NATO is violating the UNSC resolution 1973 in Libya

Many thanks to bluesteel for his post.Before I move forward to rebuttals, I am assembling the points - which matter most to the top.1) Shared burden: Negative proof is quite possible. Character attestation, good conduct record, alibi etc. may constitute part of negative proof which may help Glenn Beck. In a 'criminal case' burden of proof is on prosecution. Part of the reason is that the accused is with in the power of the judiciary. In a debate, burden of proof is by default on Pro/Instigator. In this case I specified in the opening round that the burden of proof will be shared. The question that begs answer is how did you interpret 'the shared proof' clause? Frankly, you should not have taken up this debate if you are not in a position to present your own case.2) The 'spirit' of resolution: a) It is best if we follow all laws in 'letter and spirit'. That is - apart from following the laws - we also consider intent of the law. I agree a policeman cannot arrest you for drunken driving - if alcohol level in your blood is below critical limit. However, you are indeed violating the spirit of law. The policeman will be justified in issuing you a non-formal warning. In matters constituting international politics or national policy, adhering to letter and spirit of laws is essential.b) Just because one side has majority - it does not mean the minority opinion is irrelevant. In India, when a bench of supreme court gives a split verdict, they specify their reasons for the decisions and the minority opinion is also kept in mind while taking further decisions. I am sure you have some equivalent mechanism in USA. In united nations also, all those disagreeing with a resolution record there dissent and it matters. I suggest that you should go through the UN press release (I posted in round 2) to see how prominence is given to opinion of countries which abstained.c) Bluesteel has conceded all my arguments regarding the intent of resolution with a protest that it is irrelevant. I have shown it is relevant and hence my arguments are upheld.3) The 'letter' of resolution: This is the only part that is left to debate. Let me recapitulate the reasons which show that the letter of resolution has been violated. a) The purpose of mission is to protect civilians b) Civilians can be protected by a ceasefire - which can be easily implemented c) The NATO has rejected ceasefire - and is pursuing regime change - which may not be simple. d) This further increases risks to civilians. Thus the resolution is being violated.===Final Rebuttals===Time magazine article: My opponent shows that NATO has achieved its target solely based on American army claims!R1) Unsound justification: African Union matters. Arab league does not really matter. Look at position of Libya in map[1]. Qaddafi was head of African Union last year. Libya had very poor relations with Arab League.R2 + R3 + R4) Abstaining Countries, Hesitance of African countries and criticism by Iran and preparation for attack within few hours: Read my argument #2 about spirit of resolution.Iran sympathises with rebels - as do most people. I would encourage you to read the whole article to which you have provided reference.R5) Support for armed rebel:1. My opponent tries to compare Libyan rebel to American freedom fighters. I suppose Americans took the risks and fought for their freedom themselves. Just imagine a superpower X who decides to baby step Americans towards freedom while bombing England back to stone age! That describes the NATO role in Libya. NATO should not have gone beyond a ceasefire. Having done so - they are violating UNSC resolution.2. Action in Libya is currently taking place under NATO banner. It is responsible for action of member countries. If it has no control, it should condemn those actions.3. The basis on which you has justified armor supply to rebels can also be used to justify arm supply. Also - you have to explain why rebels need armors after ceasefire is imposed.R6) Use of cluster bombs: America has previously cluster bombed a complete country[2]. Israel has used depleted uranium munitions over civilian targets. [3]R7) Carnage by rebels: My opponent said:"I'm not defending the murders, but they are understandable ..."THEY ARE NOT UNDERSTANDABLE. If you can understand them, something is seriously wrong with you.R8) Collateral damage: I have explained - that hard proof at this stage is not possible. There is no lack of charges about collateral damage.My opponent has to explain - why ceasefire is not better than regime change in light of possibility of collateral damage. This question will apply to Rwanda also.R9) Drones: I do not know technical reason why drones are inaccurate. However I can guess. Unlike with any normal pilots, you do not need any justification before using drones. They don't ask questions. What the world knows for a fact is that two American allies are begging you to stop it.R10) Regime Change: 1. NATO refuses ceasefire requested by Qaddafi, African Union and others. 2. The leaders declare they will not rest until Qaddafi is gone. 3. Bombarding continues - along with attacks on Qaddafi's palace.Sounds like an effort at regime change to me.R12) Qaddafi's Palace attacks: How do tanks and rockets kept at a palace at Tripoli - assuming they were present - pose a danger to civilians?R13) Peace: Had the Americans got involved in Egypt, they would have been criticised by everyone. NATO is in Libya to protect civilians - not to assist a freedom movement. If it is getting involved, it is a violation of UNSC resolution 1973.R14) African Union unease: My mistake if I used a simple word. African Union is furious[4]. Ugandan president accuses NATO of double standard. Namibian president termed the attacks as 'western invasion'. Jacob Zuma (South African president) is angry. While calling west as 'bloody vampire' the president of Zimbabwe bemoaned:"It is this oil, oil, oil which is the undoing of the Libyan people."My opponent has dropped my argument about oil being motive. He has ignored the fact I pointed out: since NATO invasion - there has been no protest against Muammar Qaddafi!==Conclusion==Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:“Whenever it is appropriate, the U.S. and its allies stand with despotic rulers and when necessary they sacrifice them to ensure their own interests”He is wrong. I hope, he is wrong. Most of the NATO countries are democracies. When these leaders return to their voters, they will be asked:1. Why was the ceasefire not imposed - when it was a simple solution to protect civilians?2. Why did they insist on regime change, knowing it will cause even more misery?3. AFTER REGIME CHANGE, WHAT?At least I hope they will be asked... Mumkin hai zamana rukh badle Yeh daur-e-halakat mit jae(Maybe the world will change direction / This era of destruction will pass)Thanking bluesteel for debating with me.[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[2] http://www.rawa.org...[3] http://www.llrc.org...[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...