gaddafi as the big king, where the power is handed over from the father to the son?

The ICC should stop persecuting innocent leaders and put out warants for Obama, the Bush & Clinton.

"In a democracy one expects to have many parties offering different policies and solutions to problems, but how many parties have won office in the last 230 years of US independence that do not bear the names Republican or Democrat? "
(sj, 28 June 2011 13:22)
In a democracy, people can simply form/create new parties if they are not satisfied with the existing ones and think they are all the same. If they find enough supporters, they can get into power. If not, then maybe the poplulations doesn't feel the need for a new party and are satisfied with two conservatives parties? For example in Germany, the Green party was founded in the 70s/80s, gained power over the time, now even the prime minister in some province come from this party. Furthermore, you can protest peacefully and don't have to fear to be killed by state police or army (like in Libya or Syria). In the USA, there are have always been presidents of both parties, alternating, and not a 'big leader' who has all the power for 30 years or more and can hand it over it his son (like in Libya, or North Korea). Then it's a monarchy, or dictatorship.

Reuters reports that they are suspected of committing atrocities "against political opponents".

Justice Minister Mohammad al-Gamudi said that the court was "an instrument of the western world to persecute Third World leaders".
B92

That's exactly what the ICC is,an instrument of the western corporate fascists in their drive for world domination.The so called "judges" of the ICC have much in common with their predecessors, the "judges" of the Third Reich for their decisions about who to charge are entirely political and propagandist.

Libya (like the USA) is not a signatory so the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Gaddafi.Now if the ICC was really serious about prosecution of political opponents they should look at Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Thailand, post-Tahrir Egypt, Pakistan, Iran to name a few.

Any objective observer of world affairs will testify to the fact that it shouldn't be Gadaffi who should be in court but President Sarkosi Prime Minister Cameron and nato who have conspired to manipulate a UN resolution in order to wage aggressive War, they have committed murder against civilians and are actively attempting to destroy a nation state and condemn its people to the genocidal chaos that the West have inflicted on Iraq and Afganistan.

So they indirectly admit that Libya is not a democracy, but a dictatorship. Or should we call kind of a monarchy with Gaddafi as the big king, where the power is handed over from the father to the son?
(Analyst, 28 June 2011 10:55)
In a democracy one expects to have many parties offering different policies and solutions to problems, but how many parties have won office in the last 230 years of US independence that do not bear the names Republican or Democrat?
If the answer is many, then you have a democracy, but if no then your country is no better than Libya.
As Gore Vidal stated when asked why did he not vote in US elections, “we have one conservative party with two branches so why vote when you get the same result every time”.

Analyst, 28 June 2011 17:33)

A government will come down heavy handed if they see the actions as a threat. You might Google “Kent State shootings” and how authorities killed students for protesting against the Vietnam War. There were others at that time so even your beloved US government would do the same as Gaddafi.

Having people alternate being President is only one step away from being a dictatorship mate. How about updating your system where other parties can gain power. Don’t you think that 220 years of Twiddle Dee Twiddle Dumb is enough?

I’m not talking about Germany or Italy or France. My comments are aimed at the US.

Analyst, 28 June 2011 17:33)

A government will come down heavy handed if they see the actions as a threat. You might Google “Kent State shootings” and how authorities killed students for protesting against the Vietnam War. There were others at that time so even your beloved US government would do the same as Gaddafi.

Having people alternate being President is only one step away from being a dictatorship mate. How about updating your system where other parties can gain power. Don’t you think that 220 years of Twiddle Dee Twiddle Dumb is enough?

I’m not talking about Germany or Italy or France. My comments are aimed at the US.