Unless NATO, including the United States, get more serious, Libya’s liberation war could turn into a prolonged, bloody stalemate. Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is ruthless, and rebel forces are weak and disorganized. NATO still has the military means to help tip the balance if it can summon the unity and the will.

In their latest horror, Qaddafi forces rained shells this week on the rebel-held port area of Misurata, trying to keep international relief vessels from unloading humanitarian supplies. The civilian death toll from the war is already estimated in the thousands, while streams of desperate refugees keep pouring into Tunisia, Egypt and Europe. The alliance needs to get its act together.

President Obama was right to hand over this mission to Canadian and European command once the initial American strikes had shattered Libyan air defenses. But crucial momentum was lost in the transition. Coordination with rebel fighters was initially poor, leading to friendly fire disasters. The string of defections from the Qaddafi inner circle came to an end, as government forces dug in.

NATO allies, particularly Britain and France, have the high performance fighters that can carry the main burden of the air campaign. But the Pentagon needs to send America’s specialized low-flying attack planes, the A-10 and the AC-130, back into action against Libyan Army tanks. These are far more effective at destroying enemy vehicles and avoiding friendly ones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06fri1.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

Amid the jubilation surrounding Osama bin Laden’s death on Monday, which followed closely on the heels of an apparent attempt to take out Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in an air strike, it’s difficult to remember a time when “assassination” was a dirty word in this country. But it was, and not so long ago. Before the practice becomes a bad habit, we might want to heed the counsel of the past.

The peak of outrage against government-sponsored assassination was the mid-1970s, when the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations — better known as the Church committee — spent more than 60 days questioning 75 witnesses about C.I.A. plots of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Back in the darkest days of the cold war, the agency had devoted significant resources and creativity to devising unhappy ends for unsavory or inconvenient foreign leaders. Among those listed for assassination were Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic and, most famously, Fidel Castro of Cuba, who survived no fewer than eight C.I.A. assassination plots. The senators on the committee were intent on divining the full extent of the government’s role in these plots. How much direct authority, for example, did Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy exert over them? The committee’s conclusions were vague at best. The truth was that neither president would have allowed his hand to show in such affairs.

Times have changed. Our president now interrupts regularly scheduled broadcasting to announce the news of an assassination himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/rasenberger.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

see toon at top...

Commenting on German television, former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt said:

The May 1 assault "was quite clearly a violation of international law. The operation could also have incalculable consequences in the Arab world in light of all the unrest."

He's right, of course, despite Attorney General Eric Holder saying:

The action was "lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way....I'm proud of what they did. And I really want to emphasize that what they did was entirely lawful and consistent with our values."

In other words, according to him, Obama, other administration officials, Washington groupthink, and editorial writers and pundits, acting lawlessly is lawful.

On June 27, 2010, in their Harvard National Security Journal article headlined, "Law and Policy of Targeted Killing," Harvard Law Professors Gabriella Blum and Philip Heymann said:

"The right of a government to use deadly force against (anyone) is constrained by both domestic criminal law and international human rights norms that seek to protect the individual's right to life and liberty .... guilt must be proved in a court of law, with (charged) individuals (given) the protections of due process guarantees."

"Killing an individual without trial is allowed only" in self-defense or need to save other lives. "In almost any other case, it would be clearly unlawful, tantamount to extrajudicial execution or murder."

In other words, sending US commandos against anyone, especially in another country's sovereign territory, violates US and international law. Guilt or innocence of any crime deprives no one of due process and judicial fairness, afforded Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg.

Targets otherwise are judged guilty by accusation, not arrested, tried, Mirandized, or afforded justice. Just a bullet, bomb or slit throat, America's "rules of engagement" morality.

On May 3, Der Spiegel writer Thomas Darnstadt headlined, "Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal?" quoting University of Cologne Law Professor Claus Kress saying:

Achieving justice for any crime isn't "achieved through summary executions, but through a punishment that is meted out at the end of a trial." Doing it commando style guns blazing can also cause tragic and inevitable escalations of injustice, he added.

On May 28, 2010, Philip Alston published his UN Human Rights Council "Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions," expressing great concern that Washington "seems oblivious" to the implications of using drone attacks against people "labeled as terrorists, (and for) assert(ing) an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe," adding:

"But this strongly asserted but ill-defined license to kill without accountability is not an entitlement which the United States or other states can have without doing grave damage to the rules designed to protect the right to life and prevent extrajudicial executions."

"The most prolific user of targeted killing today is the United States" in gross violation of international law. (This) expansive and open-ended interpretation of the right to self-defense goes a long way towards destroying the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the UN Charter. If invoked by other states, in pursuit of those they deem to be terrorists and to have attacked them, it would cause chaos."

It would also render international law null and void. No nation for any reason can be judge, jury and executioner, with no allowed exceptions.

Consider also that in 1996, Obama opposed the death penalty, and in his book titled, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream," he said it "does little to deter crime."

As a Senate and presidential candidate, however, he changed to accommodate public opinion, simultaneously calling death penalty justice so flawed that a national moratorium should be declared. In February 2008, he also said "no one in this country is above the law."

As president, however, he authorized torture, illegal wars, mass killings and targeted assassinations. As a result, he violates it daily abroad and at home, unaccountable to the law he once taught at the University of Chicago Law School. Perhaps a refresher course or two might help.

Staged Bin Laden Killing Hokum