Amnesty International and the Human Rights Industry

November 08, 2012 Who Will Watch the Watchmen? Amnesty International and the Human Rights Industry by DANIEL KOVALICK When I studied law at Columbia in the early 1990s, I had the fortune of studying under Louis Henkin, probably the world’s most famous human rights theoretician.   Upon his passing in 2010, Elisa Massimino at Human Rights First stated in Professor Henkin’s New York Times obituary that he “literally and figuratively wrote the book on human rights” and that “[i]t is no exaggeration to say that no American was more instrumental in the development of human rights law than Lou.” Professor Henkin, rest his soul, while a human rights legend, was not always good on the question of war and peace.  I know this from my own experience when I had a vigorous debate with him during and continuing after class about the jailing of anti-war protestors, including Eugene V. Debs, during World War I.  In short, Professor Henkin, agreeing with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, believed that these protestors were properly jailed because their activities, though peaceful, constituted a “clear and present danger” to the security of the nation during war time.  I strongly disagreed. That Professor Henkin  would side with the state against these war protestors is indicative of the entire problem with the field of human rights which is at best neutral or indifferent to war, if not supportive of it as an instrument of defending human rights.   This, of course, is a huge blind spot.   In the case of World War I, for example, had the protestors been successful in stopping the war, untold millions would have been saved from the murderous cruelty of a conflict for which, to this day, few can adequately even explain the reasons.   And yet, this does not seem to present a moral dilemma for today’s human rights advocates.  (I will note, on the plus side, that Professor Henkin did become increasingly uneasy with the Vietnam War as that conflict unfolded, and specifically with the President’s increasing usurpation of Congress’s war authority). In the end, it was not from Professor Henkin, but from other, dissident intellectuals who I learned the most about human rights and international law.  The list of these intellectuals, none of whom actually practice human rights in their day job, includes Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Jean Bricmont and Diana Johnstone.  And of course, I have read a lot of what they have to say on this subject on these very pages of CounterPunch. And, what all of these individuals have emphasized time and time again is that international law, as first codified in the aftermath of World War II in such instruments as the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter, was created for the primary purpose of preserving and maintaining peace by outlawing aggressive war.   And, why is this so?  Because the nations which had just gone through the most destructive war in human history, with its attendant crimes of genocide and the holocaust, realized full well that those crimes were made possible by the paramount crime of war itself.  As Jean Bricmont, then, in his wonderful book Humanitarian Imperialism, explains, the first crime for which the Nazis “were condemned at Nuremberg was initiating a war of aggression, which, according to the 1945 Nuremberg Charter, ‘is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes is that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’” In other words, the logic of the very founders of international law, including international human rights law, was that, to preserve human rights, the primary task of nations is to ensure peace and to prevent war which inevitably leads to the massive violation of human rights.  As Noam Chomsky has noted for years, quite notably in his 1971 Yale Law Review article entitled, “The Rule of Force in International Affairs,” 80 Yale L.J. 1456, one of the very first substantive norms established by the UN Charter is prohibition against aggressive war.   Such a norm is contained, as Chomsky relates, in Article 2(4) which provides that all UN members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force . . . .”   And, contrary to the position of the new humanitarian interventionists, Article 2(7) of the Charter specifically states that “[nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state . . . .” Sadly, as Chomsky noted even back in 1971, these norms, the paramount ones of the entire UN system, have sadly been read out of international law.   And, they have been read out by, among others, such chief human rights groups as Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW).   As Jean Bricmont, citing international law scholar Michael Mandel, explains in Humanitarian Imperialism, while AI and HRW urged all “’beligerents’” (without distinguishing between the attackers and the attacked) at the outset of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq to respect the rules of war, neither group said a word about the illegality of the war itself.  As Bricmont quite correctly stated, “[t]hese organizations are in the position of those who recommend that rapists use condoms,” ignoring the fact that once the intervention they failed to oppose  “takes place on a large scale, human rights and the Geneva Conventions are massively violated.” This brings us to the present time.   Just last week, Amnesty International issued a long statement in opposition to an article I penned for Counterpunch on “Libya and the West’s Human Rights Hypocricy.”   AI, in its counter-blog, entitled, “A Critic Gets it Wrong on Amnesty International and Libya” (see, owl.li/eYmTb), AI claims that I was wrong in stating that it had supported  the NATO intervention in Libya.  AI, affirming the critiques of Bricmont and Mandel, claims in this blog, that “Amnesty International generally takes no position on the use of armed force or on military interventions in armed conflict, other than to demand that all parties respect international human rights and humanitarian law.”  AI then goes on to try to clarify that, in advance of the NATO intervention in Libya, AI, in a February 23, 2011, release, merely called on the Security Council to take immediate measures against Libya and Gaddafi, including [but not limited to] freezing the assets of Gaddafi and his senior military advisers, and investigating the possibility of a referral to the International Criminal Court. In its blog contra my article, AI claims that it called for such action based upon Gaddafi’s  verbal “threat to ‘cleanse Libya house by house’” to end the resistance.  While this is true, this is not the whole truth.   Thus, in AI’s Feburary 23, 2011 release, it also based this call upon “persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him.”   And, as we learned from our own Patrick Cockburn in an Independent article from June 24, 2011, entitled, “Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as a weapon of war,” Amnesty ended up debunking the reports (though well after NATO’s attack against Libya had begun)  that Gaddafi was bringing in foreign mercenaries to fight. As Cockburn, citing Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty International, explains:     “Rebels have repeatedly charged that mercenary troops from Central and West Africa have been used against them. The Amnesty investigation found there was no evidence for this. “Those shown to journalists as foreign mercenaries were later quietly released,” says Ms Rovera. “Most were sub-Saharan migrants working in Libya without documents.” In other words, AI, on Feburary 23, 2011, was calling for Security Council action against Libya based upon reports about foreign mercenaries which it would later conclude were false, and upon verbal threats Gaddafi had made  — very weak bases indeed for Security Council action. And what about the calls for such action themselves?  As we all know, the Security Council did act, authorizing a NATO attack upon Libya which began on March 19, 2011.  The ordering of such an attack was a possible and indeed likely action which the Security Council would take, especially given that countries like the U.S. and France were aggressively pushing for such action at the time.  And, AI full well knew this, and its calls for Security Council action worked in tandem with the efforts of the U.S. and France to obtain authorization for such an intervention. In other words, AI, based at least in part on false reports, was pushing for Security Council action which it knew could, and most likely would, result in the authorization of force against Libya.  And indeed, AI’s other call for possible referral of sitting Libyan officials to the International Criminal Court was tantamount to a call for armed intervention, including regime change, because only such intervention could bring about the hauling of sitting government officials to The Hague.   AI’s current professions of neutrality on the issue of intervention notwithstanding, it can truly be stated that AI supported the intervention that took place in March of 2011 as an objective matter. And sadly, this objective support was based in part on false reports of foreign, black mercenaries being brought into Libya.   These false reports of mercenaries, in addition to feeding the calls for intervention, had another terrible effect – they helped lead to the massive reprisals against black Libyans and foreign guest workers during the conflict in Libya and continuing after the time that Gaddafi was toppled.   The most notable of such reprisals was the utter destruction of the town of Tawarga, a town largely populated by black Libyans, by anti-Gaddafi rebels.  To its great discredit, AI, in its rush to push for Security Council intervention, spread the very false reports which fueled such acts of vengeance. And, what about AI’s response to crimes committed by NATO’s intervention in and bombing of Libya?  AI, in its response to my article, cites to its criticism of NATO as evidence of its even-handedness in responding to the conduct of all sides of the Libyan conflict.  Specifically, AI cites to the following criticism it made as such evidence:     Although NATO appears to have made significant efforts to minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties, scores of Libyan civilians were killed and many more injured. Amnesty International is concerned that no information has been made available to the families of civilians killed and those injured in NATO strikes about any investigations which may have been carried out into the incidents which resulted in death and injury. Of course, this mere criticism demonstrates AI’s utter lack of even-handedness.   First of all, in order to please its NATO patron, AI obviously felt compelled to lead its criticism with a compliment – patting NATO on the back for allegedly trying to “minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties,” as if aerial bombardment of major cities can ever constitute the minimization of such risks. Then, AI complains that “no information has been made available” to the families of civilians killed or injured “about any investigations which may have been carried out into the incidents which resulted in death and injury.”   What “investigations” is AI referring to here?  Clearly, AI is complaining that NATO, left to police itself, has not shared the results of its own investigations into its own crimes. The truth is that AI, which called for Security Council and possible ICC action against Libya as NATO was sharpening its knives to invade, has not called for a body outside NATO (e.g., the ICC) to investigate and possibly prosecute NATO officials for their crimes.  What is good for the goose then, is not good for the gander in AI’s view.  Of course, the ICC does not exist to prosecute those from the paler, Western countries.   No, the ICC (which the U.S. is not even a signatory to and is therefore exempt from) is, in practice, for the darker races of the poorer countries; for those from Africa, Asia, and from time to time, the lesser Slavic nations.  And, therein lies the problem inherent in the entire international human rights system of which AI is an integral part. As we learn from Diana Johnstone in a CounterPunch article entitled, “How Amnesty International Became the Servant of U.S. Warmongering Foreign Policy,”  AI’s journey to becoming an appendage of the U.S. and NATO recently became complete with its appointment of Suzanne Nossel as the new Director of Amnesty International USA.  Diana Johnstone explains that Suzanne Nossel openly advocated, and indeed coined the term, “soft power” projection by the U.S. when she served in her last job as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at none other than the U.S. State Department.  And, as Jean Bricmont notes in Humanitarian Intervention, and as Ms. Nossel herself and AI fully understand, “soft power” only works because it has the very real threat of “hard power” (including economic sanctions and military intervention) behind it.  AI has sadly forgotten that the wielding of such power by the rich countries to bully the weak is forbidden by the UN Charter which prohibits both the actual use and threat of force.   It is those prohibitions which must be enforced first and foremost to truly protect human rights. What’s more, as Diana Johnstone further explained in her CounterPunch article, Suzanne Nossel, just before being hired by AI, played a direct role while at the U.S. State Department in ginning up the pretexts for the NATO intervention in Libya.   Ms. Johnstone explains that,  “As Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, Ms. Nossel played a role in drafting the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution on Libya. That resolution, based on exaggeratedly alarmist reports, served to justify the UN resolution which led to the NATO bombing campaign that overthrew the Gaddafi regime. “  In other words, Ms. Nossel’s role in pushing the NATO intervention was similar to that of AI’s at the time, with both pushing exaggerated, and indeed false, claims to justify stepped up action against Libya. AI’s current attempts to distance itself from the very NATO intervention which AI and Ms. Nossel worked together to help bring about simply do not ring true.  I would submit that it is time for AI to do some real soul-searching on the issue of whether it wants to serve the interests of human rights or to serve the interests of NATO and Western military intervention, for it truly cannot serve both masters. Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh.  He currently teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/08/amnesty-international-and-the-human-rights-industry/ COMMENT HILLARY CLINTON WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED .... HAHAHHAHHAAAA ***** International law and humanitarian organisations are a bad joke. How many acts of aggression has the US committed since the post WWII UN charter? The US 'defender' of the world's humanity, freedom, democracy, and all that manipulative pretext baloney, isn't even a signatory to the ICC and is exempt from being tried for war crimes, while the human rights brigade work in tandem with Western warmongers (serving corporate interests) to push the US-NATO imperialist war agenda. Note also, backing intervention based on false reports & massive reprisals against black Libyans as a result. Given that UN charter prohibits intervention, why are these people even backing intervention in the first place, and why aren't they all being tried somewhere? Gaddafi - Zenga Zenga Song (Noy Alooshe Extended Version) Source:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kygc0PzaQGY

FOREIGN SERVICE UPDATES

-- #Libya Diplomatic row arrest & detention of Sudan’s Consul-General in Libya / unauthorised visits to military prison #Libya Relations with #Sudan have been strained since Libya Dawn forced the Thinni givt to quit Tripoli #Libya Sudan publicly supports Thinni govt (Tobruk) BUT may quietly support Libya Dawn (Tripoli) accused of: arms + supplies provision Ban on Sudanese visiting #Libya lifted 6 wks ago {ban b/c fear visiting 'terrorists'} 2wks ago:  attaché at Sudanese embassy in Tripoli briefly kidnapped. Reason unknown. http://www.libyaherald.com/2015/04/09/diplomatic-row-over-detention-of-sudanese-consul/ -- #Libya rival forces warn Thinni govt against independent oil sales / will seize oil ports + facilities by force any attempt by Thinni to sell oil bypassing central bank + National Oil Corporation (NOC) will trigger military action. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/08/uk-libya-security-idUKKBN0MZ0EX20150408 -- #Libya Mar 15 al-Thinni accused #Turkey of sending weapons to Islamist rivals / terrorist militias in #Tripoli http://nationalinterest.org/feature/turkeys-secret-proxy-war-libya-12430 #Libya Mar 2015 proxy war > Egypt & UAE reportedly backing  al-Thinni (Tobruk, West recog.) >#Qatar + #Turkey back opposition NOTE Thinni govt = Tobruk (the West-backed interim govt - lost control) http://nationalinterest.org/feature/turkeys-secret-proxy-war-libya-12430 VIDEO Putin: Who gave NATO right to kill Gaddafi? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw5Ij_RFJ1Q ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ VIDEO Gaddafi: From Popular Hero to Isolated Dictator https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4JbOlakWZo -- Qatar Bangladesh ambassador to Qatar / recalled http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2015/apr/11/ambassador-qatar-pays-conflicts-among-ruling-party-leaders -- Qatar Capital: Doha Pop: 2.169 million 2013 GDP per capita: 93,714.06 USD 2013 accepted 90,000 #Bangladesh workers in 2014 [dhakatribune] Qatar 2013 - foreign workers total:  1,449,234 Labour market info:  http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/32431/GLMM_ExpNote_08-2014.pdf?sequence=1 #Qatar - oil / gas+ low pop. = high GDP. One of world's biggest LNG exporters in past decade Diversification *INFRASTRUCTURE*  Qatar Qatar's non-hydrocarbon sector fuels 2015 economy http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-31809-qatars-non-hydrocarbon-sector-fuels-2015-economy/ COMMENT Still have trouble remembering the two governments, so there's more than my standard look ups.  But I'm not keeping a close watch on Libya and just take an interest as random articles come up, so it's easy to forget where things fit. Massive number of foreign workers in Qatar.  Massive GDP.  Small population.  Economy has broadened its base, which is a bonus now that oil prices have plunged ... but it's not like Qatar would go broke.  From prior checks, their economy is in substantial surplus.  Loads of expenditure on infrastructure, which means foreign companies are probably making big money there. I like looking at Putin and I find Gaddafi fascinating, so I've thrown in a couple of the videos I've viewed.  Had no idea Gaddafi's family were Bedouin.  Knew that there was some kind of IRA link and I was surprised by that because Ireland's such a long way from his desert oasis.  Don't know a whole lot about that.  Arms supply, I think it was.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PS  .... that video didn't show enough of Putin.  And, as usual, we can't hear him properly!  I don't care if I can't understand; I want to hear him speaking without the volume turned down and commentary laid over the top.  Can't be that hard to do a few basic written translations at the bottom of the screen.

Totalitarian Evil Empire, USA

TOTALITARIAN EVIL EMPIRE ASSANGE & MANNING SUPPORTER SURVEILLANCE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION / SEC STATE CLINTON - DODGED F.O.I VICE News ran the Hillary Clinton by-passes FOI story.   Here Is the State Department’s First 'Official' Release of a Hillary Clinton Email https://news.vice.com/article/here-is-the-state-departments-first-official-release-of-a-hillary-clinton-email Maybe VICE are going to back the Republicans this election?  Or maybe that evil old bat isn't going to be a popular candidate with anybody, if she's running for office. Check out what a loathsome individual this woman is: Hillary Clinton:   "We came, we saw, he died ... [laughter]" Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. CBS exposes Hillary Clinton's lies:  'sniper fire' Bosnia Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.  NOAM CHOMSKY - NATO Bombing Serbia Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Nobody deserves to die like Gaddafi did, and the US has no right to bomb sovereign European or African nations. Only a sick and twisted individual would lie and find brutal murder amusing. Of course, a sick and twisted USA also 'excuses' itself and gives itself the right to commit genocide (see Chomsky video above). Anyway, Killary's been using private e-mail for State business, which is a US federal law no-no, because State business needs to be archived on government servers to enable public access. Hillary Clinton has a pattern of lying & denying public scrutiny: I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff-where they were no longer accessible to the public. [Jerry Zeifman] VICE Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Among the private e-mails is a communication concerning a DoJ subpoena issued to Twitter -- yep, Twitter, for f*ck's sake (lol) -- concerning information about Assange and 'certain individuals' who support Assange and Manning. On the basis of Hillary Clinton's history of unethical conduct in relation to matters of State and public interest, as disclosed by Jerry Zeifman, Hillary Clinton's use of private e-mail in relation to the Manning and Assange matters sure smacks of something dirty going on in the US State Department. That aside, that the US State Department is harassing people on social media and encroaching on their lives (wherever they may be), irrespective of their right to privacy, freedom of expression, and a right to political freedom, demonstrates beyond any doubt that the United States really is an Evil Empire. Everything they claim to represent - 'freedom', 'democracy', 'the people' and the rest of propaganda for the gullible - is, of course, an outright lie. United States is an evil, totalitarian, empire run by criminals. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton Fired From Watergate Investigation For ‘Lying, Unethical Behavior’ Excerpted from EO-History: The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career. Why? “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro. [...]  Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL AT SOURCE http://patdollard.com/2013/05/flashback-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation-for-lying-unethical-behavior-conspiracy-to-violate-the-constitution/ No way known can anybody expect to get justice in USA - ever. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana It may help you to remember this bit of history regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton.... Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later. But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL AT SOURCE http://www.eohistory.info/2013/hillaryHistory.htm Source:  sodahead.com Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. VIDEO LINKS Hillary Clinton:  "We came, we saw, he died ... [laughter]" https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FmIRYvJQeHM CBS exposes Hillary Clinton Bosnia 'sniper fire' lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8BfNqhV5hg4 NOAM CHOMSKY - NATO Bombing Serbia https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oiMD7BghkVo

US, NATO & DESTRUCTION OF LIBYA

US, NATO And The Destruction Of Libya: The Western Front Of A Widening War – OpEd August 16, 2014 By Pambazuka News By Horace G. Campbell NATO claimed that its intervention in Libya was a historic success. But three years later, Libya is in complete chaos. Some 1700 militias have a combined total of 250,000 men under arms. Another external intervention seems necessary to stabilize the country. But the US and NATO must never be involved INTRODUCTION Most western embassies evacuated their personnel from Tripoli over the past few weeks as the fighting between rival armed militias creates a nightmare of violence, insecurity and death for millions of Libyans. The United States used its military presence in the Mediterranean to escort its embassy personnel and Marine guards to travel by road over the last weekend to Tunisia. The evacuation of western diplomats leaving the millions of Libyans to an uncertain fate has brought to the fore the Libyan dimensions of a wider theater of warfare from Tripoli through Benghazi to Cairo, Alexandria and Gaza and from Aleppo in Syria to Mosul in Iraq. The former allies of NATO such as Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are now connected to differing factions of the Libyan civil war. In Libya, the war and bloodletting between the US supported General Khalifah Hifter (sometimes spelt Haftar) and the militias supported by Qatar is one indication of former allies falling out. Citizens of the West have little understanding of the depth of the sufferings unleashed on the peoples of North Africa, Palestine, Syria and Iraq since the United States and NATO launched wars against the peoples of this region. The battles in Libya are merging with the criminal war against the people of Palestine, especially the peoples of Gaza. [...] EXTRACT - FULL ARTICLE @ SOURCE http://www.eurasiareview.com/16082014-us-nato-destruction-libya-western-front-widening-war-oped/

Good article for anyone interested in Libya.

I'm a bit slow so I've been reading and re-reading, trying to get the hang of what's happening.

I'm heading back the article for another read about US military and CIA involvement ... a sneaky NATO intervention ... incessant bombing  ... US investment firms ... oil money and more.  Oh, and the US involvement with Jihadists.

............................................................

PS

No matter how much I re-read, there's only so much info I can take in.  This is about all I can absorb:

Since 2011 NATO destruction Libya = 50,000 dead.

General Khalifah Hifter (aka Haftar) was a Gadaffi general who defected and at one stage lived in Washington.

Hifter went back to Libyawhen the NATO bombings began in 2011.

Hifter heads 1,700 militias (yep, that many), which is about 250,000 armed men.

(I think) the article indicates the problem in Libya is that the anti-Gadaffi fighters are now not prepared to subordinate themselves to Hifter.  

Hifter's the US-backed man ... he's the Libyan 'wonder'.  But that's not necessarily a positive.

CIA under Petraeus recruited Islamists from Eastern Libya to fight in Syria (see Broadwell biography).

War against Syria:  Qatar, Saudi Arabia & Turkey backed (money & weapons) ISIS.

Now Saudi Arabia & Qatar fallen out over military takeover of Egypt by Grl SISI (and something to do with the Brotherhood).

Article says US Africa Command and CIA recruited previously designated terrorists.

There was a Hifter and Jihadist alliance.

Sounds like Hifter wants to be the main man.  

His main rival was bumped off (General Abdul Fattah Younis).

Wikipedia on Younis - here - says he was #2 in Gadaffi govt before he resigned and joined the rebels.

Shot & body burnt (along with x1 other).  Said to have been killed by rebels on suspicion he was double agent (for Gadaffi).

The Libyan stuff is supposed to affect North Africa, Gaza, Syria and maybe some other areas, but I don't understand how and this is pretty much all I can kind of get a handle on at the moment.  LOL.

Great article for anyone who knows more about the region than I do.  Worth a read.

LIBYA - Muammar al-Gaddafi & Friends

Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi Gaddafi's Friends Source - 199gSauerkraut - here.