The ICC will probe into war crimes allegedly committed by anti-Gaddafi forces, including persecution of civilians, killings of combatant captives and the death of the former Libyan leader himself, the prosecutor said. The investigation however will focus on alleged crimes of the ousted regime and particularly on those attributed to Muammar Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam and his head of intelligence al-Senussi. Both men are still at large, presumed to be somewhere in Libya. "It is up to the UN Security Council and states to ensure that they face justice for the crimes for which they are charged," Ocampo said. Russia backs the ICC's effort and hopes that all parties which violated the international law will be brought to justice, the country's deputy envoy to UN Sergey Karev said. "The number of civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure from actions of all the belligerent parties in Libya is are very high. Unfortunately, actions of the NATO-led coalition resulted in civilian deaths too," the diplomat said. He added that Moscow expects "all those guilty of serious crimes -- according to the international law -- committed in Libya will be punished." Karev added that Russia fears that the new Libyan leaders, who promised a full investigation into the death of Gaddafi, will fail to deliver. "We can't help but doubt that a proper investigation will be possible immediately in the country, with ruined governing structure and virtually no functioning law enforcement or prosecution bodies," he said. Russia calls on the ICC to closely monitor the investigation, and "if at some point the Libyan side will for some reason be unable to perform such an investigation, the ICC will have to take over," the diplomat explained. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSuymXjlI08

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_67/19 Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, and United States of America. Reject (9) Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Vanuatu. Abstain (41) Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, and Ukraine. Absent (5) ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It8UrSLjpSE

file download: https://docs.google.com/a/microtopia.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=bWljcm90b3BpYS5vcmd8bWljcm90b3BpYXxneDo0ZTMyYjg3YTIxMDVkZWY1 US DIPLOMATS KILLED: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS The statements I am about to make about actual historical events and statistics are not opinions they are double referenced indisputable facts. Let us state at the outset that we do not know the level of support for the NATO intervention in Libya amongst Libyans. We know that the loyalists have been suppressed violently even in their speech, that reporters do not ask. And that the US government has not come up out and shown any facts. We do not know, we can guess. A third are sympathetic or support Gadaffi's ghost, a third simply want to have a normal life, and a third wanted him gone and is happy to pay the high price of becoming a conflict riven country. Clinton asserts. "Our mission is noble". She weeps about their lack of gratitude in our 'liberating' of Libya. It exposes the cracks and flaws in yet another militarization of a problem that may have had and it can be largely concluded would have had -- a diplomatic solution! Yes Libya could have transitioned to multi party democracy without the 28,000 sorties by every Western Country -- and in fact that fact turned many Libyans against NATO and the West. Libya had lived through a savage colonization by Italy, and then a British installed king. Who would welcome this over their skies. As one South African protestor against the NATO intervention said "The West is bloodthirsty. All they understand is violence. They do not understand diplomacy. How ironic that no Western soldier -- not a single one -- was killed in a campaign that killed 30,000 Libyans, and tore their country apart. A military response to a diplomatic problem. Yet ultimately it was the diplomats who died. The State department under Clinton has adopted a very aggressive stance, eschewing diplomacy for violence in Pakistan Afghanistan Syria Palestine Yemen and Libya. Was it ignorance or arrogance. And also ironic -- is that Gadaffi himself came to power in a bloodless coup, when for us to achieve change nearly destroyed the country. Will the West ever take responsibility for the consequences of its diplomacy-free violent humanitarian interventions. How is dropping bombs humanitarian? How is the "Big Lie of a hypothetical massacre in Benghazi, that might have taken place justification for the events that have transpired" Much has been lost and more loss will come due to this tragic mixture of realpolitik and incompetence. We now see how much lies in the scales as costs of our decision to remove Gadaffi from power. How much more will it take for the Westerners to stop believing their polyanna version of events in Libya and remember that there were months of raging war which at any time could have had serious peace talks. I blame the deaths on our decision not to hold talks but instead simply bombing. Now each day more consequences occur, and the question that should be asked -- is not "are the people better off without Gadaffi" to a question of "are the people better off because we chose bombing instead of peace talks". Could elections occur peacefully. Since we will never know if that could have worked -- we must allways assume that we in the West decided on the behalf of the Libyans who in our infinite wisdom we decided would benefit from full on war vs even a try at a chance for a peaceful resolution. For those who say Gadaffi was resistant -- the only issue was not being ordered that he had to 'go' -- was demanding gadaffi's humiliation and the deaths of 10s or even hundreds of thousands a better decision than going into talks, with the UN 1973 as the stick? The danger that the death of 4 american diplomats in Libya poses to Western Leaders is increased scrutiny. The whole basis of the narrative that Libyans are grateful to the West and are pro-western will be questioned. But the elephant in the room is the level of Loyalist support in Libya. Noone will try to measure it. It is taboo. Gallup did polls in 10 Arab countries about NATO intervention in Libya -- but did not do it in Libya. Secondly -- was the military mission legal, it was authorized by US drafted resolution 1973. Did we break the resolution and the law by arming the rebels and pushing for regime change. Was it worth it to kill 30,000 suppress the loyalists ruthlessly and create a refugee and arms crisis in N Africa, as well as Syria being flooded with Extremits and weaponry from Syria. Was all this worth it, so we did not have to stoop to have talks because "That would give him more time to prepare" More time to prepare against an attack by a military force 500 times larger? What "preparations" could he have made that would make talks a worse idea than wholesale liquidation of the armed forces. Was it worth it -- to have these diplomats die ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLTO6PzTboo

Response to media on Father Pflegers address to Trinity Church.. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYnL3VWOCbo