I guess I'm making the seemingly reasonable assumption that the targets that were hit were what he ordered hit:
Military barracks, military camps, militay airfields, and the air defense network.
First, so far as I know, it wasn't a target.
Second, Gaddafi is essentially the head of state no?
So you are saying in so many words... "you don't know". If his palace was not a target, maybe you can explain to his daughter why she is dead? There was no state of war declared between the US an Libya, which means this was an assasination attempt which is illegal.
First let's agree to the principle that if the Libyans did not target the CIA agents then the bombing was a crime.
Second, in analyzing whether that's likely, I find it somewhat incredulous given that Libya had also bombed a string of other civilian targets, for example a discotheque. Are you saying that amazingly all of these targets had CIA operatives?
I find that to be beyond belief.
Third, two CIA agents seem like minimal value targets.
The we alleged to have done it. The disco bombing targeted off duty US personnel. Not sure about the details of the other..You don't know who the CIA guys were. Do you expect the US to admit very high level CIA guys were assassinated by the Libyans?
In any case a reasonable way to handle this would be to bring the Libyans up on war crime charges and let a judge sift through the evidence. If the Libyans can produce evidence that they were actually targetting military targets that were actually high value targets then they can explain that to the judge.
Would the US allow their people to be put on trial at the Hague? LOL what a joke. The US would not even allow CIA agents to go on trial on charges of illegal rendition in Italy. So to expect the Libyans to hand over their agents to "western justice" is a joke. Many observers question the integrity of the one trial that DID go through as a great deal of exculpatory evidence was suppressed.
You have a reasonable point there, although it misses the requirement that you MINIMIZE civilian casualties. The attackers appeared to have acted to maximize civilian casualties which in and of itself is a crime.
You cannot use military targets as an excuse to attack civilians.
Minimized is just a word, it means to take the minimal option. I don't see an option to attack the Pentagon that could have resulted in fewer civilian casualties....
Only when they are in uniform and armed. You cannot attack unarmed soldiers who are not in active service.
In that case Israel does the same thing, attacking members of Hamas in their homes and wiping out their entire families. What convenient excuse do you have for that one?
and imbed themselves in the civilian population.
