Duly Noted: The Nut of Tripoli

From the desk of George Handlery on Sat, 2009-09-12 08:42

bj-logo-handlery.gif

George Handlery about the week that was. It is a nuthouse and the inmates hold the keys. How not to negotiate with tyrants. Aims that Stalin and Hitler did not pursue. Can one avoid provoking terrorists? Money for climate. The insider deals of the political class.

 

1. For about a year, mainly to serve the cause of unintended humor, an item titled “The Dictator’s Tantrum” has been presented to you. An issue or two ago the end of the quaint story has been announced. This proves to be a serious error of judgment. Innocently, I had concluded that at the price of an unnecessary humiliation, Switzerland has put aside her quarrel with Qaddafi. Well, the story, like a successful soap opera, goes on. And on.

Everything that has happened so far is less important that the “newest” episode. In it a credulous democracy represented by stumblers was victimized by a tyranny run by what is, to put it politely, an eccentric. The outlines of the complicated subject is presented to you because the specific case is also a general warning to all those who deal with comparable régimes.

A year ago, Geneva police (Switzerland is a genuine federal republic) arrested a Qaddafi-son for seriously abusing his (Arab) servants. The man spent a night in jail. His sister, who came to the “crime scene”, promised revenge on an “an eye for an eye” basis. As an opener, flights were blocked and oil deliveries stopped. The Leader’s billions were withdrawn and two Swiss (one a Moroccan dual citizen) in Libya were arrested for alleged visa violations.

Most of the above failed touched Switzerland much. Only the case of the two citizens raised concern. The coming months were filled with Libyan threats, and their demands for an apology plus financial compensation. Meanwhile the Nut of Tripoli held on to his hostages.

drapeau_suisse_2005_sm.jpg

In August, acting under a dubious mandate, Mr. Merz, Switzerland’s protocol-president flew to Tripoli. Out of his depth, once on the scene he continued to make mistakes. He accepted that Qaddafi has no time for him and so he “negotiated” with the PM. In the course of the talks grey-mouse Merz who lacked experience with eccentric tyrants, decided, as he put it, to cut the Gordian knot. He signed a written agreement in which Switzerland apologized – for applying her laws. At the time this seemed to be what Libya had wanted. In exchange, he was told that the hostages could go home. At that juncture Merz, an honest man, made another mistake. He accepted that the two would not be allowed to return in his company but “by the end of August”. So he flew home to face hell for the apology. Promptly, the government jet was sent back to Tripoli to bring the hostages home. About two days later the Libyans ordered the jet to leave. The “illegals” may not go home on a government plane: they must use a commercial flight.

To make this understandable, a parallel event needs to be mentioned. Al-Meghari, the Lockerbie bomber, was “compassionately” released. That happened based on manipulated medical testimonies. Violating the agreement with Scotland and defining the rulers of Tripoli, a hero’s welcome was given to the returning mass murderer. (Meanwhile, al-Meghari appeared before forty African PM’s gathered for an anniversary. He got a standing ovation.) This might be the scenario that Libya intended to avoid when giving back its Swiss.

By September 1, after another agreed upon deadline expired, Libya claimed that it had fulfilled the agreement regarding the hostages. Allegedly, Libya had only agreed that something would be undertaken regarding the hostages. Tripoli claims that this was duly done. The Ministry of the Interior, acting through the fellow who had the celebrated “Bulgarian nurses” condemned to death, become active. While his bosses tried to put the dissolution of Switzerland on the UN’s agenda, this gentleman has interrogated the “suspects”. As a result, charges will be raised and the hostages will be given a trial. Sorry, there is no alternative to that. Libya has an independent judiciary which the executive cannot influence. However, a fair trial it will be, promises the Qaddafi clan. Who will dare to question the term with a knife at his gurgle?

Probably a nasty end scenario will follow by the time this is posted. Since it involves Qaddafi, no normal person can guess the terms of the next absurdity. Even if the case is still open ended, some conclusions emerge. If you work or have vacations – Cuba-visitors beware! – in an unpredictable tyranny, you do so at a risk. Whatever that might happen to you is incalculable. Risk-takers should know what they are doing. Their countries should not feel fully responsible for the fate of people who, being careless, jeopardize themselves. If ever Qaddafi is overthrown and manages to escape, he might find it difficult to get asylum in the kind of normal countries where the clan stashes away its loot.

 

2. Qaddafi might be anything that on the dial ranges between the “strange” and the insane. However, that he is able to function in the global arena where he is taken seriously is more significant than is his personal state of mind. That an outfit such as the one he runs can participate in international institutions and plays a role in the diplomatic life of the planet suggests something frightening about the prevailing world order. The fact that such régimes are able to participate on an equal footing points to conditions that are normal in an asylum for the insane. The problem is that in this case it is the nuts that have the keys.

 

3. September 1st was the official anniversary of the outbreak of WW2. Numerous documentaries about the Stalin Hitler pact that preceded it were aired. The two mass murderers divided their world. The agreement, especially its secret parts, made the war possible for Hitler. Through the deal, he avoided the old Central Powers’ main error, which was risking a two-front war. There is, however, something that these recollections missed. Hitler did not fight the war to free Russia and its subject peoples from Communist totalitarianism. (Had he done so he might have won. But in that case, he would not have been Hitler.) At the same time, Stalin had no war aim to rid Germany of totalitarian rule and to liberate the enslaved. The post war world would have been different if that would have been the case.

 

4. German politicians condemn, or at least voice reservations, about Germany’s participation in operations in Afghanistan. One argument, more often held privately than openly articulated, is that by being there the homeland becomes a terrorist target. Behind this sentiment, there lurks a basic mistake that is often the case when dealing with totalitarians that have universal aspirations. The fear of provocation followed by retaliation is based on a false assumption. It is that a system with a universal mission can be content to dominate its own country and not covet more.

 

5. It is being said that in Germany only one political party is not openly and – more dangerously – covertly and unconsciously, social democratic. In code that means that, some groupings have become collectivistic partners in left-of-center policies if not in name then in the substance of their program. The party of exception is Westerwelle’s FDP which is, in the classical sense, a genuinely Liberal party. It will, at best, get 15 per cent of the vote. (That might be less than what the barely reconstructed Communist will receive.) Why is it that this sad state of affairs describes the political landscape of numerous, here not enumerated countries? Politicians and parties have reason to like a state directed economic-social order. The reason is that there are silent arrangements in force. Regardless of the theories they represent, transcending official party lines, everybody gets a cut of tax-generated revenues to finance pet projects. These benefit all those who participate in the insider deals hatched out within the governing political class.

 

6. Undeterred by the hither infusion of billions, African states at a continental summit raised the issue of more funds. This is to be a compensation for the “North’s” damage to the global climate. It is to be reckoned with that a demand to come will be for land for resettlement.

 

7. When “they” say that the rich will “pay for it”, in reality they mean you. The main problem is that “you” think “they” mean someone else.

 

Kernels of truth (aka Groaning Indeed)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2009-09-25 16:11.

@ Capo

 

While it is perfectly true that we Western infidels have great difficulty reaching a satisfactory consensus on how we should spell the Colonel's name, many  A rabs in the M.E. appear to appear to have  even greater difficulty spelling or even recognising the word "Israel" in ANY script. 

@traveller RE: "personal attacks"

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2009-09-16 02:45.

My comments show a complete lack of tolerance for Gathafi, his Jamahiriya and his apologists. 

 

As regards facts, the evidence in favor of the Bulgarian nurses is overwhelming and widely available.  Though I accept that the Megrahi case is more complicated and that there are unanswered questions, I referred you repeatedly to Stratfor's article (www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KH28Aa02.html).  Your "facts" were mostly due to your own personal research, which given your affinities is suspect.  The rest consisted of baseless claims of a Western propaganda campaign against an esteemed leader.  Of course, the brief incarceration of Hannibal and his wife, and the Libyan response has been well-documented by the Brussels Journal.

 

You began to slander and smear the Swiss legal system and Western media, all in a crude effort to distract from the human rights abuses, terrorism and aggression of the Jamahiriya.  And perhaps keeping your adulation for the Colonel to yourself is the best solution.  My intolerance continues unabated.

Marcfrans' Crossing Over?

Submitted by Capodistrias on Wed, 2009-09-16 00:45.

@Marcfrans please tell me the statement below is a slip of the keyboard brought on by glossing over one too many recent K.A. posts.

 

"2)  While I am not a medical professional and cannot judge the mother's physical health in question, there is no evidence that it has been harmed in any way, and I do believe that her being treated like anybody else in Switzerland is beneficial for both her psychological and spiritual 'health'."

Excommunicated by the voice of Libya perhaps...

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2009-09-15 22:36.

I'm surprised that you haven't censured either traveller or capodistrias.   The former is an apologist for Gathafi who dismisses Libyan terror and torture, and crudely attempts to equate Libya and the West by citing Western injustice and propaganda.  The latter covets confrontation and wades into controversy without genuine interest or opinion, much less fact.

 

Prolific though he may be, traveller could be a mouthpiece for the Colonel. 

@ K.A.

Submitted by traveller on Tue, 2009-09-15 22:51.

Your personal attacks say more about you than about the persons you attack.
If you are going to continue like that I will be obliged to stop.
In all previous postings about this subject you never gave a factual reply, whatever I said and gave as information, you glossed over it and decided that you "won" the argument.
That is not really important, it's up to the reader to make up his/her own mind. So far you have never refuted anything I said and you continuously contradict yourself. That's also not important, it's also up to the reader to make his/her own decision.
However if you start smearing or slandering than the game is up and not worth to continue anymore.
I will come back later on those subjects, I don't have the time now but you are warned, if you want to continue this debate, do it in a friendly, or if that's not possible, at least polite way.

Excommunication # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2009-09-15 19:39.

@ Capodistrias

1) I agree with you that the health and wellbeing of 1 mother and 1 child is not a "trivial" matter, IN AND OF ITSELF, but I do think again that it is "a very minor detail in the bigger picture" here, which is one of a conflict between states and which is about (1) whether 'law' can be upheld anywhere, or not, and (2) whether certain individuals are above the law or not, and (3) whether innocents can be used as hostages.  There is no comparison  between Switzerland and Libya, when it comes to quantifying the number of people whose health and wellbeing is being harmed through unjust actions by their respective authorities.

2)  While I am not a medical professional and cannot judge the mother's physical health in question, there is no evidence that it has been harmed in any way, and I do believe that her being treated like anybody else in Switzerland is beneficial for both her psychological and spiritual 'health'.

3)  Presumably, your reference to Khadafi as a "scapegoat" refers to the Lockerbie case, not the Swiss or Hannibal case.  I defer to Traveller, KA, and Atlanticist on that matter (for now). 

4)  You should be impressed by the Kapitein's demeanor and reasoning, because in recent times - and in this case too, contrary to earlier times - he shows an ability and a willingness to make moral judgments (although he might not necessarily admit to that). But, whether you are impressed or not, whatever you do, do not go to Kappert's Isle.  It would be the end of you as a rational independent-thinking person.   

@Marcfrans

Submitted by Capodistrias on Tue, 2009-09-15 18:49.

 

First, the health and well-being of a mother and an unborn child is not a trivial detail, despite KA's 'ludicrous' statement. I'm not commenting on the merits of the case, I'm simply noting that the Swiss authorities in this case should have resorted to some sort of house arrest or monitoring rather than the pokie. The fact they did undoubtably had and has consequences in how the matter plays out.

 

Second, I'm not disputing Ghadafi's alignment and ties with the 'other side(s)' for most of his rule,  I'm simply open to what I believe is Traveller's argument that Ghadafi's 'position' in the international community made him a scapegoat for this particular incident. I don't think that requires a stretch of the imagination and I'm less impressed with K.A.'s demeanor, reasons, and motives for his responses than I guess you are. If attacking Traveller's integrity for introducing new details on a case of interest is reasonable, than I guess my reasoning ability is in need of some rest and relaxation on Kappert Isle.

(Take the case of) Doubting Thomas...

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2009-09-15 17:33.

@ Capo

 

Yes, this specific case has always bothered me too. And while some BJ ers might  wish to see  me as some sort of latterday  doubting Thomas on this particular issue , I'd like to  think that we can all agree that at the very least his/my theorem is sound:

" If men define situations as real, even if they are not, they are real in their consequences".

 

On pain of excommunication....

Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2009-09-15 17:28.

...I will take the risk of wading into these quicksands.

Three points:

-- It would seem wise to treat the Lockerbie case, the Swiss case, and the Bulgarian nurses case as separate incidents.  They had nothing directly to do with each other, although the last two cases illustrate clearly, at least in my mind, that 'justice' is an alien concept to the current Libyan regime.  That does not mean that there would be always perfect justice in Switzerland or anywhere else.

-- Capo, one has to keep a certain perspective and not compare a kitchen knife with a bazooka.  It may well be that the brief detention of Hannibal's wife - even though she was implicated in a crime under Swiss law - was not the 'ideal' or best decision. But, that is a very minor detail in the bigger picture here.  The Swiss do have to adhere to their own law, and there can be no rational reason for them to fabricate a 'crime' in the Hannibal case.  By contrast, when one considers that the Libyan dictator is quite willing to grab two 'innocent' Swiss (who somewhat foolishly were in Libya) as hostages in order to pressure the Swiss in disregarding their own 'civilising' law, it would seem that any comparison between the Libyan and the Swiss justice systems would be an exercise of foolish moral relativism.  In fact, I hold the view that deliberate 'justice' is an impossibility under any political dictatorship - the necessary mechanisms for 'discovery' are simply not there - even though 'justice'  may well occasionally and randomly prevail by pure 'chance' under such conditions.

-- I was quite impressed by the Kapitein's calm demeanor, rational responses to a variety of issues thrown at him, and also by his reasoned judgment in these matters.  However, him being right on Khadafi, does not make him right on Putin, nor on Bush.  

@Atlanticist

Submitted by Capodistrias on Tue, 2009-09-15 16:49.

I haven't read Hitchens, but this specific case has always bothered me. The American key to understanding this case is to understand that individuals advanced their careers and credibility based on this case. The FBI considers it a shining case on the Hill which helps to justify the huge expansion of their operations outside the US. (Rightly or wrongly I'm not making a comment on)Consequently there is a large constituency within the US national security community and in the supporting expert and media community whose pay checks depend on making aforementioned indivduals and agency happy.

@ KA

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2009-09-15 16:14.

I didn't say  that you did claim that Megrahi's trial established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, nor have I chosen to express any personal opinion about any of the other matters raised in your interesting exchange with traveller with regard to Gaddafi and his regime. My sole interest at the  present time is to seek to shed more light on the events surrounding Megrahi's trial and subsequent prosecution. Permit me to share with you a recent article by Oliver Miles that has further piqued my interest on this entire issue of the new relationship between Gaddafi and the West.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1211480/Gaddafis-gameplan-Why-DID-Libya-want-Lockerbie-bomber-badly.html

 

Peter Hitchens, another sceptic when it comes to the suject of what's really going on between Libya and the West, recently wrote :

 

Megrahi was freed to prevent an appeal, which would have shown he was innocent and exposed the reasons behind the whole disgraceful cover up of the real culprits.

 

 

I just wonder what Peter Hitchens and his ilk think they know that some of the rest of us would perhaps prefer not to hear. 

 

Thank you for taking the trouble to 'listen' to my point of view.

@A/911

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2009-09-15 15:13.

I have never claimed that Megrahi's trial established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, I do believe that he is guilty.  Though Megrahi's trial was exhaustive, traveller continues to maintain that Gathafi, Libya and Megrahi are all victims of a Western smear campaign.

 

Israeli treatment of the Palestinians garners immeasurably more attention by the mass media than the human rights abuses that are the hallmark of Gathafi's rule.

 

If you are comforted by Gathafi's abandonment of nuclear weapons and terrorism, and are comfortable with SAS members - who had to contend with PIRA Libyan-supplied weaponry - training Libyan forces, then we are at an impasse.

 

Does Megrahi's case warrant further investigation?  Probably.  Does this clear Gathafi's terrorism record?  No.  Were the Bulgarian nurses guilty?  No.

Miles on 'Mac Grahee' : Please sir, can I have some more?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2009-09-15 11:08.

"Having read the legal judgement of his trial, I defy anyone to conclude from it that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt...".

That quote doesn't come frm traveller, it comes from Oliver Miles, the former British Ambassador to Libya no less - I'm with Traveller, Capo and Oliver on this one.

K.A.

Submitted by Capodistrias on Tue, 2009-09-15 06:50.

"The considerable evidence against Megrahi and in defense of the Bulgarian nurses was reviewed in prior posts, ..."

 

Certainly not your posts, K.A. did someone else make such posts? The only specific detailed posts I recall , that provided new information, was from Traveller. You can keep trying to dictate your take on Ghadaffi but most readers here no doubt are familiar with the standard Western press portrayl of Ghadaffi, Traveller is simply providing additional information that may provide a better understanding of how Libya does or doesn't fit into what is a general perception. Trying to silince him with shouts of tyrant lover seems rather odd from one who demanded a fuller understanding of Iraq and the Balkans. Your little tirade against Traveller's protest against keeping a woman 9 months pregnant in prison, seems inhumane and heartless. After all, did the child in the womb commit any crime?

@traveller RE: Libyan "justice"

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2009-09-15 05:15.

The considerable evidence against Megrahi and in defense of the Bulgarian nurses was reviewed in prior posts, and your now unambiguous defense of terrorism and torture is totally repugnant.  Hannibal Gathafi's wife, as I am sure you are aware, was co-accused in the assault on their staff.

 

By declaring your lack of faith in the Libyan and Swiss justice systems followed by off-topic examples of alleged Swiss injustice, you imply at best that these systems are comparable, and at worst that the former is superior.  Both of these implications are very wrong.  The Libyan state has an abyssmal human rights and justice record according to all of the major IGOs and NGOs concerned.  Refusal to acknowledge the superiority of the Swiss justice system in this context is pure madness.

@traveller - dictator lover indeed...

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2009-09-14 19:48.

You are a champion of and apologist for Al Gathafi and the Libyan state, whatever your feelings toward dictatorship. 

 

You continue to provide supposedly mitigating factors to weaken criticism of Al Gathafi and his regime.  I say weaken, because you have been unable thus far to refute the Lockerbie bombing, the innocence and torture of the Bulgarian nurses and Libya's behaviour during its dispute with Switzerland.  Moreover, you ignore Libyan wars of aggression (e.g. Chad) and support for terrorist groups (e.g. PIRA).

 

Your implications that the Swiss police intended to interfere in Hannibal's wife's pregnancy and that they were responsible for the "serious complications" of her childbirth are ludicrous. 

 

While decrying Scottish and Swiss justice, you should compare and contrast with Libyan justice, if it can be referred to as such.

 

Obviously, you have a strong affinity for Libya, either due to your ancestral origins, family relations or another reason.  Your biography does not interest me in the least, but your severe bias is alarming.

@ K.A.

Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2009-09-14 21:55.

I have personally been the victim of our Western "justice" where the authorities were hiding behind all kinds of excuses to achieve their aims.
I am not impressed with Western "justice" like I am not impressed with Libyan justice.
But the truth is the truth and nothing will bring me off course on that.
If you want to study Swiss justice, ask the following people:
-Paul Erdman, innocent American banker, 2 years in a Swiss jail, writer of best-sellers
-Bernie Cornfeld, innocent American businessman, jailed and bankrupted, stolen or robbed are better words, by the Swiss authorities on request of the Swiss banks. He died in misery.
-Robert Vesco, millionaire gangster with the help of the Swiss banks. He stole a chunk of Bernie's capital, "managed" by the Swiss banks.

@ K.A.

Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2009-09-14 21:26.

I knew that you would answer like that.
I don't refute the Lockerbie bombing, it took place.
I am asking the proof that Megrahi did it and there is no proof of that.
Those innocent Bulgarian nurses neglected and professionally mistreated 450 children who died, a lot more became sick and are still sick.
That "innocent" doctor and nurses were in charge of the medical personnel of that hospital.

I didn't say that the complications of the birth of the Khaddaffi child were due to the Swiss police. I just wondered why the 9 months pregnant wife, who came to Geneva to deliver her baby in a maternity, had a bail set at 500.000 CHF and her husband at 300.000 CHF. What did she do in her condition to be the main culprit? Why did that woman have to spend 2 nights in a police lock-up in her condition?

RE: Duly Noted

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2009-09-14 18:29.

1.  Al Gathafi is pathetic, and instead of training Libyan forces in counter-terrorism, the SAS should be extracting the hostages. 

 

2.  National sovereignty permits Libya's global participation.  Subordinating sovereignty to moral considerations is the ethos of "humanitarian intervention", which was applied with bias in Serbia and Iraq.  Al Gathafi's "rehabilitation" is due to his eschewing terrorism and nuclear weapons, by his need to re-establish economic ties with the West, and because his attempts at hegemony in the Middle East and the Mahgreb failed miserably.

 

3.  Operation Barbarossa was a disastrous error.  Hitler committed the same folly as Napoleon and before him, the Habsburgs.

 

4.  Certainly the German presence in the ISAF has exacerbated terrorism against Germany.  However, the German-Muslim clash is a separate issue involving non-Afghans, nor will leaving the ISAF bring peace. 

 

6.  If they stopped copiously breeding, perhaps they could get a handle on their problems.

 

7.  As the rich make use of tax loopholes, the burden invariably falls on the middle class.

@ George Handlery

Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2009-09-13 09:30.

Running the risk of being called a dictator lover, I must ask the question which bothers me since the beginning of this case.
The bail for the release of Hannibal and his wife was set at:
300.000 CHF for Hannibal
500.000 CHF for his wife.
His wife was due for delivery of a baby any time soon, she delivered 2 days after being flown to Tripoli, with serious complications.
So here comes my question: what in God's name did that woman do in her condition?
They were kept 2 nights in a police lock-up, not the best way to prepare the birth of a baby.