The recent United Nation Security Council decision to freeze the assets of the Gaddafi family was heralded as a high-point of international cooperation to fight authoritarian abuse. What has gotten less press attention is the role of the United States in drafting the resolution. The Obama Administration insisted on adding a provision that barred the punishment of mercenaries for war crimes committed in the country — out of concern that the same principle could be used against U.S. contractors in places like Iraq.
The U.S. move is consistent with President Obama’s policy of the last two years in barring the prosecution of any U.S. officials for ordering or carrying out torture of detainees in violation of a host of international agreements. His Administration has also worked to bar any prosecution of U.S. contractors accused of murdering citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. provision states:
6. Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State.
In one article, French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud responded to a torrent of criticism over the provisions by explaining
“that’s, that was for one country, it was absolutely necessary for one country to have that considering its parliamentary constraints, and this country we are in. It was a red line for the United States. It was a deal-breaker, and that’s the reason we accepted this text to have the unanimity of the Council.”
Obama’s contribution at this high point of international cooperation is to insert an ignoble provision barring war crimes prosecutions in Libya. We have now come to this. While we once were the leader in war crimes prosecutions, we are now viewed as an enabler of such conduct. What is striking is that none of these individuals — or the victims — are U.S. citizens. While the measure does not prevent prosecution by host nations, it blocks the most likely forum for punishment. The United States has shown how a nation can simply refuse to prosecute individuals who admit to acts that constitute torture or war crimes. Thus, when it allows for mercenaries to “be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction” of their own country, the Obama Administration has already shown how such nations can protect people accused of war crimes and has taken steps to prevent other nations from enforcing international agreements on torture.
We are now viewed as not just hypocritical on human rights, but effectively making war crimes prosecutions as discretionary matter for nations.
In this case, the Obama Administration will guarantee that those mercenaries from Algeria, Ethiopia and Tunisia would not be prosecuted in Libya — the scene of the crimes including gunning down unarmed civilians and other atrocities. It continues a controversial policy of President George W. Bush.
Source: Telegraph
Jonathan Turley
@Swarthmore: Then you remember incorrectly; my record is there for anybody to read. I was against anybody that enabled an assault on civil liberties, and Feingold was one senator that did less than he could have done, as a senator, to prevent the passage of civil liberty curtailing laws. He could have used their tactics against them, putting anonymous holds on the laws, filibustering the laws, etc. He did not. Why did he not fight to the political death against the most egregious violations of our constitutional rights? I don’t know what he would say and I don’t care what he would say, he didn’t do it.
But no, he was not the worst of them. As for the current crop in Wisconsin: Why do you stubbornly insist on the “relative good” I have repeatedly rejected?
It may be, for a liberal agenda, these Wisconsin Republicans ARE a good thing for us. They are blatantly and stubbornly acting against a majority (61%) of their own constituents, and they are blatantly and stubbornly insisting on the most illogical bullshit. They cut taxes on the wealthy by $161M and claim they have to decimate unions to plug a $137M budget hole; with no sense to the argument at all — The unions have already agreed on the financial end.
Even if they win, I suspect their victory will be short-lived, because they have provoked people into the street and in 2012 (or before by the Wisconsin right of recall) they will be replaced with pro-union players that will pass pro-union laws. This will backfire on them.
That is exactly what I was talking about back then; that we had to clear out the half-corporatized Democrats to make way for true blue liberal Democrats. It was exactly what I argued for back then, that we’d have to suffer through an egregious Republican asshole leadership for a term or two, but by getting rid of complacent lifelong Democrats and showing them there was punishment for failing to deliver liberal policy to match their liberal lip service, the next round of Democrats would take us seriously.
So yes, the chance for a really liberal politician fueled by an angry liberal base is worth just about whatever goes down in Wisconsin. And the only way this could happen is by throwing out the liberal-on-the-stump, corporatist-in-office politicians we had before (and are still plagued with).
S M
Maybe not all the alternatives, but any with a chance of winning? For sure.
I’m still confused about how the President can follow policies that must be (and are not) approved by Congress. As in the DADT controversy. Just because a person wins a presidential election doesn’t mean he/she can act like a dictator and ignore the other two branches of government.
Elaine, There is one important reason to support Obama and that it is if he loses, a woman’s right to chose is history. I will join my friends at Planned Parenthood and SEIU and support him. All of the alternatives are anti-choice, anti-union and anti-gay.
Mespo,
Because he at least pretended he’d change our foreign policy. Also: Vice President Palin.
Elaine,
We shouldn’t.
mespo,
And why we should vote for him again in 2012????
Tell me again why we voted for Obama?
I want everyone to mentally amend my post to include everything Buddha said.
How dare he say what I’m thinking before I remember too. Psychic copy cats are the worst.
Oh goodie….I can kill without prosecution…. Just so long as I am doing it for what the others say is good…Nice..
Tony C, You are right in that we have have lost the war against the rich, but I will wager that most Americans don’t want a war against the rich. They continue to elect crooked billionaires to office like Rep Rick Scott of Florida. Do you think liberals should sit out the 2012 elections as you suggested they do in 2010? I remember how strongly anti-Feingold you were. Do you think the tea party members that were elected in Wisconsin are an improvement?
Gerard Araud,
For future reference:
When the deal breaking provision is solved by allowing criminals to run free?
You should not only let the deal break, you should trumpet to the world why it was broken and by whom.
That is all.
P.S. Screw you, “President” Obama. For being an aider and abettor to high crimes. But also, thank you. For further illustrating what campaign finance has bought this country over the years both sides worked to get the rules further and further relaxed: an illegitimate government.
@eniobob: What is going on ???
We are in the process of becoming a police state, run on behalf of an elite class (those that possess political power and/or the money to buy it). We elected an authoritarian elitist wolf in liberal Democrat sheep’s clothing. We’ve been tricked, and now we are paying the price.
Obama gives us a few scraps that the rich don’t care about, like repealing DADT, or not enforcing DOMA, and gives the military-industrial-Wall Street-Financial complex everything it wants. Tax breaks, gutless “health care reform,” budget-cutting of social services in the name of deficit reduction, ruthless prosecution of the whistleblowers he praised as a candidate, and the most draconian curtailment of American civil rights and the chilling of free speech in history; including the Bush/Cheney administration.
It is not just liberals that have lost a battle, Americans have lost the war against the rich. They want to exploit you and condemn you to a second class of citizenship, subject to different laws, different taxes, and with far fewer civil rights than they have. Now they shall. The White House, Senate and Congress are all on their side. Other countries are on their side, out of either fear or a shared vision of subjugation. So you shall be subjugated, because by the time a majority of people realize they are subjugated, it will be too late. I think it is probably already too late.
What exactly makes him think that Libya gives a fig for the language of the resolution? That should the revolution succeed that enemies, official and mercenary alike, won’t simply disappear?
Neither Libya nor the US have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
[There is presently bipartisan consensus that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute. [24] Some US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment. [25] Therefore, US opponents of the ICC argue that the US Constitution in its present form does not allow a cession of judicial authority to any body other than the Supreme Court. In the view of proponents of the ICC there is no inconsistency with US Constitution, arguing that the role of the US Supreme Court as final arbiter of US law would not be disturbed. Before the Rome Statute, opposition to the ICC was largely headed by Republican Senator Jesse Helms.[26] Other objections to ratification have included that it violates international law, is a political court without appeal, denies fundamental American human rights, denies the authority of the United Nations, and would violate US national sovereignty.
Although the US originally voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute, President Bill Clinton unexpectedly reversed his position on 31 December 2000 and signed the treaty,[27][28] but indicated that he would not recommend that his successor, George W. Bush, submit it to the Senate for ratification.[29] On 6 May 2002, the Bush administration announced it was nullifying the United States’ signature of the treaty.[30] The country’s main objections are interference with their national sovereignty and a fear of politically motivated prosecutions.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#United_States
I don’t know which is worse: the use of mercenaries, the use of mercenaries that could be charged with war crimes, or the foreign policy that all of it possible.
What is going on ???
That language looks like it covers more than mercs, to whit: “…nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside…”
It makes me wonder exactly why we are so worried about protecting foreign nationals that are aid a dictator. What dogs do we have in that fight?
I wonder how they’re going to get Mr. Davis off the hook?
“Raymond Davis ‘was acting head of CIA in Pakistan’
A US intelligence agent arrested after shooting dead two men was the acting head of the CIA in Pakistan and had been gathering intelligence for drone attacks, according to intelligence sources.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8340999/Raymond-Davis-was-acting-head-of-CIA-in-Pakistan.html
Pakistan Tried to Trade CIA Contractor for ‘Lady al Qaeda’
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/raymond-davis-case-pakistan-trade-lady-al-qaeda/story?id=13018457
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/27/paul-wolfowitz-obama-libya-pan-am-families-bush-gaddafi_n_828797.html There is some change. Paul Wolfowitz does not work at the the White House anymore.
Not exactly the change people were hoping for!
Bdaman Too bad Gore did not become president. These policies would have never been put in place.
There you have it folks.