The Obama Administration Inserts Provision Into UN Security Council Measure To Protect Mercenaries From War Crimes Prosecutions

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

245 thoughts on “The Obama Administration Inserts Provision Into UN Security Council Measure To Protect Mercenaries From War Crimes Prosecutions”

  1. Tony C.,

    I believe I proved my case.

    *****

    You wrote: “Further, statements regarding the war or political demonstration are not the only forms of speech protected by the First Amendment, nor should they be. The fact that they singled these out does not restrict the teacher’s rights to just these forms of speech; just as the Supreme Court ruling that one can carry a concealed gun into a restaurant would not automatically exclude one’s right to carry a concealed weapon into any venue besides a restaurant.”

    *****

    I NEVER said teachers’ free speech rights were restricted to specific subjects. I just posted that statement from the ACLU website to show how an organization that is a champion of free speech rights believes there are cases where a restriction can be put on a teacher’s right to free speech.

    I do find it disturbing that a public school teacher exhibited such disrespect for her students and lack of empathy for children with special needs when she wrote about them using profane and vulgar terms on a public blog. I find that evidence of her unsuitability for the teaching profession.

  2. It seems to me you don’t understand the concept of “appearance of impropriety” and the related professional duty, Tony.

  3. @Elaine: Are you suggesting that the school district has no right to suspend Munroe with pay while they investigate the matter?

    No, I think that is appropriate.

    Elaine Says: Even the ACLU notes an exception to the free speech rights of teachers outside of school:

    Okay, I will re-iterate: Their standard is, and I quote, “unless it can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning. “

    In other words, their threshold is pretty high. Munroe may have cleared it; but it is a pretty high bar: It must be demonstrated a substantial adverse disruption actually occurred.

    Further, statements regarding the war or political demonstration are not the only forms of speech protected by the First Amendment, nor should they be. The fact that they singled these out does not restrict the teacher’s rights to just these forms of speech; just as the Supreme Court ruling that one can carry a concealed gun into a restaurant would not automatically exclude one’s right to carry a concealed weapon into any venue besides a restaurant.

    It seems to me that both you and Buddha want to punish speech you find hateful or disturbing, which is specifically the urge the founders were rejecting with the First Amendment; that the government does not get to decide what is or is not politically correct speech (although of course that term had not been coined back then, but I think it accurately describes their sentiment).

  4. Tony C.,

    Some Catholics use birth control, support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, have sex outside of marriage. So what?

    *****

    I believe some parents and administrators in the Central Bucks School District feel that Munroe’s “profanity-laced” blog and the things she wrote about their children/her students are proof that she is unfit for her job.

    Are you suggesting that the school district has no right to suspend Munroe with pay while they investigate the matter? I would assume that the school district has a contractual grievance procedure in place. I have no idea, however, whether Munroe filed a grievance.

    *****

    You wrote: “Alright, I did not read everything about Munroe, but if all that happened then I will concede the Munroe argument; on the grounds that school operations were indeed substantially impeded. That is something that actually happened and can be proven.”

    *****
    I’ll repost this for you again:

    Even the ACLU notes an exception to the free speech rights of teachers outside of school:

    FROM ACLU

    FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS
    Speech Outside of School

    Teachers do not forfeit the right to comment publicly on matters of public importance simply because they accept a public school teaching position. Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance unless it can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning. A teacher’s off-campus statements regarding the war or participation in an off-campus political demonstration are not acceptable bases for job discipline or termination.

    http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/free-speech-rights-public-school-teachers

  5. @Elaine: Where you worship…what church you belong to has nothing to do with your job.

    Not for you, or me (I’m an atheist), but for some people it carries a great deal of meaning. The same thing goes for homosexuality, whether a gay teacher is fit to teach is an open question for many people (not for me).

    This whole “calls into question” and “poor light” and “unprofessionalism” argument is my whole point, it is far too subjective and leaves far too much room for abuse. Somebody should have to commit an unfit ACT to prove one is unfit, and expressing an opinion does not count as an ACT when given the protection of the First Amendment.

    Again, you are holding yourself out as the minimum, and punishing her for how she FEELS about her students and her LOW REGARD for her students. You advocate punishment for her THOUGHTS, or punishment for her failing to PRETEND.

  6. Tony C.,

    I never vented the way Natalie Munroe did. I never used words like f*ck, a**hole, etc., when talking about my students. I never made comments suggesting that I thought my students were worthless or unteachable dummies. There are different levels of frustration…and different ways of expressing one’s frustration. In fact, I vented a lot more about my administrators than my students.

    Let me add this: Teachers often have to deal with students who insult each other and call each other names. Munroe insulted her students and called them names.
    I’d say she was acting immature when she wrote what she wrote…and that it showed poor judgment on her part. I’m not saying that’s a reason for firing her…still, it’s one thing to think about when considering her teaching competence.

    **********

    You wrote: That would make the rule, “You can worship as you please, but if we see you doing it you will be fired for it.” Clearly an empty right.

    Bad argument.

    Where you worship…what church you belong to has nothing to do with your job. What Munroe wrote on her blog was a manifestation of how she felt about her students and the low regard in which she held many of them–including special needs students. What she wrote definitely related to her work. It cast a very poor light on her attitude about her students, the lack of respect she had for them, and called into question her ability to deal with the challenges of teaching English to high school students. One does not have to commit a crime to prove one is unfit for one’s job.

    Again, Munroe was NOT fired. She was suspended WITH pay while the administration is investigating the matter. I think its their responsibility to make sure that the teachers working in their school system are competent, treat all children fairly, and can handle the challenges that they are faced with in the classroom.

  7. @Elaine: Alright, I did not read everything about Munroe, but if all that happened then I will concede the Munroe argument; on the grounds that school operations were indeed substantially impeded. That is something that actually happened and can be proven.

    You said: “If I needed to vent my frustrations, I did so with other teachers in a classroom or the teachers’ room–or at home.”

    Offended or not, if you advocate that people have the right to feel vent-worthy emotions toward students as long as they do not express it in public speech, then you advocate for demanding pretense over substance. You say you never felt what Munroe felt — I don’t understand why you’re behavior as a teacher should be considered the national minimum. I’d presume, without any other knowledge about you, it was ‘average’, which would mean that on one side of you, there is room for worse behavior that could still be considered acceptable.

    Further, the idea of generalizing this to “reflecting poorly upon professionalism” is pure crap, speech is not a “guilty act” because there is no crime in speech by virtue of the First Amendment. A Guilty Act must further a crime. The First Amendment also protects freedom of religion: Is attending a mosque service, which is clearly an act, also an actionable “actus reus”?

    That would make the rule, “You can worship as you please, but if we see you doing it you will be fired for it.” Clearly an empty right.

    Of course I expect Buddha will use his power of asserting things without any evidence or proof whatsoever and call this an absurd argument without any logic to back up his claim.

    That will mean precisely nothing, I counter-assert it is NOT an absurd argument. The only thing that can show somebody is unfit for their job is an inability to DO their job, or their actions interfering with their co-workers or organization doing ITS job.

    If Cox’s speech had done that, it would have been reflected in his work or the functioning of his office near the time that he said it. It was not, and there is no evidence it was, because at the time he said it, the people hearing it had no idea where he worked, and he could have been any one of the several dozen Jeff Cox’s in this country — And for all his readers knew, even “Jeff Cox” might have been a made-up name.

    Judging whether somebody is “fit” for a job, without a shred of evidence they have screwed up their job, is judging their THOUGHTS.

    The only “guilty act” Cox could make is to let his bigotry cause him to act improperly on the job, or to interfere with his job or office, and there is no evidence that happened. THAT would be a crime, but it is a crime that never happened, and punishing somebody because they might commit a future crime should remain firmly in the realm of science fiction.

  8. Elaine said, “I believe that what Munroe wrote on her blog and what Cox wrote in his tweets and on his blog reflect poorly on their professionalism and show evidence that they may be unfit for their jobs.”

    Yep. I agree. And as to what people think? People are free to think what they like. Not only are there not Thought Police and such a concept is political correctness run amok and a very bad idea, the law only deals with motivations in very narrow circumstances such as premeditated murder. Even then that has more to do with sentencing than with culpability for the act which can be proven without addressing motive. People can think all kinds of crazy things. The problems come when they act upon those thoughts – actus reus. In this instance, Cox’s action was to speak his mind which, as Elaine said, reflected poorly on his professionalism and showed evidence that he was unfit for his job.

  9. Tony C.,

    I take great offense at your remark that I’m trying to mislead people!

    *****

    “You say (and correct me if I have misread) that teachers bitch about their students, and can feel like a student is a loser or an unteachable dummy, they just shouldn’t let anybody know they feel that way.”

    I NEVER felt a student of mine was a loser or an unteachable dummy! I treated ALL my students with respect and kindness.

    You evidently have not read all the comments that I have written about Natalie Munroe on the other thread.

    Students are disappointed if they get a “B” and not an “A” on a test. It doesn’t hurt their feelings. A teacher treating a child with disrespect does more than hurt a child’s feelings–whether you think so or not.

    *****

    You have completely misread my position on this subject–but misreading what other people write in their comments is nothing new for you.

    I’m not going to speak for Buddha. I’ll just speak for myself. I believe that what Munroe wrote on her blog and what Cox wrote in his tweets and on his blog reflect poorly on their professionalism and show evidence that they may be unfit for their jobs.

  10. Tony C.,

    “There was no demonstration that Munroe’s speech caused that. She upset some students, but the school kept functioning. Did they refuse to attend classes? Was there a public uprising? Did other teachers refuse to serve with her? No, no, and no.”

    Do you have proof of that?

    *****

    A group of students organized a protest calling for Munroe’s ouster. Outraged parents asked that Munroe be disciplined. Parents packed a school board meeting in February where school officials responded to them about the teacher’s blog. The superintendent said that no student should be subjected to such a hostile educational environment. Parents interviewed by news media said they do not want the teacher back in the classroom. The district superintendent has said that it will be impossible for her to return to teaching at the school.

    I worked for many years as a public school teacher so I have some idea what must be going on in that school system at the moment. Munroe has definitely caused a problem for the school district and its administration. Now they have to spend valuable time addressing their “Munroe problem.” If Munroe is allowed to continue teaching at that school, administrators will have a constant headache dealing with parents who demand their children not be placed in her class–and with students who will not want her for a teacher. Some of her colleagues will most likely have to teach larger classes because of that.

    You may be of the opinion that what Munroe did has created/will create no adverse impact on school functioning. I think otherwise.

  11. @Elaine: It is just my opinion, but I think that fundamentally what you are Buddha are advocating for is to actively mislead others. As I understand it, Buddha says prosecutors are free to be racist, free to be prejudiced, they just shouldn’t let anybody know they feel that way. You say (and correct me if I have misread) that teachers bitch about their students, and can feel like a student is a loser or an unteachable dummy, they just shouldn’t let anybody know they feel that way. In both cases, they should keep up the pretense of impartiality or the pretense of being non-judgmental to present the appearance of fairness, whether the underlying reality is fair or not.

    As a scientist both by profession and by my fundamental disposition and approach to life, I have a reflexive dislike of actively misleading people. As a believer in personal liberty, I have a reflexive dislike of controlling the speech (or attitude) of others without any concrete evidence that their speech or attitude has done actual harm to others substantial enough to warrant punishment. Hurt feelings by a student aren’t sufficient to me; students get their feelings hurt if you give them a “B” they deserve instead of the “A” they wanted.

    That is the ground I am defending, I see no gain in defending this idea that some pretense or facade of impartiality is more important than the real-world realization of impartiality regardless of the public servant’s underlying feelings.

    As one example, Shirley Sherrod overcame her self-admitted race-based bigotry and saved the property of poor white farmers and poor black farmers alike. How people feel and what they say does not dictate how they will act. What people say may alert us to look at what they then do, but ultimately I think we need to judge people not on what they say, but on what they do.

  12. @Elaine: It looks to me like the only exception they acknowledge is if speech “can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning.

    There was no demonstration that Munroe’s speech caused that. She upset some students, but the school kept functioning. Did they refuse to attend classes? Was there a public uprising? Did other teachers refuse to serve with her? No, no, and no.

    I don’t think the ACLU is as much on your side as you presume; or I think you read something into these statements you want to hear and they aren’t actually saying.

  13. Tony C.,

    @Elaine: As long as we are talking and before I forget, I owe you an apology for the “expatriate” rant. I did not learn the word correctly and I guess I was being ornery. But upon reflection you were right, and I was wrong. So, belatedly — Sorry.

    (That is not said to sway you in the current argument in any way; you just brought it up again, which makes me think it still bothers you, which I feel compels me to admit I was wrong.)

    *****

    Just so you know–it doesn’t bother me. I’m a big girl…and things like that don’t really get under my skin. I brought it up for a reason. I’ll let you draw your own conclusion as to what my reason was.

    You say Buddha is wrong. I think you’re wrong. I agree with Buddha.

    Even the ACLU notes an exception to the free speech rights of teachers outside of school:

    FROM ACLU

    FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS
    Speech Outside of School

    Teachers do not forfeit the right to comment publicly on matters of public importance simply because they accept a public school teaching position. Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance unless it can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning. A teacher’s off-campus statements regarding the war or participation in an off-campus political demonstration are not acceptable bases for job discipline or termination.

    http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/free-speech-rights-public-school-teachers

  14. Whatever, ego-bag. You’re also wrong about something else. You’ve mistaken me for someone who cares what you think.

  15. No, you are wrong. It is your right to be wrong. That doesn’t change that you are still wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that radical speech is protected unless it poses a “clear and present danger.” Yelling “Fire” in a theatre does that; joking about using live fire on protesters does not, advocating for the death and annihilation of people resisting US troops in “war” (if we can call it that) poses no clear and present danger, and especially when the speech is as anonymous as Cox’s certainly was.

    And, jingoistic? Really? My foreign policy is get the fuck out of there; I think we should cut our military budget by 70%. I’m not sure what you mean by using “jingoistic,” but I am no war monger. I hail from the socioeconomic class in this country that fights our wars. I lost a cousin in Vietnam three days after he arrived there, and I have a 19-year old nephew that is a Marine in Afghanistan now. I am hoping he lives through that, I’ve been to enough god damned pointless funerals. I am no armchair chicken hawk, Buddha. So fuck you.

  16. Tony,

    Oooo. The argumentum ab absurdum rises again. I’ve already explained why your bank robbing example is facile.

    Not all rights are absolute, Mr. Binary. It’s a balancing act between your rights, the rights of others and public safety. If you think your right to free speech is absolute, why not try advocating overthrowing the government and see how well that works out for you. Art. III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution defines treason as “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” This includes acts of sedition and insurrection by definition. To be clear, you are free to ferment sedition as a matter of free speech, however, it is constrained by the fact that advocating open war against the government is defined as treason. Just like telling a judge to screw himself is allowed by free speech and constrained by the crime of contempt of court. You have a right under free speech to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but if there is no fire, you are constrained by the crime of incitement of panic (or mayhem or whatever the particular jurisdiction calls it). Just like you are free to advocate violence but constrained by the crime of incitement to riot and/or incitement to cause imminent physical harm. Just like an attorney is constrained by his oath to defend the Constitution and not advocate violence against those utilizing their Constitutional rights to free assembly and petition. Your rights end where others rights begin. If you’re an attorney and bound by your oath, your right to free speech ends where the Constitutional rights of others begins too, but because you are bound by your oath and sworn officers of the court with a duty to defend the Constitution for ALL, your free speech right has an additional level of responsibility. A heightened responsibility. Just like other professions utilizing expert knowledge have heightened responsibilities owed the public, such as doctors, that may constrain their personal actions.

    Since were dealing with the Constitution and American jurisprudence, you should read what I’m going to say about the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the context of the following word’s relevant definition:

    aspiration \ˌas-pə-ˈrā-shən\, n.,

    a : a strong desire to achieve something high or great b : an object of such desire

    The right of free speech is found in the Preamble to this document, which reads:

    “PREAMBLE

    Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

    Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

    Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

    Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

    Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

    Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

    Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.” [emphasis added]

    The right to free speech under the U.N. Universal Declaration are aspirational, Tony, not absolute. Also note the generally aspirational language of the last paragraph of the Preamble. The valid Constitutional restraints upon free speech are tested by jurisprudence and are there to protect others from harm. Contrast this to the manifestly unconstitutional restraint of “free speech zones”, which serves no valid purpose but censorship and repression of dissent – which protects no one but criminal politicians – and under a proper SCOTUS (not the fascist bastards sitting today) any such challenge to “free speech zones” would be found a violation of not just freedom of speech, but freedoms of assembly and petition as well.

    Thrash about all you like, Tony. Absolute free speech is an aspiration – a goal – not the law of the land. In insisting that the right is absolute in matters of employment and for those with professional responsibilities to the Constitution greater than the average citizen, you are not helping matters related to the aspiration toward absolute free speech by attacking issues already addressed in jurisprudence and found to be reasonable and socially desirable upon examination. You are taking your eye off the ball, sport. Because under the heightened responsibility restriction on attorney’s – if it were equally enforced – Yoo and Bybee would be facing dismissal and disbarment for advocating torture under color of authority. Now while Cox’s stupidity doesn’t rise to the level of meriting disbarment (although it would have had his color of office been expressly used for it), it does merit firing as he has an affirmative duty by law not to prejudice potential cases before him in is role as a prosecutor.

    You are simply wrong about the nature of the right to free speech being absolute. It is very broad, there are few exceptions and in many cases such as this one you can say what you will and not face criminal sanction, however, such statements may carry other repercussions like professional repercussions. Like losing your job as a prosecutor after you’ve shown bias in expressing a willingness to use violence to repress the Constitutional rights of others. Constitutional rights you are sworn to uphold equally and for all regardless of your personal feelings toward the parties.

    Wave your flag and be as jingoistic as you like.

    You’re wrong. It is your right to be wrong. That doesn’t change that you are still wrong.

  17. @Buddha: Those are empty definitions of freedom; something is not free if the government can punish you for it, fine you for it, jail you for it, or restrict your ability to do it.

    That is what the government does for crimes, not rights. You might as well say I have the right to rob banks, as long as I’m willing to serve time if caught! A definition of “acts you are free to take” that can be used just as easily for “act you are not allowed to take” is no definition at all, it provides no distinction between those two acts, it imparts zero information about whether one should refrain from the act.

    That is why the “free speech zones” are unconstitutional and reprehensible, my speech is not “free” if my government tells me I can say anything I want as long as I am, for example, not within a 50 mile radius of a government building or elected official.

    Freedom of speech and press are recognized as fundamental rights by the U.N. with the USA as a signatory; the definition being rights without presumption or cost of privilege.

    Because these are denied to some citizens and not others, this violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which applies to any person within the jurisdiction of the state.

    I am dealing with what is, presuming we agree the Constitution exists, and the 1st and 14th Amendments exist. You also deal with what should be, by declaring free speech zones (which are in use, and therefore “exist” now) prima facie unconstitutional. So you do not restrict yourself, here or elsewhere, to only what the law currently says, you are often weighing in on what SHOULD BE. You are no mere reporter, Buddha, you are a thinking person that understands the difference between right and wrong from a position outside the law, just as all thinking persons do. That is why we can see acts that are legal and should not be and we acts that are illegal but should be legal. In fact this is the only way a legislator could ever pass a new law or repeal an old law, by realizing that the state of law is not as it should be.

    I am not saying we agree from our various idealistic positions, we do not. I am saying you have one; and from my position of what should be, these laws restricting the free speech of people speaking as citizens are wrong, and further I am saying I don’t think they can be justified by any reading of the constitution that doesn’t redefine the word “freedom” into empty rhetoric.

  18. Oh . . . and lest I forget, restrictions on advertising are also a permissible restriction of commercial speech.

  19. What you fail to understand is that I have not said he didn’t have the right to say whatever he pleased.

    I said he doesn’t have the right to be free from negative repercussions of said speech.

    You are free to go to court and tell a judge to go screw him or herself. That is your right. It is also within the judges power to put you jail for contempt. There are legal Constitutional restrictions on free speech too aside from the duties of an attorney. Copyright is a form of free speech restriction. So is the rarely applied Miller test for obscenity from Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). It is illegal to incite violence or panic although this is usually governed by local statutes that have been tested. In the Constitution itself there is a prohibition of fermenting sedition.

    That being said, there are also unconstitutional restrictions on free speech, namely the much abused “free speech zones” imposed by the Patriot Act and the manifestly unconstitutional DHS which are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public to the actions of elected officials. However, none of these exceptions other than the notedly prime facie unconstitutional “free speech zones” are illegal.

    The right to free speech comes with responsibilities whether you like it or not and those responsibilities are higher for members of the legal profession than they are for the general public.

    What you got is your overheated ego preventing you from seeing the reality of the situation and the laws. I deal in what is, not what should be, to answer the Professors question.

    If you want to be pissed off about unconstitutional limitations on free speech? You are aiming at the wrong target. The oath and a positive duty not to bias cases before prosecutors are not unconstitutional.

Comments are closed.