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
Well gosh, Tony. I guess some of us assholes just understand that with rights, especially when coupled with power, comes heightened responsibility. So how’s your people skills workin’ out for you lately? That was rhetorical, because I can see they are operating the same as they ever were.
Yeah Tony, don’t you know WE Jill’s are the most knowledgeable. You suffer in your ignorance. I just can’t believe that you did not know that. Fool.
Well Tony,
You have failed to shock me into anything. I think a great deal less of you than before and believe you are more interested in being arrogant than an actual discussion of ideas. I’m happy to discuss actual ideas with anyone who doesn’t add insults into their discussion and I’ll leave it at that.
Tony C.,
Do you believe that a public employee should never be fired no matter what he/she says or writes publicly outside of the workplace?
@Elaine: We respect individuals’ First Amendment right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public servants we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for civility.
Ha! Obviously they do not believe in the First Amendment rights. And we should strive for civility? How about telling the truth, you will be civil or be fired, even in your private life, as a private citizen, 24/7, you shall not express an uncivil opinion.
Their actions speak louder than their words. This is lip service to the First Amendment while they rape his First Amendment rights. Cox wasn’t speaking as a public servant or on behalf of his office, and in fact there is no law defining this “higher standard” to which these public servants should be held.
What hypocritical assholes these are, the only “higher standard” they should be held to is to vigorously and scrupulously defending First Amendment rights, not abrogating them.
@Jill: The problem arises in saying all kinds of things that you couldn’t possibly know about me,
No I didn’t, I said all kinds of things I inferred about you, that was the purpose of the “I THINK” qualifier. To signal to readers that this is not something I know, but something I have concluded.
Jill: Have you ever had to confront your own thinking and see if it’s makes sense or not?
Since my job is to figure out things I don’t know, and in fact nobody knows, I am confronted hourly with thinking that doesn’t work, or is based upon unjustifiable assumptions, or has missed important details, or has just come to a dumb conclusion. Most of that thinking is my own. Sometimes it is the thinking of others, in which case I explain to them what I think they were thinking, and they tell me what they were actually thinking, and we correct that failure and move happily on to our next bone-headed error. We call that “progress.” 🙂
Jill: What did you get from doing this?
What I hoped to get was to shock you into realizing the mistake you are making and the consequences thereof. What I got instead is, I don’t have to continue a conversation with somebody so emotionally fragile that I have to triple-check my posts and censor them before hitting enter. I see little point in changing that, it is too taxing to argue with people that are thin-skinned.
Do you believe in free speech or don’t you?
Jill,
I’ve found myself in agreement with Tony on a number of occasions. I’d agree that he makes contributions to this blog. I don’t always agree with the tactics he uses when he’s arguing over an issue with another poster.
Hi Elaine,
I did notice that and I was sorry about it because you are a person of good will and truly open to ideas that are different from your own. I hate it when people who should be allies act badly towards one another. Besides that, I think Tony C. makes important contributions to this site.
Thank you for doing more research on this topic. I appreciate your work/posts.
Jill
Tony C.,
“Finding an excuse after the fact is a weak excuse; Cox was specifically fired for expressing an opinion on the union protesters…”
From TPMDC (2/23/2011)
Indiana Dep. AG Loses Job After Advocating ‘Live Ammunition’ For WI Protesters
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/indiana-dep-ag-loses-job-after-advocating-live-ammunition-for-protesters.php
Here’s the full statement from the Indiana Attorney General’s office on Cox’s firing:
Today the Indiana Attorney General’s Office announced that Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Cox is no longer employed by this agency.
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office conducted a thorough and expeditious review after “Mother Jones” magazine today published an article attributing private Twitter postings and private blog postings to Cox.
Civility and courtesy toward all members of the public are very important to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office. We respect individuals’ First Amendment right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public servants we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for civility.
Jill,
Just so you know–in the past, Tony C. has “gathered, inferred, concluded, deduced” things from my comments too. He was, however, often incorrect in the deductions and inferences he made and in the conclusions he drew about me. He also read into some of my comments things that I had never implied. In addition, he denigrated my intelligence. I’m not sure why he feels the need to do such things when arguing his points.
@Elaine: Finding an excuse after the fact is a weak excuse; Cox was specifically fired for expressing an opinion on the union protesters, and (in my view) an obviously hperbolic opinion not intended to be taken seriously, and on top of all of that he strove to do so as a private citizen without the slightest bit of allusion to his office.
I have not read everything you posted in your comments and do not intend to do so: If he should have been fired for the other offenses you think you found, they should have cited those.
I do not subscribe to the view of dirty cops that some guys are undoubtedly guilty of somethin’, so it is okay to help some evidence into their pockets. If Cox deserved firing, he should have been fired for the deserving reason. He was not. Everything else is extraneous and immaterial; I really don’t care what other crimes he may or may not have committed, THIS incident was an exercise of free speech as a private citizen, and his firing chills and diminishes the free speech rights of all employees, and that is wrong.
Tony C.,
Did you read everything that I’ve posted in my comments? It seems you’re choosing to look at only part of the story about Cox and his firing.
I believe in free speech. With free speech come responsibilties. The second amendment gives Americans the right to own arms. That doesn’t mean Americans can take their guns and do whatever they want with them.
I think that some of the things that Cox tweeted and posted on his blog called into question his fitness for his job. He was a deputy attorney general. Cox tweeted that one should use live ammunition on peaceful protesters who were exercising their free speech rights. He posted on his blog that a black teenager deserved the beating he got from police. I’d say that goes beyond “expressing an opinion about unions in another state.”
Tony C.,
Thank you for owning up to what you said. You are wrong about me. I earlier said I was thinking about the situation and could be letting my own prejudice get in the way of my thoughts on this issue. Why would you slam a person who was honestly seeking out the ideas of people who did not agree with her?
Have you ever had to confront your own thinking and see if it’s makes sense or not? If so, wouldn’t you do so by talking to people who make good arguments for their thinking but have a different take on a situation than you do? That’s what I did.
The problem arises in saying all kinds of things that you couldn’t possibly know about me, which are in fact nasty things to say to another person. What did you get from doing this? You alienated a person who was actually listening to you. That seems really stupid and mean spirited to me. What I’m telling you is, that if you truly want to speak to others who don’t agree with you, if they haven’t shown any nasty or insincere behavior, why treat them as if they have? It’s not a good technique. You should change how you argue to people of good will. I am a person of good will.
@Elaine: I don’t see how expressing an opinion about unions in another state can possibly make somebody unfit for duty.
@Jill: You are correct, I did write that, and it was not a lie: I wrote “I THINK” and I did think that. That is the sense I gathered, inferred, concluded, deduced from your writing; that the reason you are “undecided” and have to “think about” this and “seek additional evidence” is because you don’t believe in free speech, which directly implies that you believe it is proper for employers to punish their employees for expressing opinions, on their own time and in their own name without involving their employer in any way, that the employer simply finds distasteful. That is a vindictive mindset, it is allowing people to exact financial punishment on people for speech they find offensive.
Do you or do you not believe in free speech? From what I can tell, the only reason you can be on the fence about Cox being fired for his blogging is if you do not. Now if you find that conclusion “nasty,” well, that is something we agree upon, even if for different reasons.
Tony C.
Here’s part of what you wrote: “I think you desperately want to justify punishing people for speech you find offensive, and that vindictive emotion” That’s unacceptable. It’s not just stating an opinion, it’s assuming you know that I have vindictive emotions and desperately want to punish people.
I’m still going to look into the matter because an honest assessment of a situation is important to me. But I don’t need to discuss things with people who can’t be decent towards me. It’s not your opinions on the subject that I find offensive, it’s your statements such as the one above that I find unnecessary and quite frankly, nasty.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/jon-stewart-which-republican-will-step-up-to-oust-muslim-socialist-obama-in-2012.php?ref=fpb Jon Stewart on Obama’s potential opponents
Tony C.,
MAY! MIGHT! I think you KNOW exactly what I meant. I apologize if my word usage isn’t up to your high semantical standards. I remember the time you tried to educate me about my use of the word “expatriate” some time ago.
I wrote: “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?”
I’ll rewrite that for you:
What if the public employee’s written/spoken words show evidence that he/she IS unfit for his/her job–or IS prejudiced against certain racial/ethnic groups?
Does that change your opinion?
Quit being mean to the Jill. Tony C., you are being watch and every word you say from now on is being recorded to be used against you. You have the right to remain silent. You also have the right to ignore. You also have the right to disagree. But if you agree with a Jill you give up that right. Now before you give up that right do you understand that everything you say will be used against you. Are we clear. You may proceed now at your own risk.
@Elaine: 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?
No. I have fired about a dozen people in my management career, about half of them for incompetence. An employee is hired to do a job, if they are incompetent, careless or physically or mentally incapable of doing that job correctly, they should be fired.
What I am saying is that, to my knowledge, Cox showed no such incompetence or inability at his job, and if people can be fired for voicing their privately held opinions then we do not have any meaningful right of free speech.
Elaine: 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?
May?!? You think we should punish people for what they might do? If that were true, anybody working should be fired immediately. Because they might steal, or might screw a client, or might start killing people in their office, even if they have never done anything remotely like that in the past. It has happened, hasn’t it?
Employees should be fired for actually screwing up on the job, not because we think they might screw up on the job. If Cox screwed up on the job, like denying justice to a kid he disliked, he should be fired for that, not for something embarrassing he said on a blog post, where there is zero evidence that repellent statement actually influenced his job performance in any way.
@Jill: I wasn’t attacking you; I was stating my position. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “you,” but I wasn’t referring to you personally. So here is a correction:
I think that people may think they are advocating for a more civil union by allowing that just maybe, Cox deserved to lose his job, but instead they are enabling the royal court by helping them to chill free expression.
As for the rest, it is my opinion that you are letting emotion cloud your judgment; if my opinion offends you, then I think you take offense where none is intended. Me failing to point that out would not be a “sincere conversation,” would it?
I don’t think you are vindictive, I think you are mistaken, and I am trying to convince you that the mistake I think you are making is, ironically, just the sort of mistake that hands power to the enemy. To me, it is like trading a queen (free speech) for a pawn (Cox).
There is no hostility in what I am writing; I think perhaps you infer hostility because my conclusions do not sit well with you. It is true I disagree with and disapprove of people that entertain the idea of limiting free speech, but disapproval is not automatically “hostility.”
You do what you want, but how people “feel” about free speech isn’t the issue, my whole point is that if they thought instead of feeling, they would logically defend the principle even if they hated the speech.
Now that is sincere, I double-checked, and if my sincerity offends you, I am not inclined to do anything about it.