Monday Obama-Rama Wankery

I have to admit that Edward N. Luttwak came up with an interesting reason today in the New York Times as to how Barack Obama could be denied the presidency (from here).

In so many words, Luttwak argues that, because Obama’s father was a Muslim, he is a Muslim by default, and by accepting Christianity, he is an apostate…

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

So I guess that rules out Obama meeting with AhMADinejad after all, doesn’t it, since the Iranian figurehead might try to get "ridda" him (sorry).

I think it’s important to note here that the United Nations has something to say on this subject, specifically, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents (New York Convention) here.

As noted here…

(The) Convention, which was ratified by nearly half the world’s nations and most major powers, criminalizes “the international commission of . . . murder, kidnapping, or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person.”76 However, it only accords protection to figures traveling abroad, and not in their home states.77

In a more general sense, Article 4 of the U.N. Charter establishes a right to be free from aggression and the use of international armed force, and has been interpreted to provide that citizens of a nation have a right to be immune from international acts of violence by citizens or military forces of other nations.78 “Article 2(4): All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”79 This statement of high moral principle has been accepted as customary international law, as suggested by the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v. United States. The court found, quoting from the work of the International Law Commission, that Article 2(4) is a “conspicuous example of a rule in international law having the character of jus cogens.”80 The assassination of a foreign leader in peacetime with no provocation would therefore be a prima facie violation of basic international law, as well as murder under the applicable domestic criminal statute.

Am I the only one noting the irony that a law aimed against U.S. intervention in its own hemisphere could be used to protect its own president?

There are, however, two established scenarios in which the Article 2(4) protections against the use of force would be suspended. The first is a military action sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, and the second is an attack made by a victim state in self-defense.81 The right to self-defense is provided to all states in Article 51 of the Charter:”Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, [*PG14]until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”82

When a nation employs Article 51 to justify a use of force in its own defense, or the defense of another state, the laws of war control as they would in any formally declared conflict. Therefore, under an Article 51 action, any state-sanctioned killing by a victim state would not be an assassination so long as it is not accomplished by treachery or outlawry, as described earlier.

And here is a list of U.N. states subject to the Convention.

So in the event of an attack on a hypothetical President Obama in accordance with “irtidad” or “ridda” as noted above, this country would be completely within its rights under the Convention to utterly obliterate the offending party or that individual’s country in self defense.

And it’s a good thing we don’t have to worry about anyone in this country doing anything as loopy as calling for the execution of the head of another country, right (yes, I know he apologized later).

Update 5/14/08: Good stuff on this by Bob Somerby here.