When Obama defended his military actions in Libya, he said "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different." Two weeks later, the Arab League asked the Security Council to consider imposing a no-fly-zone over the Gaza Strip in order to protect civilians from Israeli air strikes. But the United States, an uncritical ally of Israel, will never allow the passage of such a resolution, regardless of the number of Palestinian civilians Israel kills. This is a double standard.

The military actions in Libya and Ivory Coast set a dangerous precedent of attacking countries where the leadership does not favor the pro-US or pro-European Union countries. What will prevent the United States from stage-managing some protests, magnifying them in the corporate media as mass actions, and then bombing or attacking Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, or North Korea? Recall that during the Bush administration, Washington leveled baseless allegations to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq.

During a discussion of the Responsibility to Protect in the General Assembly on July 23, 2009, the Cuban government raised some provocative questions that should give those who support this notion pause: "Who is to decide if there is an urgent need for an intervention in a given State, according to what criteria, in what framework, and on the basis of what conditions? Who decides it is evident the authorities of a State do not protect their people, and how is it decided? Who determines peaceful means are not adequate in a certain situation, and on what criteria? Do small States have also the right and the actual prospect of interfering in the affairs of larger States? Would any developed country allow, either in principle or in practice, humanitarian intervention in its own territory? How and where do we draw the line between an intervention under the Responsibility to Protect and an intervention for political or strategic purposes, and when do political considerations prevail over humanitarian concerns?"

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine violates the basic premise of the UN Charter. Last year, the General Assembly's Fifth Committee declined funding for the office of the new Special Advisor on Responsibility to Protect. Some member States argued that the Responsibility to Protect had not been agreed to as a norm at the World Summit. The debate will continue. But for many States, this is a slippery slope that should be viewed with extreme caution.

The Responsibility to Protect - the Cases of Libya & Ivory Coast

meanwhile, down the road aways ....

The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has requested the arrest of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and two members of his regime on suspicion of murder and persecution in the Libyan conflict.

''The evidence shows that Muammar Gaddafi personally ordered attacks on unarmed civilians,'' the chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said at the court in The Hague yesterday.

Mr Moreno-Ocampo also called for the arrest of Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, and his brother-in-law Abdullah al-Sanussi. He described Mr Islam as Libya's ''de facto prime minister''.

He asked the court's pre-trial chamber to issue arrest warrants for the three men, because they ''appear to bear the greatest responsibility for crimes against humanity'' committed in Libya since February 15. The court may accept the request, reject it or ask for more information.

Colonel Gaddafi's regime has offered a truce in return for an immediate NATO ceasefire.

The Prime Minister, Baghdadi Mahmudi, proposed the truce on Sunday to the visiting United Nations special envoy, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, as the anti-regime revolt entered a fourth month.

Mr Mahmudi, quoted by JANA state news agency, said after meeting Mr Khatib that Libya wanted ''an immediate ceasefire to coincide with a stop to the NATO bombardment and the acceptance of international observers''.

Mr Mahmudi accused NATO, which is enforcing a UN-mandated no-fly zone over Libya, of ''abuses and violations'', including ''political assassinations, the unjust maritime siege, bombing of civilian sites and destruction of infrastructure''.

The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has made repeated calls for a ceasefire.

Muammar Gaddafi: International court calls for arrest | Libya

Sadly Luis can't give us any news on when we might expect his new Court to pay some attention to "Aussie Tony" Blair & "Rattus" Howard for their well documented crimes against the people of Iraq .... no such luck

"Bushit" can't be touched because the US, along with Israel & numerous other purveyors of 'freedom & democracy', doesn't even support the new Court .....