Obama and Clinton Say Gadhafi Must Go

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 06:27:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have now called on Gadhafi to leave Libya. From Hillary's statement:

We have always said that the Qadhafi government's future is a matter for the Libyan people to decide, and they have made themselves clear. When a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now. Moammar Gadhafi has lost the confidence of his people and he should go without further bloodshed and violence. The Libyan people deserve a government that is responsive to their aspirations and that protects their universally recognized human rights.

The U.S. has issued sanctions against Libya, including revoking visas of its leaders and family members and freezing assets. The U.N. Security Council is also considering sanctions.

< Luxury Cruise Crew Busted With 50 Kilos of Cocaine | Secure Communmities Program a Threat to Immigrant Domestic Violence Victims >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama and Clinton Say Gadhafi Must Go | 3 comments (3 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hot Air. Nothing but Hot Air. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 06:49:24 PM EST

"When a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule..."

What's the difference between us and them?

America has an extremely well armed proto-fascist apparatus lined up, well lubricated, and ready to descend on anyone who steps out of line.

You betcha. (none / 0) (#2)
by Yes2Truth on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 08:38:28 PM EST

"it is clear that threats of martial law were used to get this reprehensible bailout legislation passed. It also seems clear that Congress was told of a threat of martial law, not itself threatened. It is still entirely appropriate to link such talk to the Army's rapid moves at the time to redefine its role as one of controlling the American people, not just protecting them. In a constitutional polity based on balance of powers, we have seen the emergence of a radical new military power that is as yet completely unbalanced.

Continuity of Operations (COOP)

much more @ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23354

The Army's New Role in 2001: Not Protecting American Society, but Controlling It. This new role for the Army is not wholly unprecedented. The U.S. military had been training troops and police in "civil disturbance planning" for the last three decades. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, or "Operation Garden Plot," was developed in 1968 in response to the major protests and disturbances of the 1960s.


: Whatever, Forget the Meds Today ? (none / 0) (#3)
by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 12:37:40 PM EST

I used to have this talk with a friend who was convinced martial law would be coming, sooner than later. Never an 'if' situation for him, always a 'when'.
The only problem that never equated into his thought process was the fact that it would require a lot of American's to turn on their own, including friends and families.
I was in the military and the thought is beyond absurd. IMO it would go down like Libya, some 'loyalists' would stand firm, but most would desert and join the opposition.
It's why the militia's don't get me too worked up, they are our last line of defense of military coup.
I would agree that our military industrial complex is out of hand, they need these bogus wars to validate their existence. But they are in it for the cash, not to take power in the US.