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
Right, so what. You claimed my position is due to my ignorance of the legal profession. Your “proof” is that two lawyers agree with you. You speculate other lawyers will agree with you. Your entire argument is that lawyers agree with you, and I am the only one posting my position.
The I show you a lawyer (Turley) that is making, in every essential respect, the same argument as me, on the same blog as me, and then you say that lawyers agreeing with ME makes no difference, it only makes a difference if lawyers agree with YOU.
This is hypocrisy of the first order, Buddha. You are just full of double-think standards, aren’t you?
Then to top it off, you want to declare the issue moot, because Cox can be fired for anything. Of course that wasn’t the question in the first place! He wasn’t fired for his tie, he was fired for his comments, which both I and a non-ignorant lawyer opine should have been protected speech. THAT was the point under discussion; not whether Cox could be fired for a bad haircut.
Just keep squirming; you grow more hypocritical and hysterical with every post.
Tony C.,
I think a number of people who post comments at this blog disagreed with Professor Turley’s opinion on the Citizens United case–as did many of his colleagues. As Professor Turley wrote on his post about the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case: “Many of my friends are on the other side and I understand that this is quite a blow. People of good faith can disagree on such issues.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/
So what? Someone disagrees about a free speech claim. Lawyers disagree all the time and that doesn’t make either of you right. As a prosecutor and sworn member of the bar, Cox is held to a higher standard. The issue is was his behavior sufficient to merit firing. And the bottom line is still IC 4-6-5-1, Sec.1. and Cox’s duty not to prejudice proceeding that might come before his office under Indiana’s Rules of Professional Conduct. The free speech issue is ultimately moot as the AG could fire Cox because he simply didn’t like his taste in ties.
Move those goal posts all you like, Tuba Boy. You still wouldn’t know professional ethics if they bit you on the ass. So you and Cox have that in common. That and neither of you know when to shut up.
@Buddha, as always, your simpleton claim that I am alone in this, and no lawyers agree with me, is refuted by one of the Top 500 lawyers here.
In that article, he says, and I quote,
“In my view, these facts (if proven) would make for a strong free speech claim. […] The connection made in this context to the office was not apparently made by Cox but by Mother Jones magazine. Cox has since closed his blog and regrets causing the controversy. The question is why he was not simply given a warning about such comments and how they reflect upon the office. […] There is obviously a great deal of anger over these comments, but the real question is whether a public employee like Cox has any protection for comments made as a private citizen.”
It appears I am not the only person marching in this band.
As usual Tony, you have your head firmly up your own ego.
You can think inciting violence and derogatory statements against the Constitutional rights of others isn’t inappropriate for lawyers all you like.
The bottom line is this: it is inappropriate behavior for a member of the bar acting as a prosecutor. As a DAG, there is the likelihood that any such cases involving protesters in Indiana could fall within his purview. His statements were an extrajudicial expression of bias. The Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct states that prosecutors “except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.” Rule 3.8 (f). His remarks were prejudicial and indicative of unacceptable bias in his willingness to fairly prosecute labor relations cases for the State of Indiana. That he had no current case at bar is irrelevant. Also, the AG in Indiana has “the power and authority to remove any deputy at any time.” IC 4-6-5-1, Sec.1. Although you’re simply wrong about the appropriateness of Cox’s behavior as a matter of professionalism, this does not change the fact that the DAG job is by law an employment at will situation. The AG doesn’t legally need a reason to fire him although Cox’s conduct indicated a bias unseemly and unfitting in a prosecutor – a more than substantive reason for firing him. Had these remarks gone unnoticed until such a later time as a labor relations case was being prosecuted by Cox, they would have been a show stopper at trial upon their revelation and an even greater embarrassment to the the Office of the Attorney General.
The firing is legal and appropriate.
Like I said, you’re free to be as wrong as you wanna be, wanna be.
Both mespo (mespo727272 1, February 24, 2011 at 8:20 am – To me, the relevant inquiry is whether or not Mr. Cox has the requisite judgment to represent the interests of his client. Given his “vile” statements and the abundant proof of the conscious deliberation of their import both before and after their publication, I am reasonably certain that he does not. In saner times, his law license would be in question as we once believed that the profession charged with representing the causes of the public and honoring the highest ideals of reason and civility while doing so required persons of sterling character. Like so much in the modern times, that time-honored notion seems on the decline.”) and raff (see above), both with legal backgrounds, agree with my assessment and nobody agrees with yours. Maybe that’s because we know what we’re talking about and you don’t. Would you like to ask Bob, Esq. or Mike A. what they think about the matter? Because I’m certain they’ll tell you that you’re wrong too.
Not that that would penetrate your massive ego either.
Enjoy your tuba.
Tony C.,
I see that you like to read selectively. Here’s the other part of the “conduct unbecoming” definition: “Conduct on the part of a certified professional that is contrary to the interests of the public served by that professional.”
*****
A deputy attorney general tweets that live ammunition should be used on peaceful protesters who are excercising their right of free speech–and you consider that a check on the government?????
Indeed, I think a pretty strong argument can be made for the view that the Founders included free speech and a free press in the First Amendment specifically to legalize the incitement of unrest, as a check on government.
As for your definition of “Conduct Unbecoming,” his conduct could not harm the standing of the profession in the eyes of the public if the public did not even know his profession! At the time the conduct occurred all the way up to the MJ article, the public did not. If MJ had not violated his privacy, they still would not.
Tony C.,
I didn’t mention anything about the attorney general’s office. I think that a deputy attorney general shouldn’t be trying to incite violent unrest–that is, suggesting the use of live ammuniton on peaceful protesters. It doesn’t matter whether Cox did it anonymously or not. I would call inciting violence and condoning police brutality (as Cox did in one of his blog posts) to be conduct unbecoming a deputy attorney general.
**********
Conduct Unbecoming definition: Conduct on the part of a certified professional that is contrary to the interests of the public served by that professional, or which harms the standing of the profession in the eyes of the public.
@Elaine: an individual can’t incite unrest with his words if people don’t know the identity and professional position of the person writing the postings?
He can’t create a belief that the AG office is biased or unfair if nobody knows he works for the AG, can he?
It is perfectly legal to use speech to incite unrest as a private citizen, or don’t you understand that “free speech” includes that right?
@Buddha: As usual, you are reduced to assertions of my illogic or contradictory statements which you cannot prove or defend; and claims of what “eludes” me that you cannot possibly know.
As you hoist yourself upon your own contradictions, Tony, it is apparent that while some people can grasp the concepts of professional ethics and the resultant appropriate behavior, the idea simply eludes you.
Tony C.,
“The people he was addressing did not know who he was or what his job was; he could not have incited unrest with his postings.”
*****
So…an individual can’t incite unrest with his words if people don’t know the identity and professional position of the person writing the postings?
*****
“Even the founders exercised their rights to anonymous, pseudonymous speech in pamphlets and letters, presumably to focus debate on their reasoning and to avoid the color of authority.”
*****
Yet, our Founding Fathers could focus debate when they wrote pamphlets and letters anonymously.
*****
I think you may be contradicting yourself.
@Buddha: Yes, times have changed, and your resounding “So What?” sounds just like the country bumpkin response to global warming.
The only thing I am grasping for is some way to help you understand how mistaken you are. What Cox did was vile, but I don’t think he was fired for that, I think he was fired because he embarrassed a politician.
What is the original reason for these rules? To hold public officials to a higher standard of conduct, because failing to do so would create unrest among citizens that felt they were being treated unfairly.
I don’t think that is a good idea; to me hidden bias is worse than open bias because it adds disinformation to the bias, but my opinion on that is besides the point: My point is that Cox claims he wrote the blog with permission from his superiors, he claims he told his superiors what he was writing on numerous occasions, and he claims he specifically avoided any issues in his own state, and he claims he never said he was an attorney or DAG.
So yes, times have changed. The people he was addressing did not know who he was or what his job was; he could not have incited unrest with his postings. Even his name is not enough: Google “Jeff Cox” before the Mother Jones article and pick one:
Jeff Cox: Major League Baseball Third base coach
Jeff Cox: Staff Writer at CNBC
Jeff Cox: Best Selling Author in Management
Jeff Cox: Author, 17 books on wine and food.
Jeff Cox: Biologist on the faculty of University of California, San Francisco.
Jeff Cox: One of the 25 professionals named “Jeffrey Cox” on LinkedIn.
And on and on, with over two million results.
So YES, times have changed: Jeff Cox the Indiana Deputy Attorney General was posting anonymously even when using his actual name, because his actual name is rather common.
Which in turn means those posts could not have created any impression of bias by the Indiana AG office, because nobody knew they came from that particular Jeff Cox.
Personally, I think anonymous speech is one’s right, and MJ violated his privacy by outing him. After the MJ article I’m not sure what should have been done, but summarily firing him because of embarrassment, which is what I think happened, seems out of bounds to me. Perhaps a public apology for this anonymous role-playing online, I don’t know. But I believe in free speech, and I believe people have a right to speak anonymously and have a right of privacy to remain anonymous, as long as their speech does not violate any established law (like soliciting a crime). Also, when speaking anonymously, without regard to anything they do not reveal in their anonymous speech (like their profession, or elected office).
Even the founders exercised their rights to anonymous, pseudonymous speech in pamphlets and letters, presumably to focus debate on their reasoning and to avoid the color of authority.
But times have changed, technology permits a level of anonymity and reach of speech I do not think politicians ever contemplated even fifty years ago. The rules and the law should adapt; they are not a religion and were never intended to be carved in stone.
Tony C.,
You have drawn your conclusion with the information you have. I drew my conclusion with the information I had.
I think it best if one has questions about a situation to seek out information on the subject before coming to a conclusion. I did quite a bit of research on the Internet and read more than twenty news stories about Natalie Munroe. I also watched some news videos about the subject.
BTW, I do know the answers to a number of your rhetorical questions.
@Elaine: I was asking rhetorical questions to illustrate that I don’t think it is as clearcut as you apparently think it is. I did not expect you to answer or care if you did. I think they are probably unanswerable by anybody but her co-workers under oath.
Which I think is exactly how they should be answered, because for public employees I think unilateral punishment by a boss without a fair hearing in front of a professionally impartial judge or mediator is wrong.
I do not like our public services politicized. I do not like them becoming the private fiefdoms of some tiny tyrant, and that is what we enable when we give discretionary and unaccountable powers to a general manager (like a principal, or university President, or state attorney general, or mayor or governor or city manager or chief of police, or whatever the title may be). I am not claiming that is what happened with Munroe; but I don’t see how we can know with the information we have.
Buddha and Elaine,
Well said!
Tony C.,
Why don’t you educate yourself on the case of Natalie Munroe? Maybe then you wouldn’t have to ask me so many questions and could determine whether the school officials were within their rights to suspend her with pay. I’m not your research assistant.
Ooooo. Times have changed. To which I say a resounding, “So what?” The job and responsibilities attached to it have not. The only person here grasping at anything is you grasping at some rationale not to look like a total fool in your gyrations over Cox losing a job.
Like I said, be as wrong as you like, Tony. The only person you’re convincing you’re correct is you. I don’t see any of the other regular posters with legal backgrounds rushing to jump on your lil’ bandwagon of one, now do I, Tony? Maybe that’s because, like me, they know you’re full of crap. Cox was fired for cause and that cause was legal. What he did was inappropriate. Just because you don’t understand why isn’t too surprising considering your previous inability to understand basic underpinnings of law like social compacts.
But you keep telling yourself you’re right, Tony. Marching to your own beat. It’s what you do best. Like a lone tuba player wandering about the field after the game is over.
Typo. I meant “throw under the bus.” I must type “through” a lot.
@Buddha: Oh, his oath! Like Bush and Cheney and Obama and virtually every Congressman and Senator for the last 20 years have been violating their oaths?
Sounds like selective, elitist enforcement to me: If a guy is small enough to through under the bus, his oath matters, but if he ranks highly enough, oath shmoath, do what I say or I’ll have you waterboarded….
It sounds like you are grasping at straws to me. Is there any evidence his prosecutions were not conducted with respect to equality under the law? Is there any chance his purposely provocative speech does not reflect his actual beliefs or conduct, and in fact his entire online personality is just a fabricated role-playing persona? My nephew plays World of Warcraft and is a killing machine online, but has killed very few people in real life. (joke. He’s never even been in a fist fight in real life.)
Cox was not making statements under color of office. I do understand your heightened responsibility argument, but times have changed. Thirty years ago, Cox could not have spoken in public, to a wide audience, without having to presume they would know his job and position. Today he can and did: Nobody knew he was a DAG until the magazine investigated and told people that.
@Elaine: Munroe wrote on one her blog posts that she was writing the post while at work.
When I directly managed employees, I had a written policy against personal work while on company time, or company premises, or using company equipment (including company cars). So I would have disciplined her for that regardless of the content; and if done more than once, I consider it a firing offense (and have fired at least one person for it).
Do you know if the school had a written policy prohibiting this behavior? Is it uniformly enforced on other teachers? Are the blogs and tweets of other teachers monitored for offensive content? When they sign their contracts, are they informed that a condition of their job is a policy of political correctness 24/7? Has the principal or board let this kind of behavior slide for teachers they like or teachers that are more popular than Munroe?
I am just wondering. Laws or rules or policies that are not uniformly enforced are the gateway to abuse of power. Discretion in application is what lets principals, cops, judges, district attorneys and attorneys general all exercise their racism, political disapproval and prejudices at will.