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.
1, March 2, 2011 at 7:09 am
@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….
=============================================
I know … I’ve been saving that phrase hoping there would be a perfect place to use it but it had to be with a poster who had a sense of humor and a thick skin.
Keep on keeping on …
I particularly enjoy the debates you and Elaine have and I always learn something no matter what the subject you two are discussing. (I hope you take this as I mean it to be … a constructive criticism … sometimes you needlessly insult her which takes time away from the valid points both of you are making)
@Elaine: Certainly people that work in the military do not have the rights of people that work in the private sector. Do you not believe that? And it is YOU that thinks a teacher must self-restrict her own free speech rights to less than, say, a Starbucks employee (no disparagement of Starbucks employees intended).
It is YOU that thinks a teacher (and I am not talking about Munroe here), even on her own time and even on her own dime must maintain a 24/7 public facade of loving caregiver or whatever, that it is “unprofessional” of her to even pretend to tell parents their kids are the spoiled brats they are.
It is YOU that thinks a public employee should be stripped of the right to complain in public about her charges, and should be fired if she reveals her actual attitude.
It is YOU that wants to punish people for their thoughts instead of their actions, not ME.
Buddha,
“No one is demanding that Cox suppress anything. He can say what he likes, when he likes. He is also free, just like you are, to be as stupid as he wants to be but he is not free to be free of the consequences of his own stupidity. Stupidity like saying that he’s for the draconian and violent suppression of others Constitutional rights when he is a sworn defender of said Constitution.”
*****
Amen to that!
Tony,
When I’m wrong, I’ll admit it and I have admitted it, your recollections not withstanding. I’m just not wrong this time. No one is demanding that Cox suppress anything. He can say what he likes, when he likes. He is also free, just like you are, to be as stupid as he wants to be but he is not free to be free of the consequences of his own stupidity. Stupidity like saying that he’s for the draconian and violent suppression of others Constitutional rights when he is a sworn defender of said Constitution. Stupidity like inserting the premises of absolutes into my argument where they do not exist. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
As to overheated egos? Well, your posts speak for themselves, Projection Boy.
Tony C.,
“The real point to me is this: Ever since I served in the military, it has seemed to me that a system of rights that demands public employees give up their rights is paradoxical. It creates a caste system of citizens with diminished rights (and in the military, even a different justice system with fewer protections) and citizens with full rights.”
Are you implying that people who work in the private sector have more rights than people who work in the public sector…that people who work in the private sector can’t be fired for things they say? Really?
*****
Kagan really had to recuse herself from some cases because she had served as Solicitor General for the Obama Administration. That’s quite a different story from a deputy attorney general who thinks it okay for police to beat up citizens.
@Buddha: Ha! How pathetic you get when you cannot admit you are wrong. There is no responsibility attached to the right to life, no obligation to do anything to keep that right. I have admitted I am wrong on these comments several times; while I do not recall you ever doing that. I think the inflated ego belongs to you, not me.
@Elaine: Has it not occurred to you that if Cox received such a case, he could recuse himself, or ask one of his 143 fellow attorneys to trade assignments with him? When a judge recuses himself, it doesn’t disqualify her from being a judge. Look at Kagan, I think she’ll set a new record for recusals (just snarking, I don’t know what the record is).
Demanding that public employees have zero prejudices and zero political opinions and never get emotional and never say anything politically incorrect is simply impossible, they are humans and can’t help it.
Demanding that they suppress these feelings in public, 24/7, may actually produce more harm than good: Because then we would have a greater concentration of closeted racists, misogynists and bigots running our public services. But to me that possibility is besides the point.
The real point to me is this: Ever since I served in the military, it has seemed to me that a system of rights that demands public employees give up their rights is paradoxical. It creates a caste system of citizens with diminished rights (and in the military, even a different justice system with fewer protections) and citizens with full rights.
I believe all citizens should be equal under the law, including politicians, prosecutors, teachers, cops, soldiers and civilians. I was a soldier for a few years, and saw no good reason other than authoritarian tradition to strip me of my rights. I’ve consulted for both city and state public services offices, and see no reason for those employees to be stripped of rights either.
What people say is not proof of what they will actually do, by a long shot. When someone says, “Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out,” they are joking, it is hyperbole, and there is no reason to believe they will ever take a step to make that happen. Pretending that a joke reflects a true intention is the lie and the real crime, like prosecuting such a guy for conspiracy to commit murder.
That is what happened to Cox. There is no evidence that anything he said was reflected in anything he did on the job.
No, Tony, thank you for continuing to prove your ego prevents you from thinking properly.
That’s always amusing.
As to the right to life, you are correct in that you cannot lose the right by failing to defend yourself. What you neglect to realize is that such failure is an abject failure of your responsibility to yourself to protect that right.
The only thing I see ludicrous around here is the sheer staggering size of your ego. Well, in truth it’s not the only ludicrous thing I see, but it is pretty damn funny.
@Buddha: Talk about absurdities; a responsibility owed “to me by me”? It’s a good thing you are laughing, Buddha, because that is a pretty comical load of crap. You are trying to twist the meaning of the word into pretzels, and I’m not buying pretzels today.
My right to life carries absolutely zero “responsibility” with it; a responsibility is a burden that, if I fail to carry, loses me a right. I cannot LOSE my right to life by refusing to defend it; a man does not even have to KNOW he has a right in order to have that right (for example, a right to a public defender, or Miranda rights, or a right to a trial). Your definition of “responsibility” is ludicrous. If people have rights they don’t even know they have, do they have responsibilities they don’t even know they have?
And, what exactly makes if a “responsibility” that is attached to the “right” if it is impossible to lose the right by failing to meet the “responsibility?”
Thanks for the laugh.
“duties based on rights founded in law.”
Ooooo. Argumentum ad absurdum, Tony. Careful you don’t get any of that absurd on you. See, the problem with that form of argument is you have to know what the Hell you are talking about to make it work. The responsibility to protect yourself is owed by you to you, sport. Not all responsibilities are owed to the law even if they are created from duties founded in law. Just like the responsibility for saying or not saying stupid things that could bite you in the ass is owed by you to you and is a consequence of the right to free speech. If you fail in that responsibility, there are going to be consequences. If you hold certain public trusts, like that of a DAG, that duty has commensurately higher levels of responsibility and possibly more severe personal and professional consequences for failing in exercising that responsibility responsibly.
But please, try to argue against the fundamental principles cause and effect as related to choices in actions. It’s not only funny. It’s the very portrait of absurd.
Oops. Looks like you got some on you anyway. Thanks for playing.
Tony C.,
You said: “What I do NOT believe in is punishing people for what others perceive as a personality flaw or character flaw. I THINK (meaning I have concluded) that is what YOU, Elaine, are willing to do, and if my conclusion is correct I think you are wrong to think that way.”
*****
I’m going to do some thinking and concluding of my own.
My response to you: I think that a deputy attorney general who thinks that it’s okay for police to beat up a black teenager in their custody has a definite character flaw. I think that if you think that a deputy attorney general who thinks that it’s okay for police to beat up people in their custody isn’t a problem for his department and that his expressing such thoughts publicly (whether on his own time or not) doesn’t call into question that person’s fitness for his job–then I think that you are wrong to think that way.
@Buddha: All of your “responsibilities” are just more rights. I have no “responsibility” to defend my life against those that would take it, I have a RIGHT to defend my life against those that would take it. If somebody succeeds in killing me because I did not defend myself, the jury is not going to say, “OH, well, Tony ignored his responsibility to defend himself, we can’t convict this guy of murder. I mean, he wouldn’t have murdered Tony if Tony had just, you know, shot him first — But Jesus, Tony wasn’t even carrying a gun! How irresponsible can a person be? LET THIS MAN GO!”
@Elaine: I think racism and bigotry are learned; and since I believe they are founded in flawed principles and misinformation, and yes, I do think such prejudices are personality flaws. That said, I also think there is a difference between holding a prejudice and acting on it.
I do not think that people that hold prejudices, secretly or publicly, are incapable of self-control.
@Ms. Chavez: I doubt we are kin. Do you hail from Brooklyn, or NYC? Three of my grandparents were all immigrants that stayed there, right around WW-I. My maternal grandfather was a crazy Irish sailor/gambler married four times, and was successively while I was growing up: a trucker, a truckers-restaurant owner, a co-owner in a dude ranch, a coastal fishing boat captain, the owner of a movie theatre, and then back to trucker (but not a driver, he owned a firm with five trucks and did the selling). So if that guy sounds familiar, it is entirely possible we are related!
Tony C.,
Do you think racism and biogtry are personality/character flaws?
Tony,
“Rights do not necessarily carry responsibility at all, in fact in this case that is illogical. A right to say anything I want does not automatically carry its negation, some responsiblity to be careful about what I say.”
Oh, but it does. Speech, like all actions, can have consequences – both bad and good. That is not a negation of the right. That is a reflection of the rules of cause and effect.
“My former right to habeas corpus did not carry a responsibility, it was simply a right. More specifically, a restriction on what the government could do to me. (Sadly gone, nowadays).”
Your right to habeas corpus did come with a responsibility. The responsibility to stand up for and insure that that the right of habeas corpus is not abused. This responsibility does not negate the right. It reinforces it.
“My former right to life did not require a responsibility to die,”
No, but it goes with the responsibility of protecting your life from those who would take it.
“my former right to be free from unwarranted search did not require a responsibility to permit search anyway.”
No, but it, like habeas corpus, comes responsibility to stand up for and insure that that the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized is not abused.
“My still existing right to spend my take-home pay as I see fit does not carry any demand I spend or save responsibly.”
No. Once again, there is no protection from self-inflicted stupidity.
“You sure are a rigidly rote thinker, Buddha.”
Project much? For if you have demonstrated anything Tony, it is that your ego keeps you from exhibiting any flexibility of thought.
Nice try though.
Thanks for playing.
Tony C., Do you think we are kin? Is your last name Chavez? That is ok if it is not. You are pissing on the powers that are or were but are now here.
@Ms. Chavez: Thank you for your support.
@Buddha: Rights do not necessarily carry responsibility at all, in fact in this case that is illogical. A right to say anything I want does not automatically carry its negation, some responsiblity to be careful about what I say.
My former right to habeas corpus did not carry a responsibility, it was simply a right. More specifically, a restriction on what the government could do to me. (Sadly gone, nowadays).
My former right to life did not require a responsibility to die, my former right to be free from unwarranted search did not require a responsibility to permit search anyway.
My still existing right to spend my take-home pay as I see fit does not carry any demand I spend or save responsibly.
You sure are a rigidly rote thinker, Buddha.
@Elaine: Do you believe that a public employee should never be fired no matter what he/she says or writes publicly outside of the workplace?
I think it depends on what they are talking about. I suppose it is possible for somebody to say something publicly that makes it impossible for them to continue to do their job, particularly if they are saying something about their job, like (being over the top to be perfectly clear) “I try to give as little aid to non-Christians as I can get away with.”
I think a statement like that causes problems in the office; because now a whole class of clientele doesn’t trust the employee, and has a reasonable basis for claiming discrimination by the entire office. It invites class action.
If they are disclosing “insider” information, meaning information they can only have gleaned by working in the office, or they are talking about an issue over which they wield actual influence (like who gets aid and who doesn’t), then their public statements are inextricably linked to the workplace, and may be actionable.
What I do NOT believe in is punishing people for what others perceive as a personality flaw or character flaw. I THINK (meaning I have concluded) that is what YOU, Elaine, are willing to do, and if my conclusion is correct I think you are wrong to think that way.