DeeJay20:


ROFLAMO!!! easy CAP28 dont allow people's Selective Myopia upset you!!!

President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.
Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.

It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers.

The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his senior officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.

"It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.

The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington DC, went to court to obtain the material.

It discovered that the CIA's national intelligence daily, a secret briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, the then vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of senior officials, included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, said rebels would continue fighting to "stop the genocide, which ,  is spreading south".

Three days later the state department's intelligence briefing for former secretary of state Warren Christopher and other officials noted "genocide and partition" and reported declarations of a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis".

However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide".

Ms Des Forges said: "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination."

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.

William Ferroggiaro, of the National Security Archive, said the system had worked. "Diplomats, intelligence agencies, defence and military officials - even aid workers - provided timely information up the chain," he said.

"That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda."

Many analysts and historians fault Washington and other western capitals not just for failing to support the token force of overwhelmed UN peacekeepers but for failing to speak out more forcefully during the slaughter.

Some of the Hutu extremists orchestrating events might have heeded such warnings, they have suggested.

Mr Clinton has apologised for those failures but the declassified documents undermine his defence of ignorance. "The level of US intelligence is really amazing," said Mr Ferroggiaro. "A vast array of information was available."

On a visit to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in 1998 Mr Clinton apologised for not acting quickly enough or immediately calling the crimes genocide.

In what was widely seen as an attempt to diminish his responsibility, he said: "It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

A spokesperson for the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation in New York said the allegations would be relayed to the former president.

The US and Britain said on Monday they were looking at establishing a “no-fly” zone across Libya, amid signs that Nato nations were weighing all military options in the crisis.

As Washington and London pressed home demands that Col Muammer Gaddafi should quit power, the White House said a no-fly zone was “an option we are actively considering”.

In London, David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, told the House of Commons that all measures would be examined to increase pressure on Col Gaddafi to go.

“We do not in any way rule out the use of military assets,” he said.

Mr Cameron added: “We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people. In that context, I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the chief of the defence staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone.”

The US military was repositioning naval and air forces around Libya, a Pentagon official said, as international demands intensified for an end to Col Gaddafi’s four-decade rule.

“We have planners working and various contingency plans, and I think it is safe to say as part of that we are repositioning forces to be able to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made,” said the Pentagon.

British officials said they were looking at the use of the UK’s sovereign air base in Akrotiri in Cyprus as a launch point for a no-fly mission. “Akrotiri would be very useful if we wanted to deploy Typhoon [Eurofighters],” said an official.

The main fear of western leaders continues to be that Col Gaddafi might find a way to mount bombing raids on opposition forces,

Senior military officials in Washington have been looking at a range of options for military action. These include establishing “safe zones” for people sheltering from the regime, securing ports, airports and oil fields, and providing guarantees for any attempt to set up a new government.

In comments that went beyond previous warnings by the US, Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, said: “We will continue to explore all possible options for action. As we have said, nothing is off the table so long as the Libyan government continues to threaten and kill Libyans.”

Barack Obama, US president, was due later in the day to meet Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, to discuss further diplomatic, legal and other means to put pressure on the government and peel away some of the forces loyal to Col Gaddafi.

UN approval of a no-fly zone would be difficult to secure, given China’s and Russia’s extensive doubts about military intervention. But some western diplomats suggested on Monday that it could be imposed by a coalition of nations outside the Nato remit.

The focus on military options came as Libya looked likely to become the first country ever to be expelled from the UN Human Rights Council. Foreign ministers from the US, Russia, Britain and other states will convene today for a session of the council in Geneva, where they are set to condemn the violence that Col Gaddafi has unleashed on his opponents in recent days.

In a speech to the council on Monday, William Hague, British foreign secretary, said the response to the crisis in Libya both at the UN Security Council and at the Human Rights Council had been remarkable.

“The international community came together in a way which it has not done before, setting aside differences in the face of a challenge to the very notion of what we commonly and instinctively regard as the basic rights of humankind.”

Libya also looks likely to become the first country to be expelled from the UN Human Rights Council.

Foreign ministers from the US, Russia, the UK, Germany and other states convened on Monday for a council session in Geneva, where they condemned the violence that Col Gaddafi has unleashed on his opponents in recent days.

The International Criminal Court prosecutor said on Monday that he hoped to complete a preliminary examination of the violence in Libya in a few days before opening a full investigation.

Over the weekend, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Col Gaddafi and his family, and said it wanted Libya’s crackdown on anti-government demonstrators referred to the ICC.

Navi Pillay, UN high commissioner for human rights, on Monday accused a number of governments in the Middle East, including Libya, of “illegal and excessively heavy-handed response” to pro-democracy demonstrations.

“I remind all those concerned that widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population may amount to crimes under international law,” she told the UN Human Rights Council.

The European Union approved its own set of sanctions on Monday afternoon that go beyond those passed by the UN over the weekend. The sanctions include asset freezes, travel bans and embargoes on weapons and other material, such as tear gas and anti-riot equipment, that could aid in suppressing opposition protesters.

The decision was expected to be made later in the week but has been brought forward to ensure the measures are enforced as soon as possible, diplomats said.

However, officials said they had hit a snag because Italy is opposed to including the Libyan sovereign wealth fund – which owns 3 per cent of Pearson, the FT’s parent company – and other government entities in an asset freeze. Libyan funds own stakes in UniCredit, the Italian bank, and the Juventus football team.

*Cougar*:

gaddafi hasn't covered himself in glory. i sanction a foreign invasion. any leader who deliberately launches death squad on his own people needs to be taught a lesson.

violent:

Foreign Invasion will likely cause more chaos for Libyans than Ghadaffi, as the country is easily divided along ethnic lines.

Asides that, it's better for countries such as Egypt to take the lead than the US.

From all indications, it looks as though the US's primary interest could be securing the oil fields located in Libya and most people are likely to think along this line as opposed to actually helping Libyans get rid of a dictator.  Time to go long on oil futures. . a lot of money could be made!

jumobi1:

Honestly though, why would any country help without getting anything in return?

violent:

because when it is called ''help'' you shouldn't be expecting to get anything in return!

Kobojunkie:

Tell me you help your workers without expecting something in return.

when david cameron and obama were silent about this crisis, libyans blamed them for their non-challant attitude. now they wanna make the move and we are here saying they want to do so because of the oil fields!

Meddler:

Really an American Invasion. Please someone should tell me how that will go down with the American ppl. C'mon, America is just recovering from one of the worst economic crisis and you think the[b] Republicans will agree to bring out a dime to support invasion?[/b] The speed at which it will be voted down will be faster that the speed of light. Oh America will be going in but not now. Libya still has oil after all. We will just have to wait and see how this plays out.

Sun of god:

A regional war in the middle east would be beneficial to the west.

More so to America - it will boost their economy through the 'Military Industrial Complex'

They will happily sell arms to all sides - David Cameron has actually went with arms dealers to the middle east last week taking 'orders'.

Civil War followed by a Regional War and then finally onto World War - Thats what America needs and will get.

violent:

If you are expecting something in return, then you are rendering a service, quite a different thing from helping out i think.

cap28:

DeeJay, when you get a chance listen to american historian, webster tarpley's analysis of what's happening in Libya:

http://tarpley.net/world-crisis-radio/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley

Kobojunkie:

Libyans are calling for a No Fly Zone so Ghaddafi does not go back to bombing them again by air.