John Bolton for President (No Joke!)

by Peter Spiro

From an interview with Jennifer Rubin, a new conservative blogger on the WaPo:

Bolton has begun to talk openly to conservative gatherings and media about his interest in a 2012 presidential run. “I’m seriously considering it,” he told me in an interview, in large part because of the “lack of foreign policy debate.” Having gotten past the idle chatter stage, he says he’s going to make the decision “in a very deliberate way” and suggests that making up his mind by mid-2011 is “not unreasonable.” He contends that he stands as good a chance as anyone. “The race is wide open,” he says.

Is it really that wide open? I don’t see Bolton as someone who would take very well to retail politics, a Pat Buchanan without the charm. But his candidacy would supply a gauge of anti-internationalist sentiment among Republican voters (for what it’s worth, I think it’s waning).

Secretary Clinton Ordered Spying on U.N. Officials: Did Harold Koh Approve?

http://opiniojuris.org/2010/11/30/secretary-clinton-ordered-spying-on-un-officials-did-harold-koh-approve/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+opiniojurisfeed+(Opinio+Juris)

November 30th, 2010

by Julian Ku

Peter’s posts on how Wikileaks actually makes the US and its diplomatic service look fairly good are spot on. The Foreign Service looks a lot more interesting now that I know I get to spy for the U.S., too! But as this article from Slate notes, Secretary Hillary Clinton made it official State Department policy (”The ”National Human Intelligence Directive on the United Nations“) to secretly gather “biometric” and other information on foreign and U.N. diplomats. This is very cool and I am glad to hear that she ordered this, but it is…umm… almost certainly a violation of U.S. obligations under international law. As the Guardian quotes a U.N. spokesman,

Within hours of the release of America’s “National Human Intelligence Directive on the United Nations“, Farhan Haq, the UN secretary general’s acting deputy spokesman, issued a pointed statement reminding member states that the UN relies on their adherence to treaties and agreements about respecting the institution’s inviolability.

“The UN charter, the Headquarters Agreement and the 1946 convention contain provisions relating to the privileges and immunities of the organisation,” he said. “The UN relies on the adherence by member states to these various undertakings.”

He noted a clause in the 1946 convention which states: “The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial, or legislative action.”

Interestingly, the Headquarters Agreement was also adopted by joint resolution of congress, so it is binding law. The argument from the U.S. side, if any litigation ever ensued domestically, would have to be that the Agreement is non-self-executing because it calls for arbitration in the event of any disputes between the U.S. and U.N. But I would be curious to see if there was a legal memo somewhere justifying the legality of the Clinton directive here. And I would love to know how my old lawprof Harold Koh, now the State Department’s Legal Advisor, finessed this issue. Or perhaps it is better to avoid giving these actions the taint of legality?

====================================

What if individual foreign and UN diplomat file a suit under FTCA against U.S.?

(or under tort law against public official, like Padilla's suit against John Yoo, alleging violation of US Constitution)

I mean, the party is not UN but individual.

Nevertheless, US will compel the case to be arbitrated ?