Phanton Menaces

Mark Goldberg catches Fred Thompson in two separate, yet nearly simultaneous, instances of revealing himself to be a moron in ways that don't count as "gaffes" because they were done by a Republican and because they concern important points of diplomacy and international law. First, Fred Thompson said "the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws" but it, um, doesn't say any such thing. Then he went on to say that the UN doesn't recognize the existence of a right to self-defense which, again, it does.

Thompson's ignorance on these subjects is, of course, disturbing. Equally disturbing is that he's clearly going out of his way to work this business into his campaign appearances. It's odd campaign rhetoric that lets you know what interests contenders really think they need to pander to, and apparently Thompson and his staff feel that the black helicopter constituency is a powerful force inside the GOP. And, of course, insofar as they seem like they stand some chance of prevailing upon the Senate to block the Law of the Sea Treaty, that just further confirms it.

Comments

If Fred Thompson actually saw one word of that email to Gun Nut before it was sent, I'll eat his puke-green hard hat. Doesn't mean he should be held responsible for its content, of course, but the real question is who's the fool he has advising him on these issues (and ghost-writing his suck-up correspondence).

Posted by Glenn | October 31, 2007 9:54 AM

Why is this 'gaffe' any more serious than 'Saddam has WMDs' or 'Saddam did not let inspectors inspect'? Since GWB's so-called 'gaffes' did not do much to reduce his chances of victory in 2004, perhaps Thompson is also angling for the support of same set of voters.

Posted by gregor | October 31, 2007 10:01 AM

They're not gaffes because they're not mistakes. He's just lying to a receptive audience. Deliberate act, no embarrassment: no gaffe.

Posted by Adrian | October 31, 2007 10:18 AM

An aside -- your second link is broken. The UN document archive website does not provide stable URL's for found documents. Not sure why, but I haven't been able to find a way to link to most documents in a stable fashion.

Posted by Eric | October 31, 2007 10:31 AM

Thompson may be ignorant, or he may be lying, but he's certainly "bullshitting" in the sense that the truth is irrelevant to his statements. He's signaling to paranoid militia types that he's one of them.

Posted by Charles | October 31, 2007 10:32 AM

I don't usually quibble about typos and grammer, but when you're calling someone a moron, it's best not to have misspellings in large, bold fonts. Or is Thompson somehow menacing Phanton, Australia.

Posted by Njorl | October 31, 2007 11:33 AM

This probably isn't worthwhile, because there's a certain type of person who wants to be taken seriously without bothering to be serious, and unfortunately Matt is that type of person.

The report referenced is titled "SPECIFIC HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES Prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons Final report submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Sub-Commission resolution 2002/25**

The report by Ms. Frey concludes that "Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another."

The report also concludes that international human rights law requires a licensing and registration regime far more restrictive than exists under American law, including a requirement to demonstrate a valid purpose before possessing a weapon.

It's pretty clear that the report referenced isn't consistent with Goldberg's description. What a bunch of morons.

Posted by Thomas | October 31, 2007 12:58 PM

Thomas, you're not reading it in context. The summary to the report you cite makes this clear:

"The principle of self-defense has an important place in human rights law, but does not provide an independent, supervening right to small arms possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of States to use due diligence in regulating civilian possession."

So contrary to what you are saying, the UN does recognize that self-defense is a human right. It just also points out that small arms ownership when it is against laws locally in force is not considered a human right. Nothing the UN says or does, in this report or in any other, has any relevance to the legal gun trade in the US.

Posted by Andrew Levine | October 31, 2007 6:01 PM

It's pretty clear that the report referenced isn't consistent with Goldberg's description.

Perhaps it isn't consistent with Goldberg's description because he isn't describing the report. He's describing the Sub-commission's declaration (btw, here is a different link pdf), which makes no claim about the individual's right to self-defense, no assertion of its own right to amend the Constitution or laws of sovereign nations, and no statement on the need for any any type of "licensing or registration regime." The declaration endorses the principles of the Frey report, as outlined here (pdf), and expresses its desire to further those principles, particularly in areas that have recently gone through armed conflict. When it comes to specific measures, they "urge," not require, states to take certain measures that are much less stringent than those suggested by Frey. I'm sure that's enough to give wingnuts a hissyfit, but to suggest that Americans' Second Amendment rights are are being threatened by the U.N. is sheer lunacy. Also, as Goldberg notes, the Sub-committee is concerned with "post-conflict situations", not doing away with guns everywhere. In fact, in supporting disarmament in war-torn areas, it includes "reintegration" as part of the process (paragraph 13 of the principles). Again, it takes a real conspiracy theorist to suggest that these measures (mild as they are) are intended for the US, rather than countries where the abundance of unregulated firearms are hindering the transition to peace.

What a bunch of morons.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by and showing us how serious people conduct a debate.

btw, since Thomas didn't link to the report that supposedly proves the UN is after your guns, here's a link to the Frey report pdf. The section he quotes is in paragraph 20.

Posted by ibid | October 31, 2007 6:37 PM

Andrew, did you read the quote? It denies that self defense is a right. Saying it is an important principle isn't at all the same thing.

In the end, Thompson doesn't say that 2nd amendment rights are threatened by the UN. He concludes by saying: "The U.N. can say what it likes about other countries’ citizens’ possession of small arms being a violation of human rights law, but so long as the United States is a sovereign nation governed by its Constitution, its words will have no effect here. And I am glad for it."

I, on the other hand, am not so sanguine. My view is a bit like Eugene Volokh's on a related subject: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_01_15-2006_01_21.shtml#1137780446

This also reminds me of my posts from 2003 and 2005 on how emerging "international law" principles can erode the Bill of Rights; as Prof. Peter Spiro, one of the leading U.S. international law scholars wrote in one of the leading U.S. law reviews, the President and the Senate can, in the long run, "insinuat[e] international law" that would create "a partial displacement of constitutional hegemony" (for instance, with "an international norm against hate speech ... supply[ing] a basis for prohibiting [hate speech], the First Amendment notwithstanding"). "In the short term," international norms would and should be "relevan[t] ... in domestic constitutional interpretation." But "In the long run, it may point to the Constitution's more complete subordination."

And the article was both defending the notion that treaties should be able to trump constitutional rights — "If some constitutional norms are more appropriately set at the international level" (and he believes they are), "that should justify a treaty power that, in some cases, overcomes even the Bill of Rights" — and predicting that treaties will over time do so. Courts, he acknowledges, would try to "maintain[] the formal hegemony of the domestic constitution," but "this formal hegemony may disguise a loss of domestic constitutional autonomy over the long run." "Constitutional rights 'adjusted' by treaty norms are changed by them. The Constitution is read to conform with the treaty."

What's more, I've heard international law fans urge that U.S. constitutional decisionmaking should be informed not just by express statements in treaties that the U.S. has signed and ratified, but also by international practice outside treaties, by statements in treaties that the U.S. hasn't signed or hasn't ratified, and by actions of international bodies established pursuant to treaties that the U.S. has ratified. What U.N. commissions say and do may thus ultimately affect not just international politics, but the constitutional rights of Danes, Americans, and anyone else who has a broader view of free speech than the U.N. seems to endorse. That's reason, I think, to pay close attention to how international institutions are trying to establish norms that demand suppression of free speech.
_____

Finally, on the question of tone: reread the post and comments: "moron" "ignorance" "fool" "lying". All on a subject where Thompson is right and these fine folks are wrong. The unearned confidence is really amazing. I mean, what do these folks sound like on the subjects they know something about? (I'm generously assuming that there is some subject they know something about.)

Posted by Thomas | November 1, 2007 1:20 AM

Thomas, you're still not reading it in context. Frey is talking about whether self-defence is an international human right of the type the sub-commission exists to support. And she denies that it is, roughly on the basis that it's an instrumental thing, allowing people to protect other, genuinely fundamental, rights like life, liberty, and bodily integrity. And so it's subject to tradeoff when claims to self-defence would result in, for example, greater loss of life overall.

Frey, like everyone else, recognises that there is a right to self-defence in international law in the ordinary sense that the law doesn't require you to lie down and let the thugs kick you. Hence "self-defence has an important place in international human rights law". Thompson's unqualified statement that the UN doesn't recognize a right to self-defence is one of ignorant, lying or bullshitting, depending on how charitable one feels like being.

Posted by Adrian | November 1, 2007 5:40 AM

Fred Thompson said "the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws"

Thompson is absolutely correct about this. The report says, "Accordingly, States are required to take effective measures to reduce the demand for small arms by ensuring public safety through adequate law enforcement." So states have not only have to fight gun violence, but fight the mere possession of guns.

Further the report says, "it is reasonable for international human rights bodies to require States to enforce a minimum licensing requirement," which includes "proof of a legitimate purpose for obtaining a weapon." I'd call this strict gun control. Everyone has a legitimate purpose for obtaining a weapon, such as for sport or self-defense. What's to prove?

Also check out section 17, which endorse a particular US gun control policy, the ban on "semi-automatic assault rifles."

Posted by Ragout | November 1, 2007 8:35 AM

Ragout:
Thompson said the Sub-commission "declared" it, but the passage you cite (leaving aside the issue of whether it is actually consistent with Thompson's statement) is not in the declaration, it is in Frey's report. This is a crucial distinction, and hopefully one a presidential candidate would understand. Also, the report does not say proof of legitmate use is a requirement in paragraph 16; it says that "most [existing] licensing procedures consider" that particular measure, among others. And it does not "endorse particular US policy," it supports the U.N. guideline of "prohibition" (not necessarily permanent), which was "adopted to give meaningful protection to other core human rights obligations", which is a much different purpose than that of the U.S. ban.

Thomas:
It's true that Thompson didn't use the word "threat" and made the same point as Goldberg about the U.N. not having the power to change our laws. However, I said he suggested it was a threat, which I think he was pretty clearly trying to convey to a pro-gun audience. You might have a different explanation of why he would dwell on "a call for international gun control" and equate it with "forced disarmament" in a hunting magazine. And as long as we're discussing semantics, the word "require" is what is really problematic. The Sub-commission has not "required" anything. Either Thompson is lying to make it sound more threatening, or he doesn't understand what the U.N. is actually doing.

Finally, in terms of tone, seriousness, civility or whatever you want to call it, I would contend that there is a difference between calling a public figure a moron and calling other commenters with whom you are directly debating morons. And just because you say Thompson is right doesn't mean he is. To be generous, he confused the declaration with the report (probably intentionally to make it sound more ominous, to be less generous), said the U.N. requires states to do things that it doesn't actually require, and completely misrepresented the objectives of the Sub-commission by claiming (sorry, suggesting) they are trying to regulate guns everywhere, not just in war-torn areas. If he's not "wrong" then he's just lying.

Posted by ibid | November 1, 2007 5:46 PM

Ibid,

Your distinction between the declaration and the report is, at best, highly misleading. First. the declaration calls for strict gun control just as the report does. The declaration says, for example, "Governments shall enact licensing requirements...Governments shall require training in proper use of small arms, and shall take into consideration...[the] requested purpose." Wouldn't it be more honest of you to acknowledge the obvious fact that the report is hostile to private possession of firearms?

Further, judges on the ICC and similar courts generally consider international law to be customary law. Hence, when the report claims that "most [existing] licensing procedures consider" the intended use, the report is claiming precisely that this kind of gun control already is international law.

Finally, courts often consider legislative intent when interpreting laws, and the report is exactly the kind of thing that courts view as informative about legislative intent.

Posted by Ragout | November 1, 2007 7:32 PM