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.,
You wrote the following…
To me: “I believe the question is whether they rise to the level of a crime, and if punishment can be unilaterally exacted by employers for such speech made as a private citizen, then such speech has been effectively criminalized; and free speech rights are abrogated for anybody with an employer.”
To Jill: “I disagree. It is based upon Mr. Cox’s statement with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Or at least until there is some evidence that he committed a crime, which on the face of it and with the evidence thus far, he did not!”
**********
Are you saying that unless an employer has evidence that a public employee has committed a crime that the employer has no right to fire the employee? What if the public employee’s written/spoken words show evidence that he/she may be unfit for his/her job–or may be prejudiced against certain racial/ethnic groups?
**********
Did you read the Mother Jones article? Cox also had a blog.
Excerpt from the MJ article:
As one of 144 attorneys in that office, Jeff Cox has represented the people of his state for 10 years. And for much of that time, it turns out, he’s vented similar feelings on Twitter and on his blog, Pro Cynic. In his nonpolitical tweets and blog posts, Cox displays a keen litigator’s mind, writing sharply and often wittily on military history and professional basketball. But he evinces contempt for political opponents—from labeling President Obama an “incompetent and treasonous” enemy of the nation to comparing “enviro-Nazis” to Osama bin Laden, likening ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Service Employees International Union members to Nazi “brownshirts” on multiple occasions, and referring to an Indianapolis teen as “a black teenage thug who was (deservedly) beaten up” by local police. A “sensible policy for handling Afghanistan,” he offered, could be summed up as: “KILL! KILL! ANNIHILATE!”
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters
Tony C.
Back off. I’m not your enemy. I am sincerely trying to understand how I feel about this issue and the hostility in what you’re writing isn’t helping me!
I mostly agree with you and I may end up agreeing completely on this issue. I need to come to my own conclusions through a process that makes sense to me, one that has served me well over time.
When I can look up information then I will have a better idea. When I have time to think about this, I will come to a conclusion. You should quit making statements like I am vindictive. That’s not true, and I resent it. I was having a sincere conversation with you and that’s what I’d like to keep it at! O.K.?
@Jill: Let me pick this apart a little, I think emotionalism is clouding your judgment.
… if we didn’t live in an open state of lawlessness for officials.
Not for all officials, the lawlessness is for celebrity officials. And celebrity in general; look at the lawlessness of Charlie Sheen, Bill Mahr, etc. The law is (largely) circumvented or diminished for those that can command the spotlight of the media, and the longer they can hold it, the more lawless they can be. Power today is the power to get the TV cameras rolling.
To be clear, that power has to be evident to all before the crime is committed, not after.
These people know nothing will happen to them, so they can admit to and perform the most horrific crimes with impunity.
Obviously Cox does not fall into the class of celebrity pol: He was fired. Something did happen to him. He was neither a celebrity or leader when he made his blunder. Which, I repeat, was not a crime.
If somebody can be fired for doing something that is not a crime, they obviously do not have any impunity; Cox can’t even get the machine to defend his Consitutional rights!
The people you are talking about have extra-Constitutional rights; Cheney (and Obama) flout international treaties and the Constitution as if these things were never written.
Some of what you argue may or may not be true because it is only based on Mr. Cox’s statement (as JT mentioned).
I disagree. It is based upon Mr. Cox’s statement with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Or at least until there is some evidence that he committed a crime, which on the face of it and with the evidence thus far, he did not!
This is why I would like to investigate information from Mother Jones and other sources to better understand what may have transpired.
Waste your time as you see fit. Nobody disputes his version of the story; nobody has identified a crime or how a crime might have been committed; not even a misdemeanor on his part. This was protected speech (and as the Supreme Court has held, even violent speech is protected).
I think you desperately want to justify punishing people for speech you find offensive, and that vindictive emotion is driving you to conflate a dim-witted minion (Cox) with the evil sociopaths that really are immune from prosecution. But attacking Cox plays into their hands, because they don’t like free speech either.
The founders were right; free speech and the right to put it in writing are the primary dangers to this protected class. Information and organization and concerted action (as in Egypt) can break their hold and bring them down. It is why they are spending millions to chill Wikileaks, and billions to try and get a handle on the oceans of emails, tweets, and other postings. The more excuses you hand them to suppress speech and frighten people away from speaking out, the happier they are.
You may think you are advocating for a more civil union by allowing that just maybe, Cox deserved to lose his job, but instead you are enabling the royal court by helping them to chill free expression. When people fear losing their job, which in turn may mean losing their house, career, and savings — The royals don’t need a law, they don’t need to worry about that pesky Constitution, because a massive deterrent is already in place, and you will have helped build that wall.
I believe in free speech, and I think there has to be evidence that a crime was actually committed and somebody’s speech was partially responsible for that crime being committed before any action is taken to punish the speaker.
We punish crimes in this country. Not hyperbole, and not hypothetical crimes that might happen if somebody took the nutcase literally.
@Blouise: Was that a humble brag?
Ha! Absolutely!
No, I was trying to emphasize the corporate distance. The closest I have gotten to our President is his signature on my appointment letter, and I doubt he even read my name while signing it. Just another one in the batch….
Which is where Cox sits in relation to Walker; and why I find the idea that Walker is taking notes from Cox so ludicrous.
That is a truly disgusting thing for and American President to do.
“That would be like me writing a blog and thinking that College Presidents (about four layers of management above me)” (Tony C)
Was that a humble brag? 🙂
Tony C.,
You’re right to point out that is would be done covertly if we didn’t live in an open state of lawlessness for officials. From much of the behavior of our “leaders” I cannot say I believe they even bother to care whether they are publicly exposed or not–see open admissions of war crimes by Dick and George for example. These people know nothing will happen to them, so they can admit to and perform the most horrific crimes with impunity. Some of what you argue may or may not be true because it is only based on Mr. Cox’s statement (as JT mentioned). This is why I would like to investigate information from Mother Jones and other sources to better understand what may have transpired.
Let me do that and I’ll catch you on another thread where we can return to this topic. I appreciate your arguments.
Tony C.,
I beg to differ. It IS about Munroe. It is about whether or not she is fit to be teaching our children. What she wrote about her students called into question her judgment, her temperament, her attitude about her students, and her professionalism.
“That sort of advice, when given seriously, is whispered lips to ear.”
Unless you’re an idiot.
Again, there is no protection from self-inflicted stupidity.
@Jill: Except, Cox never claimed to be part of the government, and never tried to act as a government functionary, and has said he purposely used provocative commentary to stir up outrage, and he purposely commented on national news stories well outside his jurisdiction (and outside his state) specifically to avoid a conflict of interest in commenting on anything that might remotely be in his wheelhouse.
So I think your characterization of his action — One government official recommending something to another — is completely off base. It was on a blog, he probably had no idea or expectation that a governor of another state (a position three or four layers of management above his own) might be reading his little rants.
That would be like me writing a blog and thinking that College Presidents (about four layers of management above me) from other states are reading my blog for advice on how to run their university. That’s delusional conspiracy theorist territory.
I am far more inclined to think he was “inspired” by the Libyan government using live ammo on their protestors, and callously thought it would be funny to pretend to advocate the same thing against union protesters. I doubt he even considered the prospect of being taken seriously, I’d bet it was a stupid joke when he wrote it. Simple mindedness is common as dirt and would explain these actions completely.
On the other hand, your explanation does not sound realistic: If he truly intended to seriously recommend that somehow gunfire break out and violence be incited, don’t you think he might do that covertly, instead of posting the recommendation under his own name on a public forum? That sort of advice, when given seriously, is whispered lips to ear.
Hi Tony C.,
Still thinking! The reason I asked about the abortion clinic is because like that case, I’ve done protests. I belong to groups which the govt. doesn’t like–peace/social justice and counter recruitment groups. So I’ve had some fun adventures with the govt. including having my picture taken for being at a school board meeting. I’ve also physically seen my name (and others in the group) on a govt. list where it was checked off as I entered a meeting. That means they knew I and other people planned to be at the meeting in advance. (This happened under the reign of Obama BTW.)
Gov. Walker had seriously considered hiring thugs to stir up trouble in a peaceful protest, something every two-bit dictator will always do if they can get away with it. So when Mr. Cox recommended live ammunition whose use would likely be occasioned by the plan to hire thugs, I’m not happy with one public “servant” recommending live ammo against the public to another public “servant”.
I’ve seen govt. surveillance up close and I’ve seen agent provocateurs in peace groups. That surveillance and those provocateurs are both engaged in illegal actions. I think Mr. Cox knows about this type of govt. illegality because of his job. Therefore, I don’t think he should be recommending live ammunition when he fully knows what his state, other states and the Federal govt. does on a regular basis–try to incite violence and crack down on peaceful demonstrations.
I’m listening to what you write so don’t think I’m not, but that’s how I’m leaning as of now.
@Elaine: Okay. No, I didn’t read her comments; I did not think Turley would leave out anything particularly pertinent. The point isn’t your experience, or my (hopefully permanent) lack thereof, or whether I approve of her comments, I am sure I would not. I also find racist and sexist and anti-semitic comments repellent.
I believe the question is whether they rise to the level of a crime, and if punishment can be unilaterally exacted by employers for such speech made as a private citizen, then such speech has been effectively criminalized; and free speech rights are abrogated for anybody with an employer.
That is my opinion, that without some tangible proof of harm being done by a person’s speech, their speech should not be punished just because others don’t like it, even a vast majority of others. To me this is the nature of free speech, we are not censored. We can be held responsible if we incite or provoke a crime, but “hurt feelings” over something said is not a crime.
Now in Munroe’s case, writing this stuff while on the clock may muddy up the “private citizen” vs. “official capacity” question. But the point isn’t about Munroe specifically, the point is about whether we shall have a creeping takeover of our private lives and private speech by corporations and institutions imposing financial consequences upon us for impolite or offensive speech.
They’ve already done that for the mainstream media; they are so afraid to make any offense that might cost them advertising or their lucrative access that they have abandoned all but the pretense of actually reporting those ugly facts. Since they have had such a great success there, maybe it’s time to roll that out to the citizenry at-large. They can start with these distasteful cases, but eventually on this path, criticizing our government or protesting the corpocracy in general will just get us fired.
Blouise
I tried but couldn’t get through on any sites. I finally emailed the president of Ohio AFLCIO (they had no event listed for 3/1) but got no reply. I might have done better by mapping it and picking the closest Pizza place. I still think it’s a good idea and maybe one they will use in future. Thanks for your interest.
rafflaw Does it matter to the Nobama people?
rafflaw,
Regarding Newt: I’ve never trusted a man whose head is bigger than the trunk of his body.
😉
Tony C.
Please note that I said it was a judgment call on my part. Did you read all the comments Munroe made about her students that I posted in the comments on the other thread? I do know how to make a deduction. I worked with a few teachers over the years who had a bad attitude and who didn’t particularly like kids. They were not very effective in the classroom.
I was a teacher for more than three decades. I know how irritatting children can be at times. If I needed to vent my frustrations, I did so with other teachers in a classroom or the teachers’ room–or at home. That said, there was never a time when I viewed my students in such a negative light as did Munroe. Maybe Munroe should do a little soul searching to see if she may be part of the problem.
BTW, Munroe was not fired. She was suspended with pay.
All right now. Newt Gingrich, the family values champion of the Right is going to join the fray and make a public spectacle of himself. Wasn’t he forced to resign??
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50430.html Gingrich will announce Thursday. Finally, a candidate is going to announce an exploratory committee. Looks like he has plenty of energy companies as donors. I think Bachmann would make a good running mate for him.
I have decided that I am no longer a fan of Jill’s. I think it is best that I change my name so I don’t get imagined that I am like the other one by by name. I think she is anti union, a homophobic and a antichrist. She attacks people for not agreeing down the line with her. It is her social club and I do not want to play with her no more.
@Elaine: Well, how can you be certain that her “attitude” translates into harm to the kids? Perhaps venting about the kids is cathartic for her, and gives her the mental elbow room to deal with them without resenting them so much that she disses them in person.
Not everybody thinks the same as you (or me) and not everybody deals with stress in the same way. This idea of pre-emptively firing a person because there is some chance her attitude will adversely affect her actual teaching performance is troublesome to me; it sounds like the thought police.