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,
Cox did commit a guilty act. He violated his oath as an attorney by expressing prejudicial and biased enforcement of the Constitution as preferable when he has a duty to protect the Constitution for all citizens, thus creating the appearance of impropriety, and he showed poor judgment in expressing those opinions publicly considering his office carries carries a heightened level of responsibility as a public servant entrusted with the power to prosecute – which by the way, his prosecutions are supposed to be valid under the doctrine of equal protection, not just in favor of his preferred “side”. That his employer is the government is irrelevant other than they have an employer/employee contractual relationship. Because of the nature of his job, he bears more responsibility for his actions in public as his actions in public can – and did – damage the credibility of the office. What he said goes directly to the nature of his employ and his suitability for said employ. It’s analogous to a beer sales man being fired for going in public and saying “the brewery I represent sucks and so does their beer”. It’s his right to say it. It’s his employer’s right to fire him for cause too. This is not some random firing or prosecution of a citizen for spouting nonsense hostile to the Constitutional Rights of fellow citizens. This is the firing of a guy who’s very job is defending the Constitutional rights of ALL citizens because he said he was for unequal treatment and endorsed using violence to support that unequal treatment. One’s ability to prosecute cases in an unbiased manner as required by law is called directly into question by the expression of bias.
The only thing absurd here is the size of your ego that blocks you from seeing the distinction between thought and speech and that some people in society have higher duties of care in their behavior as a consequence of their employ in a position of public trust. Not all rights are absolute, Mr. Binary Thinker, and the terms of certain kinds of employ mean more restrictions than “normal joe’s” are subject to and this includes attorneys in general but those who hold prosecutorial powers especially.
Be as wrong as you like.
Freud: “Thought is action in rehearsal.”
Tony C.,
BTW, Munroe wrote on one her blog posts that she was writing the post while at work.
Tony C.,
Here’s a comment I posted some time ago on the Natalie Munroe thread:
FROM ACLU
FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS
Speech Outside of School
Teachers do not forfeit the right to comment publicly on matters of public importance simply because they accept a public school teaching position. Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance unless it can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning. A teacher’s off-campus statements regarding the war or participation in an off-campus political demonstration are not acceptable bases for job discipline or termination.
http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/free-speech-rights-public-school-teachers
*****
Some questions to consider:
– Would Natalie Munroe’s blog posts about her students be considered a matter of public importance?
– If so, did those blog posts create a substantial adverse impact on school functioning?
– If what Munroe wrote about was not a matter of public importance, can she claim censorship of her free speech rights if she is fired?
And besides being free to think that killing some politicians and businessmen would make the world a better place, the First Amendment gives you the right to say that, without being persecuted or punished by the government for saying that. Do you deny that the Supreme Court has upheld that right, multiple times, including the right to call for the violent overthrow of the government?
Clearly under the law the “action” of speaking is protected from consequence by the government. Do you deny that Cox was fired by the government?
It is you making an absurd argument, trying to equate Constitutionally protected speech with an “action.” You are supposed to be a frikkin’ lawyer, Cox did not commit an actus reus because that is a “GUILTY ACT” and he is not GUILTY of any defined crime. It is not a guilty act without a crime to be guilty of, dufus.
My proof is the English language and the self-evident, Tony. Speech is indeed action. Both linguistically (as pointed out already “speak” is a verb) and physically (the brain sends a signal and your vocal chords vibrate setting up a wave pattern in the air recognizable by the ear as speech or your fingers type a message that is recognized as written communication equivalent of speech). Contrast with with a thought (the past and past participle of “think” and a verb in its own right):
think \ˈthiŋk\, v.t., v.i., thought\ˈthȯt\think·ing
transitive verb
1: to form or have in the mind
2: to have as an intention (thought to return early)
3a : to have as an opinion (think it’s so) b : to regard as : consider (think the rule unfair)
4a : to reflect on : ponder b : to determine by reflecting
5: to call to mind : remember
6: to devise by thinking —usually used with up (thought up a plan to escape)
7: to have as an expectation : anticipate (we didn’t think we’d have any trouble)
8a : to center one’s thoughts on b : to form a mental picture of
9: to subject to the processes of logical thought (think things out)
intransitive verb
1a : to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference : reason b : to have in the mind or call to mind a thought
2a : to have the mind engaged in reflection : meditate b : to consider the suitability (thought of her for president)
3: to have a view or opinion (thinks of himself as a poet)
4: to have concern —usually used with of (a man must think first of his family)
5: to consider something likely : suspect (may happen sooner than you think)
Note that nowhere in the definition of “think” is there an action relating to expression of thought. Why? Because we have separate and distinct verbs for that kind of action – namely “speak” and “write” but also others like “communicate” and “express”.
The difference between thought and action is recognized in the law in the distinction between mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act). You are free to think killing some politicians and businessmen would make the world a better place. You are not free to take actions in furtherance of your thoughts. Again, he’s free to think what he wants but he is not free to take action upon those thoughts without consequence. Actions – including speech – have consequences. This is whether you like it or not.
But you keep making arguments to the absurd since absurd is the very nature of your misunderstanding of rights, duties and professional responsibility as it relates to the legal profession but especially as practice relates to holding an office of public trust and power. Also absurd is your failure to distinguish between thought and action. Again, no one said he can’t think what he pleases nor did anyone claim he doesn’t have a right to express himself, but the fact of the matter is that once he puts thought (mens rea in disregarding the Constitutional rights of others) into action (actus reus in expressing those opinions as both a professional sworn to uphold the Constitution for all and enhanced by his holding power in public trust as a function of his job as DAG), Cox becomes responsible for the consequences of his actions.
Just because you have the right to do something — It does mean you shouldn’t be punished for it by the government. If an act carries the threat of punishment, you don’t really have the right to do it! You guys are twisting the meaning of the word “right,” by your definition I have the “right” to rob the bank as long as I’m willing to face the punishment. That is ridiculous. If there is governmental punishment it implies there is a crime, and if it is a crime then it isn’t a RIGHT.
Of course, Buddha never proves any of my premises are wrong, he just asserts that without proof, even though THAT is wrong.
Speech is not action; we have the right to say anything we want, express any opinion we want. Obviously both making a statement and having a thought involve physical components, we are living beings and do not have thoughts without consuming oxygen. Saying something is not an “action” against another person any more than thinking is an “action” against another person. Speech is conveying an idea, or a THOUGHT, and THAT is what is being protected by the freedom of speech: You can think and express whatever you want and the government cannot stop you, or punish you for that. They can’t fine you, they can’t imprison you, they can’t blackball you or intimidate employers into not hiring you.
Our freedom of speech is a constraint on the government, and if the government can fire people that work for them for what they say in public as private citizens, that is precisely what the First Amendment was written to prevent: The government cannot chill the free speech of its citizens.
Cox’s speech in this case was not an “act” in the legal sense and I think Buddha knows it, it was a hyperbolic expression of hatred or bigotry, neither of which are illegal.
Tony C.,
Buddha wrote: “Except they cease to be thoughts when verbalized, Tony. Speaking and writing are both verbs. You remember verbs, right Tony? They are action words because they connote action. He wasn’t penalized by firing for thinking like a draconian douche bag. He was fired for speaking – e.g. acting – like a draconian douche bag.”
Buddha also wrote: “Apparently you cannot grasp the concept of either responsibility linked to duties or heightened professional responsibility any better than you grasp the difference between thought and action.”
**********
I agree with Buddha. I think Jeffrey Cox and Natalie Munroe should both have understood that what they said publicly could call into question their professionalism and their fitness for their jobs.
**********
Natalie Munroe’s derogatory blog comments–a number of which were laced with profanity–about her students showed her lack of respect for the children who were in her charge. They were also indicative of her lack of good judgment and common sense because she expressed those opinions on a public blog.
Just because you have the right to do something–it doesn’t mean that you should do it.
The Lie That Won’t Die on Hardball: Chris Matthews talks with David Corn and Joan Walsh about Mike Huckabee
Apparently you cannot grasp the concept of either responsibility linked to duties or heightened professional responsibility any better than you grasp the difference between thought and action.
But keep inserting premises that are blatantly false into your rebuttals. That never ceases to be funny. For example, neither Elaine nor myself have advocated thought police. We have in fact gone out of the way to get it through your thick
skullego that he is free to think and say what he likes, but he is not free from the consequences of his actions if they are stupid and ill thought out.Your main gripe seems to be that his stupidity cost Cox money. Well, too bad. A fool and his money are soon parted. Losing money can be a consequence of stupidity. Ask any Wall St. trader or confidence man and they’ll tell you this is true. What Cox said – an action – is prime facie inappropriate behavior from a DAG. It’s just as inappropriate as if he’d said, “I’m all for racial discrimination” or “I’m all for torture”. That you disapprove of his firing on financial grounds is irrelevant. He committed a professional wrong that speaks directly to his competence both as an attorney and to do his job as DAG. As to him losing his job for it? Well cry me a river.
You are simply wrong no matter how many false premises you try to insert in others statements.
@Elaine: A military enlistee is a government employee. I’ve been one. I got paychecks. I talked about the military in a previous post, in fact.
You understood the other sentence correctly. You think a teacher that blogs about her students deserves to be fired for having the wrong “attitude.” Forget her record, or whether this “attitude” actually makes her students any worse in class, just her voicing an opinion is enough to fire her.
And yes, I think Starbucks employees, or bank tellers, or convenience store attendants, or whatever other entry level common job you care to pick, have more free speech rights than what you think teachers are entitled to. You want to restrict their free speech, 24/7, over their attitude or temperament whether it is on the job or not, whether it impacts their performance on the job or not.
Swarthmore mom,
Especially a Baptist preacher who was recently caught lying about Obama in the media on more than one occasion.
Blouise. If Mitch Daniels is the nominee, he might have a good chance at being elected. I am not sure if people really want a Baptist preacher president.
@Swarthmore: I think if Palin announces her numbers will spring back. I think her base is still loyal. Candidates like Huckabee, Newt, Romney, etc, the old-time politicians, they just have too much old video and votes to paper over. Some of them actually want to win, or at least avoid humiliation. Palin isn’t afraid to just be her despicable self. I think it is impossible to humiliate her, and I honestly don’t think she would want to win, she would be much happier with first runner up — and the fame and tens of millions of dollars that go with it.
SwM,
Let’s pray Huckabee gets the nod …
Tony C.,
I wrote: “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?”
You replied: “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?”
*****
I wrote public sector–not military. Can YOU read and comprehend my questions?
*****
You wrote: “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).”
I’m not sure what you’re attempting to say in that sentence. That a teacher doesn’t have to restrict her free speech rights as much as a worker at Starbucks? Can you clarify that comment for me?
@Buddha: I do not argue there are no consequences to speech; my argument is that those consequences should be social, not financial. What you advocate is a completely empty right of “freedom,” it is the exact equivalent of saying, “Sure, say whatever you want, and we will just fine you $1000 every time you say it.”
If financial punishment is the “consequence” then the speech was certainly not free, it costs money. The whole point of free speech is that government cannot punish you for it, and that is precisely what you are advocating in the Cox case, that his superiors in government have the right to strip him of his livelihood and destroy his career for something he said, with zero proof that his speech led to any shortcoming in how he was performing in his day job.
You and Elaine are advocating for government-enforced thought police. And you don’t see anything wrong with that? No wonder our legal system is so fucked up, I have to get to the level of Turley or Greenwald to find a lawyer that can actually think.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50561.html As Palin fades, Huckabee’s numbers rise.
Except they cease to be thoughts when verbalized, Tony. Speaking and writing are both verbs. You remember verbs, right Tony? They are action words because they connote action. He wasn’t penalized by firing for thinking like a draconian douche bag. He was fired for speaking – e.g. acting – like a draconian douche bag.