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: I have already provided enough detail and outrage on this thread to prove I won’t vote for Obama no matter WHO the alternative is, or HOW much worse they may be. (Ron Paul, for all the dumbfuckedness of his ill-conceived libertarian dogma, at least has principles and has been willing to both speak and vote his principles regardless of the political blowback he knows he will suffer.)
You simply do not comprehend the failure of your relative-good system! I frankly find that level of shallowness in logical thinking incomprehensible, and the fact that you still think you were right to bring the Trojan Horse inside the gates after the soldiers are out and slaughtering the citizens, and you are prepared to do it again, is simply astounding to me.
Tony C, Let’s have this discussion after the republican primaries when your alternatives to Obama become more clear. You might like Ron Paul.
Sorry, spelling. “naive.”
@Swarthmore: I guess you know more about abortion rights that NARAL.
I guess I know more about human psychology, sociopathy, and understanding the criminal mindset than either you or NARAL. Perhaps both of you are irretrievably niave. This whole idea of relativism, once again put forth by rafflaw that “Obama is better than the bottom feeders on the right” is what has led us to this impasse: A President that openly asserts the right to kill American citizens without either charges or trial, a President that protects torturers, tortures whistleblowers, and has redefined the justice system so that the government cannot lose (“If we can win a trial, we try them, if we can only win a military tribunal, we’lll do that, if we have no evidence at all, we will just ‘detain’ them indefinitely.”)
We have a President that, to reduce a deficit, will throw under the bus aid for the neediest and most fragile of citizens, in order to shower political and financial favors on the least needy and least fragile of citizens.
We have a President that lied about transparency, lied about deals with pharmaceuticals and insurance companies. We have a President that asserts the right to read your every email and posting, record your every phone call and monitor your every financial transaction, without limit, without warrant, without suspicion.
His administration asserts the right to strip search you without warrant before you board an airplane, and if you do not submit you can be fined, arrested, and imprisoned.
We now have a President and administration so authoritarian, unfair and vindictive that common people are afraid to donate to causes they believe in, like defending Wikileaks or Bradley Manning.
This is where the relative-good political argument has led, to the point where this pathetic excuse for freedom is better than the “alternative.” What you have here is proof that this stubborn refusal to ever take a temporary loss in order to make a principled stand will inevitably lead to a complete loss of all principles.
As before, I agree completely the bottom feeders are worse. But in 6 years the Democrats will be worse than the current bottom feeders, because they will embrace every ugly policy of Obama’s and a slew of new ugly policies besides. The bottom feeders in 6 years will be even worse than those guys, to provide the necessary relative-evil needed to get them elected. There is no stopping point, it is an infinite descent, powered by this same cowardly “relative-good” argument, that thinks a half loaf is better than nothing, so a quarter loaf is better than nothing, so a slice is better than nothing, so a crust is better than nothing, so a half a crust is better than nothing, so crumbs are better than nothing, so promises of future crumbs on the next loaf are better than nothing.
Obama is not the candidate of the Koch Brothers. That speaks volumes to me.
Raff, Elaine, and Swarthmore
Back when Obama was still Sen. Obama, I made a choice to never vote for somebody that has broken, or advocates breaking the UN Convention against torture. In my opinion “barring the prosecution of any U.S. officials for ordering or carrying out torture of detainees in violation of a host of international agreements.” Sure seems to fit that bill.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
“Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.”
I consider human rights important. Regardless of the gender of the person in question. When the choice is between somebody who wants to violate a woman’s rights, or somebody who wants to violate a foreign national’s rights, the answer is: neither.
Buckeye,
I love the pizza idea.
Typical for an administration who’s greatest claim to fame is the continuance of the previous criminal enterprise posing as a presidency.
Blouise
I’m strapped for time and this should probably be on another thread, but if you’re going to the Columbus rally tomorrow (or any other time) maybe you could give us the name of a Pizza Parlor where we could order pizzas for the troops.
I can’t march, but I can buy pizzas. Just a thought. The organizers should always include this on their websites. :-}
Blouise,
I am guessing that there are a fair amount of CIA contractors on the scene.
raff,
Who knows … there may be a disgruntled CIA employee out there who would like to tell a story ….
Sarthmore Mom,
You are correct, in my opinion, that voting for any of the current crop of right wing candidates will set the country back even further. The war on women that we have discussed on these threads will become a blitzkrieg on women.
Lotta,
I am very interested in your comment about dog does the US have in the Libya fight. Is it possible that we have significant CIA exposure in the Libya demonstrations?
Blouise,
I hope your idea for a novel is not accurate. It is too scary to imagine.
Elaine,
You are right when you say Obama makes it harder every day for progressives to back him. I will be happy to support a progressive candidate who has a legitimate chance of winning in 2012, but if none is found, Obama, even with these faults, is better than the bottom feeders on the Right.
Another example of whats up is down and whats down is up:
“The Obama Administration Inserts Provision Into UN Security Council Measure To Protect Mercenaries From War Crimes Prosecutions”
Heres another,I heard this one this morning:
“THE HILL POLL: On shutdown, more voters would blame Democrats
By Erik Wasson – 02/28/11 06:11 AM ET
Twenty-nine percent of likely voters would blame Democrats for a government shutdown, compared to 23 percent who would hold Republicans responsible, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.”
http://thehill.com/polls/146361-the-hill-poll-more-voters-would-blame-dems-than-gop-for-shutdown
What??
Tony C I guess you know more about abortion rights that NARAL.
@Swarthmore: For political reasons, Demcorats in the House and the Senate have refused to stand up against infringement on abortion rights; even in their latest “signature” effort, the Health Care Bill. They put politics before principle, even when they have an overwhelming majority.
That will continue to be the case, and if you think they won’t throw abortion rights under the bus for political expediency, you are sadly naive. The crop of Democratic politicians we have now are mostly weeds that prevent real liberalism from growing; they have moved further to the right than Nixonian Republicans just for campaign cash and to please corporate donors. THAT is what relative-good politics gets you, creeping financial corruption in the name of “practical” politics and a complete abandonment of all principle.
Abortion rights are not in danger from Republicans, they are more in danger from Democrats that are afraid to stand up to Republicans on behalf of basic civil rights.
So yes: If the right to abortion gets infringed, people will suffer and die until we start to stand up for our rights. Politics is a life and death game, and this relative-good argument is going to cost lives already. In health care, in heating aid and food aid and educational aid to the poor. Lives will be ruined, and people will die. That is where relativism in politics has brought us, and will continue to deliver us, and in the end it is clear that Democrats will not defend abortion rights at all, they have already proven time and again they will back away from that fight in a heartbeat.
True enough, Elaine, but I don’t think a republican victory and a hard turn to the right will help. The republicans will get more court appointments and the setback will be insurmountable in terms of women’s rights.
eniobob
1, February 28, 2011 at 10:03 am
What is going on ???
==================================================
It must be a lot worse than even we imagined. The cover-up is almost desperate in its intensity.
I suspect that numerous governments, not just our own, would be destabilized should prosecutions take place for, once opened, the spigot of documents, images, and testimony would gush across the world like a giant tsunami.
I further suspect that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama at the beginning of his term was not at all what it appeared to be.
“The committee said it honored Obama for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
“Obama said he viewed the decision less as a recognition of his own accomplishments and more as “a call to action.”
In my opinion the real message was “shut the f**k up and we’ll make your life easy.” Obama’s “call to action” was the promise of “no action”.
In other words, “Message sent and received.”
It would make a very interesting novel.
From TPMDC
Report: U.S. Has Wasted Tens Of Billions Of Dollars On Contractors In Iraq And Afghanistan
Susan Crabtree | February 28, 2011
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/report-us-has-wasted-tens-of-billions-of-dollars-on-contractors-in-iraq-and-afghanistan.php?ref=fpb
Excerpt:
A new report from a bipartisan commission set up to scrutinize the unprecedented use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan concludes that the United States has wasted tens of billions of the nearly $177 billion that has been spent on those contracts and grants since 2002.
The report, titled “At What Risk? Correcting Over-reliance on Contractors in Contingency Operations,” said its estimate may even understate the problem because it may not take into full account ill-conceived projects, poor planning and oversight by the U.S. government, as well as criminal behavior and blatant corruption by both government and contractor employees.
“For many years,” the report says, “the government has abdicated its contracting responsibilities – too often using contractors as the default mechanism … without consideration for the resources needed to manage them.”
The commission, chaired by Michael Thibault, former deputy director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and former Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) holds a hearing Monday to review the new report’s findings.
About 200,000 contractor employees are working in Iraq and Afghanistan — a number roughly equal to the American military forces deployed there, according to the report. Their work includes guarding bases, building facilities, providing food and laundry services, escorting supply and personnel movements, and translating local languages.
The current unprecedented reliance on contractors reflects a reduction in support functions the military provides and urgent needs in the two combat zones, but it occurs at a time when federal capabilities for managing and auditing contracts have suffered from years of staffing cuts and weak inter-agency coordination, the report says.
Swarthmore mom,
I understand your position. Still, the President makes it ever more difficult for a person of conscience to support his candidacy for a second presidential term.
Tony c. I guess women can go to the back alleys temporarily since abortion laws will only be changed temporarily.