-->

  

  CasaBook    

31/03/2011

Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa flees to UK

Libya's foreign minister Moussa Koussa, one of Col Gaddafi's closest aides, has arrived in London and told officials he is quitting, the Foreign Office says.
It said Mr Koussa had indicated he was no longer willing to represent the Libyan leader's regime internationally.
The FCO added it wanted to "encourage those around Gaddafi to abandon him and embrace a better future for Libya".
A Libyan government spokesman earlier insisted Mr Koussa had been travelling abroad on a diplomatic mission.
The development came on the same day the UK took steps to expel five Libyan diplomats.
Foreign Secretary William Hague told MPs the five, who include the military attache, "could pose a threat" to UK security.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Koussa had flown into Farnborough airport, in Hampshire, on Wednesday afternoon from Tunisia and had been debriefed, most likely by intelligence officials.
He said the fact he had flown into Farnborough was significant as he had clearly not been on a commercial flight.

Moussa Koussa's career

  • 1979-1980: De facto ambassador to London
  • 1984: Assigned to the Mathaba, Libya's anti-imperialist centre
  • 1994: Appointed head of intelligence
  • 2009: Appointed foreign minister; reportedly resigns 30 March 2011
"What is not clear is whether he has arrived simply to escape, or to play a wider role in any opposition to Col Gaddafi," he said.
"Clearly his defection, if that's what it becomes, will be used to urge others to follow suit and claim the regime is losing support."
Mr Koussa has not met with Prime Minister David Cameron or Foreign Secretary William Hague yet, but he is known to have been a point of contact for Mr Hague in recent weeks.
In a statement the Foreign Office said: "We can confirm that Moussa Koussa arrived at Farnborough Airport on 30 March from Tunisia.
"He travelled here under his own free will. He has told us he is resigning his post.
"Koussa is one of the most senior figures in Gaddafi's government and his role was to represent the regime internationally - something that he is no longer willing to do.
"We encourage those around Gaddafi to abandon him and embrace a better future for Libya that allows political transition and real reform that meets the aspirations of the Libyan people."
Providing arms
BBC world affairs correspondent John Simpson said he suspected Col Gaddafi would shrug off Mr Koussa's resignation as he had lost other ministers in the past.
His interior minister is now in Benghazi and it did not really make any difference at all as "this is a one-horse show", he said.
Noman Benotman, a friend of Mr Koussa and a senior analyst at the UK-based Quilliam think-tank, told Reuters news agency: "He wasn't happy at all. He doesn't support the government attacks on civilians.
"He's seeking refuge in Britain and hopes he will be treated well."
Rebels opposed to Col Gaddafi's rule and fighting Libyan government forces are continuing to lose ground and are retreating from their former strongholds along the eastern coast of Libya.
Prime Minister David Cameron has said the UK is not ruling out providing arms to rebels in "certain circumstances" but no decision had been taken.
The UK has been involved in more than 160 aerial missions, as well as missile strikes, over Libya since coalition operations began on 19 March following a UN resolution.
The coalition military action is aimed at enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya and protecting civilians from attacks by forces loyal to its leader Col Muammar Gaddafi. It has denied air strikes are meant to provide cover for a rebel advance.

29/03/2011

Vers un simple « relooking » constitutionnel

Dans un HYPERLINK "http://www.bladi.net/discours-du-roi-mohammed-vi-le-21-fevrier-2011.html" discours, ferme et sans concessions majeures,prononcé au lendemain de la HYPERLINK "http://www.bladi.net/morts-maniefstations-maroc.html" marche du 20 février,le Roi Mohammed VI avait indiqué qu’il ne cèderait pas à "la démagogie et à l’improvisation".

Rappelons que lors de cette marche des milliers de manifestants avaient réclamé entre autres:

-la dissolution du parlement, de la chambre des conseillers et le départ du gouvernement Abbas El Fassi.

-une constitution démocratique consacrant la souveraineté du peuple

- la fin du pouvoir absolu

-l’instauration d’une monarchie parlementaire où les pouvoirs du roi seraient limités

-la libération de prisonniers politiques

- la fin de l’impunité

- une véritable liberté de presse

- la lutte contre la corruption

- le respect des droits humains tels que définis universellement

-la mise en place d’une constituante

-la fin de l’affairisme royal

- le départ du gouvernement

Dix neuf jours après, revirement. Le successeur de Hassan II appelait à une révision profonde de la constitution, vouée à la consolidation de la démocratie et de l’état de droit.

Ce changement de cap s’expliquerait par des impératifs plus exogènes qu’endogènes :

-triomphe et consolidation des révolutions tunisienne et égyptienne et les risques d’incidences sur le mouvement revendicatif national

-poursuite et renforcement des soulèvements libyen et, bahreïni, yéménite et libyen.

-« conseils insistants » des dirigeants américains et européens, principalement français lesquels préfèrent que les régimes arabes qui leur sont proches, prennent les devants et entament des réformes au lieu de se cabrer et se retrouver à faire face à des révolution qui finiront par les emporter.

« Moukrahoun akhaq la batal ».

« Point héros, je ne fus, car contraint, j’ai été ».

Adage arabe qui pourrait s’appliquer à ravir au roi Mohamed V1.

Ceci dit, les réformes préconisées par le monarque marocain s’articulent autour des sept axes suivants (1).

Ces réformes, précise le souverain, s’inscrivent bien entendu dans le sillage de « la sacralité de nos constantes qui font l'objet d'une unanimité nationale, à savoir l'Islam en tant que religion de l'Etat garant de la liberté du culte, ainsi que la commanderie des croyants, le régime monarchique, l'unité nationale, l'intégrité territoriale et le choix démocratique, nous apporte un gage et un socle solides pour bâtir un compromis historique ayant la force d'un nouveau pacte entre le Trône et le peuple ».

Et qui dit « Commanderie des croyants », dit que le roi est dépositaire aussi bien du pouvoir temporel que religieux, socle d’une monarchie de droit divin et d’un pouvoir personnel, individuel non concerné donc par une réelle séparation des pouvoirs, le souverain étant source de tous les pouvoirs.

Ainsi,Mohamed VI fait sienne l’approche de son père lorsqu’il déclarait devant le parlement : « Nous avons essayé de faire en sorte qu'il n' y ait pas à

Notre niveau de séparation des pouvoirs, car tous les

Marocains doivent être sous la protection de Amir Al

Mouminine et recourir à son arbitrage pour les défendre….

De ce qui précède, il ressort que le discours royal ne répond presque en rien aux revendications du « Mouvement du 20 février ». De même qu’il est, en bien des points, obscur, ambigu comme c’est le cas de la problématique amazigh.

C’est ce qui expliquerait un certain engouement d’une partie de l’intelligentsia, de la bourgeoisie et des masses populaire dont une majorité attendait des mesures économiques et sociale telles que la baisse de certains denrées de première nécessité.

Mais, une fois connus les membres de la Commission Consultative de la Révision de la Constitution, ce fut la douche froide pour plus d’un.

Et pour cause !

La majorité des membres de cette commission sont des illustres inconnus, pour qui ne plaident que leurs silences assourdissants lors des années de plomb et leur statut de professeur de droit constitutionnel. Des très politiquement corrects.

« Intelligentsia » du silence

Restent les apparatchiks makhzanéens pur jus et « recyclables » à satiété.

Leurs « passifs » en témoignent.

Ainsi, en est-il de M.Herzenni ancien président du défunt CCDH pour qui le Maroc a « besoin d’une monarchie traditionnelle, chérifienne et religieuse ».

Rappelons au passage ce qu’il avait « conseillé » aux parents des membres du groupe Zahra Boudkour qui, emprisonnés, menaient une grève de la faim : « ce que vous pouvez faire de mieux, c’est d’aller acheter des linceuls pour vos enfants » !!

Ainsi, en est-il d’un Yazami honni par nos résidents à l’étranger du fait de sa politique catastrophique lorsqu’il était à la tête du Conseil de la Communauté Marocaine à l’Etranger.

Ainsi, en est-il de M. Saaf, ancien membre de l’OADP que Driss Basri propulsa à la tête du ministère de l’enseignement et qui fut un ardent défenseur de la triste compagne d’assainissement dont le pays continue de traîner les néfastes conséquences.

Ainsi, en est-il d’Amina Masoudi qui soutenait dans un article, publié en janvier 2007, page 37, dans « Journal of démocracy » et parlant des élections de 2007 qu’en « un mot, tout était en place pour faire de ces élections un moment exemplaire dans l’évolution du Maroc vers une démocratie réelle et totale. Le paradoxe a été qu’après tout ce travail, la participation a spectaculairement diminué , allant de 53 pour cent en 2002 à juste 37 pour cent en 2007 cinq années plus tard. Qui doit-on blâmer pour cette érosion massive? Sans l’ombre d’un doute, les partis en endossent la responsabilité, car ils ont clairement échoué à s’intéresser aux préoccupations réelles des citoyens. En un mot, on peut dire que le metteur en scène a réussi et que les acteurs ont failli."

MM. Massoudi oblitère le fait que le souverain avait Invité les électeurs à participer massivement à cette consultation populaire. Un appel qui ne fut nullement entendu.

Ainsi, en est-il de Abderrahman Laibek qui déclarait que Haidar Aminatou « devait demander pardon au roi ». .

Quant à M. Abdeltif Mannouni , il a tenu à préciser que « le discours royal a déterminé les domaines que doit englober la réforme constitutionnelle » précisant qu’il ne s’agissait « nullement de l’élaboration d’une nouvelle constitution mais uniquement de réformer l’actuelle ».

« La fatiha est ainsi dite », car on voit mal comment ces apparatchiks makhzanéens pourraient demander l’abrogation de Imarat el mouminin , de l’article 19 ou l’instauration d’une monarchie parlementaire où le roi régnerait mais ne gouvernerait pas….

Mais le choix de tels profils a, par contre, permis d’éclairer les zones obscures et ambiguës du discours royal.

Véritable grille de lecture qui permet le décrypter et de montrer qu’on n’aura affaire, in fine, qu’à un simple « relooking » de la constitution actuelle qui consacre la monarchie absolue de droit divin.

A noter qu’à aucun moment de son discours Mohamed VI n’a fait allusion à la nécessité pour la monarchie d’entreprendre une mutation pourtant vitale à sa survie et sa pérennité.

Par ailleurs, en optant pour une commission consultative et non pour une constituante, le roi montre clairement qu’il n’a pas voulu associer le peuple à cette réforme constitutionnelle, un peuple qui demeure, pour lui, une simple « raiya » à qui on octroie. Et ce même, si l’initiative royale a fait sauter le tabou de la réforme constitutionnelle et ouvert une véritable boite de Pandore.

Une démarche où les demi-mesures peuvent s’avérer fatales.

L’initiative royale aurait gagné en crédibilité si elle avait été accompagnée par des mesures telles :

la libération des prisonniers politiques et de centaines de prétendus islamistes condamnés dans des procès, pour le moins, iniques,

la levée de la main mise makhzanéenne sur les média publics,

la mise à l’écart de personnages sulfureux comme Majidi, El Hima et autres prédateurs qui gravitent dans l’entourage royal,

la suppression de pratiques moyenâgeuses: baise main et autres expressions de servilité,

le désengagement de la monarchie d’un affairisme incompatible avec une bonne gouvernance.

La mise en place d’un gouvernement de transition qui veillerait sur le referendum constitutionnel et les futures élections législatives.

La levée de l’interdiction des partis « El Badil El Hadari » et « El Ouma » et la libération de leurs dirigeants

Au lieu de cela on assiste à une recrudescence de la répression de tous les sit-in organisés par les jeunes du mouvement du 20 février. Une répression sauvage qui semble avoir été ordonnée par ceux qui ne veulent entendre d’aucune ouverture, même si elle est initiée par le monarque lui-même.

1-la consécration constitutionnelle de la pluralité de l'identité marocaine unie et riche de la diversité de ses affluents, et au cœur de laquelle figure l'amazighité, patrimoine commun de tous les Marocains, sans exclusive.

2 - La consolidation de l'Etat de droit et des institutions, l'élargissement du champ des libertés individuelles et collectives et la garantie de leur exercice, ainsi que le renforcement du système des droits de l'Homme dans toutes leurs dimensions, politique, économique, sociale, culturelle, environnementale et de développement.

Cela devrait se faire notamment à travers la constitutionnalisation des recommandations judicieuses de l'Instance Equité et Réconciliation (IER), ainsi que des engagements internationaux du Maroc en la matière.

3 :-La volonté d'ériger la Justice au rang de pouvoir indépendant et de renforcer les prérogatives du Conseil constitutionnel, le but étant de conforter la prééminence de la Constitution et de consolider la suprématie de la loi et l'égalité de tous devant elle.

Khalid Jamai

4 -La consolidation du principe de séparation et d'équilibre des pouvoirs et l'approfondissement de la démocratisation, de la modernisation et la rationalisation des institutions, à travers :

Un parlement issu d'élections libres et sincères, au sein duquel la prééminence revient à la Chambre des représentants - avec une extension du domaine de la loi-, tout en veillant à conférer à cette institution de nouvelles compétences lui permettant de remplir pleinement ses missions de représentation, de législation et de contrôle.

Un gouvernement élu, émanant de la volonté populaire exprimée à travers les urnes, et jouissant de la confiance de la majorité à la Chambre des représentants.

La consécration du principe de la nomination du premier ministre au sein du parti politique arrivé en tête des élections de la Chambre des représentants et sur la base des résultats du scrutin.

Le renforcement du statut du Premier ministre en tant que chef d'un pouvoir exécutif effectif, et pleinement responsable du gouvernement, de l'administration publique, et de la conduite et la mise en œuvre du programme gouvernemental.

La constitutionnalisation de l'institution du Conseil de gouvernement, la définition et la clarification de ses compétences.

5 :-Le renforcement des organes et outils constitutionnels d'encadrement des citoyens, à travers notamment la consolidation du rôle des partis politiques dans le cadre d'un pluralisme effectif, et l'affermissement du statut de l'opposition parlementaire et du rôle de la société civile.

6 -La consolidation des mécanismes de moralisation de la vie publique et la nécessité de lier l'exercice de l'autorité et de toute responsabilité ou mandat publics aux impératifs de contrôle et de reddition des comptes.

7 - La constitutionnalisation des instances en charge de la bonne gouvernance, des droits

wwe: Raw Live Results March 28, 2011

U.S. Champion Sheamus & Dolph Ziggler def. Daniel Bryan & John Morrison
U.S. Champion Sheamus and Dolph Ziggler will compete against Daniel Bryan and JohnMorrison  respectively when they meet in separate matches at WrestleMania. For now, though, the four unleashed their frustrations in a tag team match. When the dust settled, The Celtic Warrior & Ziggler bested Bryan & The Shaman of Sexy when The Irishman finally pinned his WrestleMania rival to carry his team over the top.

Jack Swagger def. Jerry Lawler by Disqualification
After weeks of getting battered by Michael Cole’s trainer Jack Swagger, Jerry “The King” Lawler didn’t miss the opportunity to punish the blond bully. As the bell sounded, Lawler grabbed a steel chair and retaliated against “The All-American American,” causing an instant loss by disqualification.

 King then went after Cole, attacking the protective Plexiglass cube his WrestleMania opponent has dubbed “The Cole Mine.” Before he could crack into the structure, however, a stream of security dragged the WWE Hall of Famer away.
Shawn Michaels shared his thoughts on Triple H versus The Undertaker
Welcome to the hot seat, Shawn Michaels. The Class of 2011 WWE Hall of Fame Inductee found himself caught between two iconic Superstars when he joined Triple H and The Undertaker in the ring to discuss their WrestleMania showdown.

Before putting HBK on the spot, however, The King of Kings explained that he will not be intimidated by The Phenom or allow his emotions to overtake him. For his part, The Undertaker interpreted The Game’s confidence as arrogance and vowed that it would prove to be his downfall.

28/03/2011

Gaddafi’s men urinated on me

Tripoli - A Libyan woman, who rushed into a hotel to tell foreign journalists that Libyan troops had raped her, is free and with her family, the government said on Sunday.
Eman al-Obaidi was tackled by waitresses and government minders as she told her story to journalists on Saturday after running into the hotel where many are staying. She said that troops had detained her at a checkpoint, tied her up, abused her, then led her away to be gang-raped.
The government says four men were interrogated in the case, including the son of a high-ranking state official.
Government spokesperson Moussa Ibrahim claimed in an interview with The Associated Press that the woman was a prostitute who refused to undergo a medical examination, and that she is now with her sister in the Libyan capital.
“This girl is a prostitute. She has her rights completely, but the girl is not what she pretended to be, this is her line of work,” he said. At a news conference in Tripoli several hours later, he did not repeat that allegation.
Moussa said she had named her attackers, which he claimed was against Libyan custom.
“It's about the honour of family of children and people,” Moussa told reporters.
Al-Obaidi had said she was detained by a number of troops at a Tripoli checkpoint on Wednesday. She said they were drinking whiskey and handcuffed her. She said 15 men later raped her.
“They tied me up... They even defaecated and urinated on me,” she said, her face streaming with tears. “The Gaddafi militiamen violated my honour.”
Then hotel employees and security personnel jumped her and dragged her out of the hotel.
Her story could not be independently verified.
The waiters called her a traitor and told her to shut up. She retorted: “Easterners - we're all Libyan brothers, we are supposed to be treated the same, but this is what the Gaddafi militiamen did to me, they violated my honour.”
The scene quickly turned chaotic, with journalists attempting to protect the woman from government minders who physically attacked and intimidated her.
Journalists who tried to intervene were pushed out of the way by the minders. A British television reporter was punched and CNN's camera was smashed on the ground by the minders. - Sapa-AP

Iman al-Obaidi Libyan woman recounts attack alleges rape and beating by troops 26.03.2011



Libye: femme torturée puis violée par les pro-Kadhafi:

Gaddafi’s men urinated on me

Tripoli - A Libyan woman, who rushed into a hotel to tell foreign journalists that Libyan troops had raped her, is free and with her family, the government said on Sunday.
Eman al-Obaidi was tackled by waitresses and government minders as she told her story to journalists on Saturday after running into the hotel where many are staying. She said that troops had detained her at a checkpoint, tied her up, abused her, then led her away to be gang-raped.
The government says four men were interrogated in the case, including the son of a high-ranking state official.
Government spokesperson Moussa Ibrahim claimed in an interview with The Associated Press that the woman was a prostitute who refused to undergo a medical examination, and that she is now with her sister in the Libyan capital.
“This girl is a prostitute. She has her rights completely, but the girl is not what she pretended to be, this is her line of work,” he said. At a news conference in Tripoli several hours later, he did not repeat that allegation.
Moussa said she had named her attackers, which he claimed was against Libyan custom.
“It's about the honour of family of children and people,” Moussa told reporters.
Al-Obaidi had said she was detained by a number of troops at a Tripoli checkpoint on Wednesday. She said they were drinking whiskey and handcuffed her. She said 15 men later raped her.
“They tied me up... They even defaecated and urinated on me,” she said, her face streaming with tears. “The Gaddafi militiamen violated my honour.”
Then hotel employees and security personnel jumped her and dragged her out of the hotel.
Her story could not be independently verified.
The waiters called her a traitor and told her to shut up. She retorted: “Easterners - we're all Libyan brothers, we are supposed to be treated the same, but this is what the Gaddafi militiamen did to me, they violated my honour.”
The scene quickly turned chaotic, with journalists attempting to protect the woman from government minders who physically attacked and intimidated her.
Journalists who tried to intervene were pushed out of the way by the minders. A British television reporter was punched and CNN's camera was smashed on the ground by the minders. - Sapa-AP
source: http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/gaddafi-s-men-urinated-on-me-1.1047954



Libye: femme torturée puis violée par les pro-Kadhafi


Gaddafi’s men urinated on me

Tripoli - A Libyan woman, who rushed into a hotel to tell foreign journalists that Libyan troops had raped her, is free and with her family, the government said on Sunday.
Eman al-Obaidi was tackled by waitresses and government minders as she told her story to journalists on Saturday after running into the hotel where many are staying. She said that troops had detained her at a checkpoint, tied her up, abused her, then led her away to be gang-raped.
The government says four men were interrogated in the case, including the son of a high-ranking state official.
Government spokesperson Moussa Ibrahim claimed in an interview with The Associated Press that the woman was a prostitute who refused to undergo a medical examination, and that she is now with her sister in the Libyan capital.
“This girl is a prostitute. She has her rights completely, but the girl is not what she pretended to be, this is her line of work,” he said. At a news conference in Tripoli several hours later, he did not repeat that allegation.
Moussa said she had named her attackers, which he claimed was against Libyan custom.
“It's about the honour of family of children and people,” Moussa told reporters.
Al-Obaidi had said she was detained by a number of troops at a Tripoli checkpoint on Wednesday. She said they were drinking whiskey and handcuffed her. She said 15 men later raped her.
“They tied me up... They even defaecated and urinated on me,” she said, her face streaming with tears. “The Gaddafi militiamen violated my honour.”
Then hotel employees and security personnel jumped her and dragged her out of the hotel.
Her story could not be independently verified.
The waiters called her a traitor and told her to shut up. She retorted: “Easterners - we're all Libyan brothers, we are supposed to be treated the same, but this is what the Gaddafi militiamen did to me, they violated my honour.”
The scene quickly turned chaotic, with journalists attempting to protect the woman from government minders who physically attacked and intimidated her.
Journalists who tried to intervene were pushed out of the way by the minders. A British television reporter was punched and CNN's camera was smashed on the ground by the minders. - Sapa-AP

Statement Regarding Use of Force in Libya

Harold Hongju Koh
Legal Advisor U.S. Department of State 
American Society of International Law Annual Meeting
Washington, DC
March 26, 2011


Thank you, Monica. It is always a pleasure and an honor to speak here at the American Society of International Law.
As your President, David Caron, noted last night, I am the 22nd American to serve as Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State, and I am honored to serve during this, the eightieth year after Congress first created our office by statute. At a conference on the history of the Legal Adviser’s Office held at Georgetown Law School earlier this month, I gave a keynote address that took note of the Legal Adviser’s historical role as spokesperson for the United States government regarding international law, and of what I called the Legal Adviser’s “Duty to Explain:” the historical practice of the Legal Adviser publicly explaining the legal basis for United States military actions that might occur in the international realm. It is in that spirit that I appear here this morning to give the following statement:
***
On March 19, 2011, at President Obama’s direction, U.S. military forces began a series of strikes in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope.
Their explicit purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of Resolution 1973 (adopted on March 17, 2011), as part of an international effort authorized by the United Nations Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.
U.S. forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians, to prevent a humanitarian disaster, and to set the stage for further action by other coalition partners. U.S. military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European Allies and Arab partners to continue to carry out the measures authorized by Resolution 1973. The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya and will not do so. U.S. forces have targeted the Qaddafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qaddafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We are working with our allies to transition to NATO and other partners the principal command and control of this effort and to ensure the continuation of activities necessary to realize the objectives of UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 (adopted on February 26, 2011) and 1973.
As Secretary of State Clinton emphasized on March 24 (Thursday night),
“From the start, President Obama has stressed that the role of the U.S. military would be limited in time and scope. Our mission has been to use America’s unique capabilities to create the conditions for the no-fly zone and to assist in meeting urgent humanitarian needs. And as expected, we’re already seeing a significant reduction in the number of U.S. planes involved in operations as the number of planes from other countries increase in numbers. [As of Thursday, March 24 we took] the next step. We have agreed, along with our NATO allies, to transition command and control for the no-fly zone over Libya to NATO. All 28 allies have also now authorized military authorities to develop an operations plan for NATO to take on the broader civilian protection mission under Resolution 1973.”
As our press spokesman specified yesterday, “this decision to go forward with the planning reflects an agreement in principle by allies that this mission should be integrated into NATO’s command and control role, but it will not be formally agreed until allies approve the plan, which will take place likely [either tomorrow] or Monday – Sunday March 27th or Monday March 28th.”
These United States military actions rest on ample international legal authority. Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter grants authority to the Security Council to decide what measures shall be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security where it determines the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression (Article 39). Articles 41 and 42 further specify that the Security Council may take such action by air, sea and land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Acting under Chapter VII, in Resolution 1973, the Security Council determined that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes a threat to international peace and security (PP21), and : (1) in operative paragraphs 6 to 8 of the resolution imposed a No-Fly Zone in the air space of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians, and authorized states to take “all necessary measures” to enforce that No-Fly Zone in accordance with the Resolution, (2) in operative paragraph 4 authorized Member States to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory; and (3) in operative paragraph 13 authorized Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out inspections aimed at the enforcement of the arms embargo. Under the Security Council authorizations, Member States may also work through regional organizations or arrangements and with local partners who share the goal of preventing attacks on civilians or civilian populated areas.
Resolution 1973 sent Qaddafi a very clear message that a ceasefire must be implemented immediately. In addition, President Obama made clear that Qaddafi was to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi, to pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiyah, and to establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. The Resolutions also made clear that humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya. Although Qaddafi’s Foreign Minister announced a ceasefire, Qaddafi and his forces instead continued attacks on Misrata, and advanced on Benghazi.
Qaddafi also threatened civilians living in areas that refused to acquiesce to his threats, declaring, “We will come house by house, room by room. . . . We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity.” As President Obama said in his weekly address “I firmly believe that when innocent people are being brutalized; when someone like Qaddafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region; and when the international community is prepared to come together to save thousands of lives – then it’s in our national interest to act. And, it’s our responsibility. This is one of those times.”
Qaddafi’s defiance of the Arab League as well as the broader international community represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. The United States supports the Security Council’s conclusion that Qaddafi’s continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Qaddafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any further delay only putting more civilians at risk. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States, which made these actions necessary.
The President directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to his constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. The President has well-recognized authority to authorize a mission of this kind, which as he explained, will be time-limited, well-defined, discrete, and aimed at preventing an imminent humanitarian catastrophe that directly implicates the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. The Administration has been closely consulting Congress regarding the situation in Libya, including in a session with the bipartisan leadership that the President conducted before his announcement. Before Resolution 1973 was adopted, on March 1, 2011 the Senate adopted its own resolution by unanimous consent (S. Res. 85) calling for a No-Fly zone. The President has acted consistently with the reporting requirements in the War Powers Resolution, and has furthermore indicated that he is committed to ongoing, close consultations with Congress as the situation develops.
In sum, the United States’ military actions in Libya are lawful.
Thank you very much. 
source: