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
Tony C.,
On one of her posts, Natalie Munroe admitted that she was blogging at work. I’d say Munroe was venting more about her students than her job.
I’m a retired teacher. I was a public school educator for more than three decades. IMO, Natalie Munroe doesn’t appear to have the right temperament or attitude that one needs if one is going to work with children. Of course, that’s a judgment call on my part. I would not want an individual like Munroe, who showed such little respect for her students, teaching a child of mine. I think Munroe showed she isn’t a true professional. In addition, one has to wonder what kind of teacher Munroe was if she had such trouble with her students.
@Elaine: I agree with JT, she has a right to free speech, after hours and off the job. She was venting about her job. I don’t think she named any students in particular; if she did they should sue for defamation or something.
I think if you want teachers to comport themselves as complete professionals 24/7 you should pay them for 168 hours a week, which would about quadruple their salary.
@Jill: I think inciting violence against people engaged in legal activity or commerce, even though it is currently constitutionally protected free speech, should not be protected. Again, it rises to action: Simply getting up in somebody’s face, without any contact, can be a legal assault (assault by intimidation, I think; I donate to a battered women’s shelter that has used this law to prosecute enraged husbands).
I think in the case of abortion clinics, the fact of the murders and gunshot wounds and sabotaged cars and even thrown tomatoes and such all suffice to at least meet the threshold of “preponderance of evidence” that the hate speech is resulting in violence and should be legally curtailed. If the doctors and clinic employees and patients are frightened there will be violence, and a judge or jury concludes that is a reasonable fear, I think that intimidation exists and people should be prosecuted for inciting violence and / or committing assault by intimidation.
I don’t think it should be illegal to say “I wish X were dead,” but I also think we are allowing domestic terrorism when abortion clinic employees are, literally, being terrified.
To relate to Mr. Cox’s situation, I would have to express a hateful opinion my employers found offensive or embarrassing. I do express such hateful opinions here (in regard to Republicans, free marketeers, anti-tax fools, sociopathic corporations and politicians) and I comment anonymously, on purpose. I do not serve the public in any way; I am a full-time scientific reearcher, but I think I can relate to Cox a little bit.
Tony C.,
What’s your opinion on the case of Natalie Munroe, the high school teacher who was suspended for writing derogatory comments–some of which included profane language–about her students on her blog?
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/02/15/teacher-suspended-for-writing-critical-comments-on-her-personal-blog/
Tony,
I have three words for you: appearance of impropriety.
How he got “outted” is irrelevant. If he had gone on TV wearing a mask and said the same thing only to later have his identity revealed because his mask tore, he would still be just as culpable for his own stupid statements that even post utterance could be taken as his official view once he is known. Had he said in “private/secrecy”, “I really hate niggers and think they should all just be found automatically guilty of any crime charged”, would that be more acceptable to you? Or less? He’s an official talking about abusing the civil Constitutional rights of others in a serious tone. Not a work of fiction and not in jest. Just because he desired to keep his identity secret does not obviate him from the duties of his office or his duty toward the Constitution as sworn member of the bar and officer of the courts. Whether is words are reflected in the performance of his job are irrelevant. He created the perception that he endorsed civil rights violations by direct statement. That his identity was exposed was merely bad luck for him and good luck for the people of Indiana who would have had to pay the price if he carried this “private” viewpoint into how he conducted his job.
@Buddha: According to the article, Cox did not out himself or claim to be a public employee of any kind; he was “outed” by a reporter that did research. I don’t understand how this statement can be considered “under the guise of authority.”
As for “reflecting poorly upon his office,” that is precisely the mindset I think is flawed, I think you are judging his character and declaring him guilty of a bad mindset, regardless of whether there is any evidence, in his official duties, of failing to seek justice or prevent tyranny.
Tony C.,
If it spills over into action that is definitely a tipping point. I’m still trying to gather more facts to this particular case. And I still want to think about it.
What for example, do you think of words that encourage people to shoot those who work at abortion clinics? People who hate women often post names and addresses of abortion clinic providers/volunteers and talk about how those people should be dead. It’s words, and I believe JT supports this as free speech. Having been on the other side of those words, I consider them threats. What do you think of that situation? Do you relate it in any way to Mr. Cox’s situation?
Except it wasn’t in his head nor was it in a work of fiction, Tony.
It was a public utterance that considering the man’s employ could have been taken as being under the guise of authority and reflected poorly upon his duties to office to seek justice and not promote tyranny. In 98% of the cases, you might have a point, however, good character is a requisite of the job of DAG as is respecting the Constitutional rights of others. Shaving your legs or not attending the Christmas party are false equivalences. Cox said, “You’re damned right I advocate deadly force” on the protesters. Word choice is important and “advocate” has specific legal meaning. No one is saying that he shouldn’t have been able to say it. That is his right. It’s also his right to say something so stupid and contrary to the duties of his position that he can be fired over them. There is no Constitutional protection against self-inflicted stupidity.
@Jill: In the Cox case, I reject the logic that his statements somehow show him to be of the wrong temper or whatever (due to Buddha, I think, but I didn’t have time to reply there).
So this is just about ME and how I think: No, I don’t want my prosecutors to be bigoted or racist. I also don’t want them to be anti-union, or opposed to gay marriage, or anti-welfare, or anti-education, or anti-science, and I don’t want them to grow a mullet, or smoke, or drink alcohol, or to advocate against helmet laws, and on and on and on.
I think people can have opinions (or exaggerate their opinions for dramatic effect, as Cox claims he was doing) that do not impact their job, and I believe people should be considered innocent until there is at least sufficient evidence to raise suspicion. Has anybody shown that Cox let his personal feelings about Wisconsin influence his job in any way? I don’t think there is a shred of evidence of that, and firing a public employee because his behavior or speech is evidence of “bad character” is, to me, simply too weak a justification. If we can do that, can’t we claim an employee doesn’t drive a nice enough car, or we are offended she doesn’t shave her legs every day, or her refusal to attend the office Christmas party is anti-social, and any of these betray character flaws we find unacceptable? What if the prosecutor were attempting to write a novel or screenplay in his spare time, and had a fictional character he invented rape and kill a child? Would those “thoughts in his head” committed to paper disqualify him for public service?
I am not a racist, but it is legal to be a racist in this country, or a sexist, or a religious bigot, or even a novelist. I think firing people for what is in their head is wrong, unless and until what is in their head causes them to fail to do their job, which includes specifically discriminating against those they are hired to serve equally.
That is how I think about it, anyway.
Tony C.
This is an excellent analysis. I appreciate your posts. I am still thinking about the Cox post by JT and what you wrote about it. I’m trying to find more information as to what actually happened in that case and trying to test my own thinking before making any conclusion. I thought you made a strong argument there as well as many strong arguments on this thread. I always carefully consider what you write. Thanks for putting down your thoughts here.
@BdaMan: Even if all U.S. citizens were taxed 100% of their income… it would still not be enough to balance the Federal budget! We’d still have to borrow money, just to maintain the status quo.
That’s absolutely incredible, isn’t it?
Um, perhaps it is not credible because it is not true.
Our budget is 3.5T. We have 153M adults capable of work, and 137M currently working. One T is M*M, so dividing out, the average adult owes $23K for the budget.
At the end of Jan 2011, the average weekly earnings of each adult was $781.81, which works out to about $40,600 per year. So on the face of it, this is not true; $23K is less than $40K.
Further, individual income is not the proper measure: National income (GDP, roughly) is. The aggregate individual income in this nation is $6.2T, but our GDP is $14.5T. So it is only 43% of the total income, and your scenario suggests absolutely zero taxes on any corporate or investment income.
If individuals and corporations and investors shared the burden equally, the individual share would drop from $23K to $9.9K, or about 24% of income.
That of course is to support the federal government, not the state or local government. So people also pay sales taxes, property taxes, license fees, tolls, fines, tickets, state income taxes, gasoline taxes, and make other payments or purchases (like lottery tickets or gate receipts at a stadium or waste disposal fees) that amount to revenue for the various levels of government.
However, the claim that our budget cannot be balanced by our income is false; our income is four times the national budget.
As for our total debt: That is about the size of our national income; but that should not alarm anybody. Almost anybody that has ever bought a house borrowed over one year’s worth of income to get it, and probably three or four year’s worth of income.
We can argue politically over why we are borrowing and what we are getting for it (pointless wars and bank bailouts mostly, IMO) but the level of the deficit is not alarming at all in terms of what we each owe.
Bdaman,
Thanks, but I don’t agree with you. First of all, the average gas price in the U.S. is way over $3.00. I pay $3.49 here in Northern Illinois right now. How the heck did we get on this subject anyways on this thread?
marionnc,
You must have missed one important part of the Republican strategy against Unions. They have been fighting private sector unions and public sector unions. This started full time during Reagan’s time and President George W. Bush also went after them. That is why the union membership has decreased. The Right wants unions removed because of their support for progressive candidates and causes. The Right doesn’t care about the unions except for the power they have to provide the Left with some money and manpower to battle the corporate money that is now overflowing the election process. The union funds are a drop in the bucket when compared to the secret funds from Corporations and the Chamber of Commerce. When you mix attempted levity with unsupported claims, I do not see any humor.
Rafflaw,
I’m not sure how this got from “War Crimes Prosecutions”, to Abortion, to campaign funding, but what the heck let’s just go full circle. Eventually the political merry-go-round should get us back to the get go.
It’s kind of hard to see all of the Citizens United Money flying around, amidst the $600 million unaccounted for Dirty Union Money swirling around the Whitehouse and the State and Federal Capitals.
That’s an awful lot of monetary influence coming from a handful of groups, which only represent 11.9 percent of the workforce, as stated in the 2010 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report.
Personally, I don’t understand why there should be any donations allowed in the Presidential elections?
The networks have no problem shelling out tens of billions each year for the rights to televise sporting events, why not require them all to pay for the right to televise the political games we call our elections.
Then the corporate media and their crony sponsors would be forced to use their money to support our elections, rather than be allowed to financially profit from buying it off.
I must admit that I have a sincere problem with any group that does not represent all citizens, being given such a powerful status for negotiation in our government affairs.
I personally have always had a problem with the fact that private sector Unions are notorious for their membership discrimination against women. However, it is even more disturbing to see the disparity between public, and private sector Unions.
It is quite clear that those who control these Unions seek to control those with-in the government sector at a rate of 6:1.
Even though there is a sizable difference in the overall volume in total, it still warrants a serious degree of suspicion in regards to an underlying motive.
The union membership rate for public sector workers is (36.2 percent) while the rate for private sector workers is a mere (6.9 percent)
The union membership rate–the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union–was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report.
It is evident from the numbers that they target the public sector more so than the private sector. They also reflect that they overwhelmingly use their advantage in favor of a single political ideology.
If there is one place the Unions could best serve the public as a whole, it is in the Private sector. Therefore, if there is one place the Unions could best serve themselves, it is in the public sector.
Perhaps the real reason for granting immunity to mercenaries is so Obama can secretly send Union Mercenaries into Wisconsin to commit some war crimes against the non-union pro-life forces hiding out in the Libyan Embassy.
When there is no longer room for levity, we shall all go insane.
How’s that for full circle LOL?
Raff in case you missed this. The entire article is worth the read when you click the link it plays a video. Try to navigate away from the page and it will ask you if you want to stay then it gives you the text.
In short, I believe that we as Americans are about to see a major, major collapse in our national monetary system, and our normal way of life.
Basically, for many years now, our government has been borrowing so much money (very often using short-term loans), that very soon, we will no longer be able to afford even the interest on these loans.
Again… I say these things as an expert in accounting and financial research.
You may not think things are THAT BAD in the U.S. economy, but consider this simple fact from the National Inflation Association:
Even if all U.S. citizens were taxed 100% of their income… it would still not be enough to balance the Federal budget! We’d still have to borrow money, just to maintain the status quo.
That’s absolutely incredible, isn’t it?
Yet I’ve never seen this fact reported anywhere else.
Even as late as the 1970s, America was the world’s largest creditor. But by the mid-1980s we’d become a debtor to the world. And since the late 1990s we’ve been the world’s LARGEST debtor.
Today, our government owes more money to more people than anyone else in the world.
And that was before the financial crisis!
Just think about the price of oil…
Access to cheap oil has been America’s #1 gift of owning the world’s reserve currency.
This has made gas cheaper in the U.S. than almost anywhere else in the developed world. I know you may think gas prices have skyrocketed in recent years… but look at how much less we pay than other developed nations…
* United States: $2.72 a gallon on average
* Oslo, Norway: $7.41…….. (172% higher)
* Berlin, Germany: $6.82…. ( 151% higher)
* London: $6.60…………….(143% higher)
* Rome, Italy: $6.40…………(135% higher)
* Paris, France: $6.04………..(122% higher)
* Tokyo, Japan: $5.40……….(98% higher)
* Toronto, Canada: $3.81……(40% higher)
And here’s the thing…
If oil is no longer priced in dollars, the price of oil for Americans will skyrocket immediately. It will change our lives, overnight.
Airline travel will get much more expensive. The cost to ship goods by truck to grocery stores around the country will get much more expensive. Farming itself will get a lot more costly… so will commuting to work… taking a taxi… just about everything we do will suddenly get much more expensive.
And just remember: In order for prices to start skyrocketing, all that has to happen is that other countries start preferring payments in something besides U.S. dollars.
The U.S. dollar has been the world’s currency for decades now… so most Americans don’t have a clue about what the repercussions are of losing this status.
You can read the rest here: http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/PPSIM251/PR
BIL,
I understood your quote and apologize if that wasn’t clear. I thought it was a very good point to make and I agree with your expansion of it as well.
Lotta,
The crowds coming out to protest the attack on unions is heartening. Us old guys can still march, but I prefer warmer weather!:)
Swathmore MoM consumer confidence is also at a three year high but will have to wait til the gas prices start hitting everyone’s pocket book. Hope your right!!!!!!
The fact that people are in the street in Wisconsin and people in solidarity with them are marching in other cities are there specifically because Scott Walker is the new governor. This is the fact that informs my political view of the upcoming election.
Americans don’t march until they are personally threatened or harmed, and even then they are reticent. We don’t have a current national tradition of dissent or peaceable assembly. The civil rights movement and Viet Nam were a long time ago.
The people that marched then got old. We (most of us) are old fuckers and many of us simply aren’t physically able to march much farther than a slow stroll to the end of the block to buy a paper- on a good day. Generations of people have been born that have no firsthand experience with the public form of dialogue with our politicians.
Two of the most hopeful things I’v seen in several years is one, the crowd that assembled for Obama’s swearing in: if they will travel in joy perhaps they will travel for rage. Two, the spontaneous demonstration that took place on Wall Street when it was announced in September 2008 that the government would bail out the banks, there were only about 100 people that gathered (if that) but they gathered without prompting or organization. They were just angry and showed up. That’s how it’s supposed to start.
There’s a good argument to be made for going the berserker route, not only to not vote for crumbs from the lesser of two evils but voting for the worst possible candidate specifically to instigate so much shared abuse that it forces people to rebel. I’ve been thinking about the berserker model for quite some time. I’ve never voted using that model before but there’s always a first time.
Jill,
Mine, and more directly Machivelli’s, statement has more to do with the impropriety and poor tactics of relying upon mercenary armies. I’m not a fan of militarism either. A military should be big enough to defend you country and no larger. When they are larger, then someone will eventually be tempted to start wars of aggression. Like, say, invading Poland or Iraq. Excess militarism is a huge waste of resources that society could better apply elsewhere.