Why Rules of Law Matter.

In sum, the overthrow of Gadhafi is a success for the Obama Administration, and the British and French governments. But the jury is still out on whether they did the right thing.

Good analysis and argument here -- legally and politically -- but he undercuts his own take by starting off concluding ... Obama "deserves credit for helping..."

If it's an illegal -- and unwise -- move, in the long run, why would you credit the man with taking the action? Because gas prices might soon drop at the pump? Because you don't want to be seen as a "traitor" or terrorist dictator coddler?

Don't be afraid, Professor Somin*, to support the courage of your convictions conclusions. Don't hedge your bets, just to cover all your bases. If it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up.

The Endgame in Libya
Ilya Somin • August 22, 2011 8:33 pm
...
The Obama Administration deserves credit for helping achieve his [Gadhafi's] overthrow at a fairly minimal cost in American resources.

Nonetheless, there are still serious questions about the legality and wisdom of the administration’s policy. Even a successful outcome doesn’t obviate the fact that the intervention was probably both unconstitutional and a violation of the 1973 War Powers Act. Adherence to the Constitution is not the only important value out there, and I’m willing to admit that there are situations where it can be outweighed by other considerations. Even if the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional, as critics claimed, getting rid of slavery was a good enough justification for violating the Constitution. I am skeptical that getting rid of Gadhafi is in the same class, however — especially since the administration could probably have gotten proper congressional authorization for its actions had it asked for it early on. Moreover, even if this intervention was both moral and effective, it sets a precedent for future unconstitutional uses of force, some of which may be neither.

I also have two prudential concerns about the administration’s policy.

First, it is far from clear that the new regime in Libya will be better than the old. The Libyan opposition is a hodgepodge that includes many different elements. Some are liberal democrats, but others are radical Islamists.

Second, it’s important to remember that the US and Britain cut a deal with Gadhafi in 2003, under which he agreed to give up his nuclear weapons program and stop supporting terrorism, while we agreed to normalize relations and forego efforts to overthrow him.
...
It seems that Gadhafi has upheld his side of the bargain, whereas the US and Britain have just massively violated theirs. I’m certainly not suggesting that Gadhafi had some kind of moral right to stay in power and have the US and its allies respect the 2003 agreement. However, it may have been in our interest to keep the deal regardless. Our blatant reneging will make it harder to make similar agreements with other dictators in the future. If foreswearing nuclear weapons and terrorism will lead to your overthrow in a US-supported revolt, any dictator would be a fool to make the deal — or at least to live up to its terms.

From the comments:

if I’m a tin-pot dictator and I see something like this, I would be doing my damnedest to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible. If Qaddafi had kept his nukes program he wouldn’t be facing the chop.

Yes, and I bet Mubarak wishes he had been more like Syria now, and just fired on his own protestors too. What we're teaching...


-------------------------
*

"And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there's always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there's always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears-that's what soma is."
...
"Evil's an unreality if you take a couple of grammes."

ADDED: On a related topic, the prosecutors have decided not to bring criminal charges against the alleged rapist in the New York City hotel room. Rules of law say it would be impossible to prove in the criminal courtroom.

Nobody's speculating in the media, of course, but my take is: He paid her for a blow job, then got rough. Maybe gagged her with himself, to the point where she maybe couldn't breathe and it got messy with semen, mucus, tears? But he paid, she consented to an act of prostitution, if not the cumming in her mouth, etc.

So she's a whore, he's a taker of more than he paid for (if it happened the way I think, I still call that rape, or an unlawful taking, even if the prostitution were legal there), it was an unsatisfactory sex contract, and the criminal charges got made. But in the long run, they couldn't be sustained.

So wisely (?), the prosecutor took no action, the true story will never come out, and no jury of his peers (heh!) will ever determine guilt or innocence.

Go "free" then, good sir. But take care next time, to pay and specify up front what exactly your kinks are. These white boys and their whores, I'm telling ya... keep it on the down low?