The terms of engagement are irrelevant to killing the Colonel's family.
Like him or love him, this was murder, plain and simple.
That’s hate him or love him.
Philippe Sands, professor of law at University College London stated:
“The authorisation of ‘all necessary measures’ is broad and appears to allow the targeting of Gaddafi and others who act to put civilians ‘under threat of attack’, words that go beyond the need to establish a connection with actual attacks,”.....he wrote in the Guardian last Friday.
Malcolm Shaw, professor of international law at Leicester University:
“Anything that supports Libyan jets – including the military command structure, airfields and anti-aircraft batteries – would be legitimate.”...........But, he cautioned, not all Libyan government sites could be hit: “I wouldn’t think that blowing up the finance ministry in Tripoli would be authorised.”
Ryszard Piotrowicz, professor of International Law at Aberystwyth University:
“The UN resolution appears to sanction attacks on Gaddafi. He told The Guardian: “The [attorney general’s] note fails to clarify the extent to which force might be used to protect civilians. Targeted attacks on senior Libyan officials might be justified if this is the only way to stop attacks on civilians. That would include an attack on Colonel Gaddafi himself. The government is acting prudently in not clarifying this now because to do so might limit its freedom of action later, or reveal just how far it is prepared to go.”
“NATO is providing air cover in Libya solely to protect the civilian population” ...in an attempt to overthrow the government of Libya. That is an act of war. The people there are attempting to overthrow the government and we are helping them. It doesn’t matter if we personally agree that Daffy needs to go, we have no right to do so as a nation. Might does not make right. Imagine the new leaders of Libya getting their hands on nukes and fearing we might do the same again to them.