Amazing photos of the London riots which continue. 16,000 officers are now patrolling the streets.

One of the crimes to be charged: inciting violence through social media. How will they find the rioters not caught in the act? Camera images.

What's the deeper cause behind the riots? No one seems to agree on that.

Bump and Update: Here are suspect Anders Behring Breivik 's online postings in English. He "rants against multi-culturalism." BBC News has this profile of him. More from The Telegraph here.

Norwegian police describe him as a "right-wing Christian fundamentalist." It's still unclear if he acted alone.

According to police, Breivik has been charged and confessed. The death toll is close to 100. [More...]

All eyes are on British Parliament today where hearings are underway in the News Corp phone hacking scandal. Newly resigned Scotland Yard Chief is being questioned, to be followed later this morning by Rupert Murdoch and his son James, and Rebekkah Brooks.

You can watch live here, or follow the Times' live updates here. All of our major cable news stations will carry Murdochs' questioning live, and when the second committee starts questioning the Murdochs and Brooks, the session is to be online here.

CNN yesterday unveiled live feeds of its tv programming for smartphones. If you have a home cable package that gets CNN, it's free. It took me only 3 minutes to set up yesterday on my iPad and the picture is great.

In Egypt, some have argued that it is too soon for elections. In Libya, the Gaddafi regime is floating the idea of elections:

The Libyan government on Sunday renewed its offer to hold a vote on whether Muammar Gaddafi should stay in power, a proposal unlikely to interest his opponents but which could widen differences inside NATO. [. . .] Moussa Ibrahim, a spokesman for Gaddafi's administration, told reporters in Tripoli the government was proposing a period of national dialogue and an election overseen by the United Nations and the African Union.

Should this alternative be pursued? If not, why not? In Egypt the argument against elections is:

NATO launched an airstrike today that killed Saif al-Arab Gadhafi, the 29 year old son of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gadhafi, and three grandchildren.

The Libyan Government, through spokesman Moussa Ibrahim says Colonel Gaddafi and his wife were also in the house but unharmed. BBC reporter Christian Fraser writes that a few hours after the explosion:

[W]e were eventually brought to the villa, which was surrounded by reinforced concrete, cameras, and military positions. This is clearly an exclusive neighbourhood. Inside, total destruction.

....It's hard to imagine that anyone could have escaped unscathed, though according to the government spokesman the Libyan leader and his wife were present and are safe and well. But there's no independent evidence they were there.

NATO airstrikes are intended to save civilian lives in Libya. Libya says today's strike was an assassination attempt.

NYTimes:

Security forces in Syria fired tear gas and live ammunition Friday to disperse crowds of demonstrators who took to the streets of Damascus and other cities after the noon prayers that have been a focus of uprisings across the Arab world, according to protesters, witnesses and accounts posted on social networking sites.

The authorities had deployed police officers, soldiers and military vehicles in two of the country’s three largest cities ahead of a call for nationwide protests testing the popular reception of reforms decreed by President Bashar al-Assad as well as the momentum that organizers have sought to bring to the five-week uprising.

The main problem with "humanitarian" interventions in foreign civil wars is that they do not work unbless you accept that you are deciding to go to war, I think Libya is proving that point. OF course even if you accept you are going to war, then you can have an Iraq Debacle on your hands.

Speaking for me only

Mexican Attorney General Arturo Chavez has resigned after only 18 months on the job. He has been the subject of controversy ever since leaked Wikileaks cables were disclosed that cast him in a negative light.

One "embassy cable from September 2009 called Chávez Chávez's nomination "totally unexpected and politically inexplicable."

It noted that he "has strong detractors within the Mexican human rights community" because of botched prosecutions in the murders of women in the northern Mexico border city of Ciudad Juárez in the 1990s, when he was the top state prosecutor.

The cable suggested Chávez Chávez "is a less capable political operator, who will be overshadowed by García Luna and stymied by his considerable human rights baggage."

President Calderon has nominated a woman, Marisela Morales to replace him. She currently serves as the head of the organised crime special investigations unit.

My point of view on the Libya intervention has been described in recent posts. My question is to those who support the action -- events are moving fast - how much intervention will you support in Libya? Take the poll.

This news - Libyan Rebels Retreat Further, will heighten the focus on this issue - Washington In Fierce Debate On Arming Libyan Rebels:

The Obama administration is engaged in a fierce debate over whether to supply weapons to the rebels in Libya, senior officials said on Tuesday, with some fearful that providing arms would deepen American involvement in a civil war and that some fighters may have links to Al Qaeda.

President Obama said the other night that the objective of intervention in Libya is not regime change. He said the US had important interests in Libya, but regime change was not necessary to protect those interests, although regime change would be a preferred outcome. He also said the intervention was "humanitarian" in nature. So here's my question - is providing arms in a civil war "humanitarian?"

Speaking for me only

In an excellent post, James Joyner points to Dan Nexon's post on Obama's speech:

I might be wrong, but I don't consider the "Humanitarian-intervention-against-militarily-weak-fossil-fuel-producing-countries-in-strategically-important-regions-that-are-also-located-near-many-large-NATO-military-bases-and-are-run-by-dictators-who-kind-of-piss-us-off-and-have-no-powerful-allies Doctrine" the stuff of Grand Strategy. But if you read between the lines, that's pretty much the gist of what Obama had to say tonight.

I do not find it the stuff of coherence or prudence. But the ad hoc nature of this foreign and military policy decision does not bother me. I am not big on "Grand Strategies" either. However I do object to the lack of logic and coherence regarding the Libya intervention. In my view, each ad hoc situation must have logic and coherence. I do not see them in the Libya intervention.

There are two major objections I have to the rationale for the military intervention provided by President Obama last night. The first is the manufactured notion that events in Libya will quell the "Arab Awakening" in Tunisia and Egypt (oh BTW, who knows how that is going to turn out.) What is the evidence for that? Was Gaddafi planning on marching into Egypt? Surely not. Moreover, Syria, Bahrain, Jordan, and dare I say it, Saudi Arabia, are not that far away. More . . .

Juan Cole take note, Lieberman would back US action in Syria:

Senate Homeland Security chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said the U.S. should intervene to help Syrian protestors if officials there turn weapons on the public as took place in Libya on Fox News Sunday.

[. . .]"There's a precedent now that the world community has set in Libya and it's the right one," Lieberman said. "We're not going to stand by and allow this Assad to slaughter his people like his father did years ago and in doing so we're being consistent with our American values and we're also on the side of the Arab people who want a better chance for a decent life."

Via Jay Ackroyd, Professor Juan Cole writes a piece arguing why "the Left" should support the Libya intervention.Before I consider the substance of Prof. Cole's (obviously an expert on the region) argument, I want to take issue with the notion that the decision to support or oppose the intervention requires a view from "the Left" or from any ideological perspective for that matter. Perhaps this makes me not of "the Left" (and I am really not actually), but I think any military or foreign affairs action by the United States should be viewed from the perspective of America's national interest. When I profess this view, some commenters compare me to Kissinger. This misses the point. Kissinger's problem is not that he focused on the American national interest, it is and was that he misunderstood what was in the American national interest. It happens that promoting democracy, economic development, advancement of the entire world, is key to America's national interest. In that sense, the fall of Gaddafi in Libya could be in America's national interest. (Just as certain electoral results in some countries would be in the American national interest.) There are no elections in Libya, and in any event, meddling in foreign elections in a way that American fingerprints are seen does not work and does not forward American interests. Assuming for the moment that it is, the question then is is what can be done to facilitate Gaddafi's fall and what effect will those actions have on the American national interest? I will attempt to glean answers from Prof. Cole on the flip.