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
@Bdaman: And sometimes you need to stick by your principles.
What you got is nothing, because you don’t answer the central question, first put forth by Turley, as to whether a prosecutor has ANY right to free speech as a private citizen. You keep going to the existing law, which, of course, by your interpretation, says No. You say, “He took an oath!” You say, “Look at the rules on the books!”
But, what we are debating here is whether this law is Constitutional or NOT. Not what the law says now, and not whether the Indiana AG has the right to fire Cox. The question is whether Cox should have the right, under the Constitution, to speak as a private citizen. On the face of it, the 1st gives ALL citizens that right and says NO law shall be passed restricting it. The Supreme Court cases relevant to that law, outlined by Turley, not me, fail to address the question because they specifically refer to public servants speaking as representatives of their office or the government.
These are the issues you are ignoring. You can’t answer to these issues by pounding your fist on the current law, when the question is whether the very law you are quoting is or is not Constitutional.
So you aren’t answering the question. I don’t think Cox should have been fired, I doubt even the At Will clause allows the Indiana AG to fire people for constitutionally protected acts like voting, or for being, say, female, or black, or disabled. Even if it does, that would be a reprehensible act, so if Cox’s speech should be Constitutionally protected, then his firing should be deemed reprehensible as well.
I understand what the law says, I think the law is wrong and unConstitutional.
Bdaman,
Thanks and . . . thanks.
That was a particularly moving rendition of “The Muppet Show” theme.
Tony C sometimes you have to be the bigger man. 🙂
Buddha I’ll say this.
You good boy ( long pause )
Damn good
🙂
This . . .
“I do solemnly swear or affirm that: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any action, proceeding, or defense which shall appear to me to be unjust, but this obligation shall not prevent me from defending a person charged with crime in any case; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client at every peril to myself; I will abstain from offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will not encourage either the commencement or the continuance of any action or proceeding from any motive of passion or interest; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless, the oppressed or those who cannot afford adequate legal assistance; so help me God.”
In encouraging the violation of others civil rights, Cox broke this oath to defend the Constitution by, duh, attacking the Constitutional rights of others.
Plus this . . .
[I]t 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.
Still equals this . . .
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.
That’s what I got.
What you have, Tony, is this . . .
And what I got from you, by the way?
Is exactly what I expected from an egomaniac.
So please! I’m laughing so hard I can barely breathe! Do continue to prattle.
Awwww.
More boo hoo. ROFLMAO
Well gosh Tony, maybe I didn’t like being called a “hypocritical asshole” in your comment that was a response to because I had said attorneys are held to a higher standard.
Like I said, “Don’t start none, won’t be none.”
You sure do project a lot, you simple tantrum throwing child.
Come on. Yell and scream some more. It’s funny.
@Bdaman: Oh we are? I must have missed the memo. Besides, read the posts, I am responding in kind. In this thread, Buddha cast the first insulting remark here.
That was after I said I rejected his argument, but that is not an insult except to children. I responded to his insult with a purposely mild reprovement; and he chose to escalate rather than call it a draw. I have a right to self-defense, dude.
Tony C we are trying, to get away from this type of language.
We may not always be perfect so hold everyone accountable when they don’t met your standards.
You got nothin’, hypocrite. No decent arguments, no decent slurs, just a bunch of empty paradoxical authoritarianism without meaning. I don’t want you to treat me like an adult; or any other kind of superior. I’m pretty good at playing with petulant children, so feel free to stay just the way you are.
Awwwww. More boo hoo.
Grow up, Tony.
Then maybe I’ll treat you like an adult.
See, I knew that “sport” was coming! This is Buddha’s emotional safe corner; some condescending boy’s nickname used by a father. Here’s some more for you, Buddha: Chief, Slugger, Bucko, Champ, Little Man. I’ve heard “Wing Man,” but I’m not sure it has the right condescending tone.
Anyway, mix it up a bit, Sport.
Awwwww. Boo hoo.
If you don’t think I’ve ever collided with the Prof? You’d simply be wrong. I just choose my battles carefully as this is his house, not yours. Plus the Professor always does something you never do. He always treats others with respect so he always always gets it. But more on that in a bit.
I do play nice with you until you give me a reason not to play nice. I’m that way with everybody, no exceptions, no excuses. And do please note that you called anyone talking about a higher standard of conduct “hypocritical assholes” before I started clubbing you over the head. To paraphrase the Buddha, “Don’t start none, won’t be none.”
As to superiority? That’s pretty funny coming from a raging ego maniac, but that said being created equal and equally created are not the same thing. The reason I call your intelligence and logic into question is that they are often suspect and truly backed by little more than your ego. See? When you act like a perpetual douche bag, I’m going to treat you as if you are acting like a douche bag. That’s what caused the communication breakdown over social compacts, Mr. Always Has To Be So Right He Dismisses The Underpinning Of A Profession He Doesn’t Properly Understand. Only that time it was you acting poorly towards others that inspired me to give you the finger. So if you don’t like that you’re getting the sharp end of the stick? That’s the price you pay for having poor people skills, Tony. If that makes you feel inferior, well, that would be your problem to fix, now wouldn’t it, sport? But if you want to play victim, I’m more than happy to laugh at your bruised ego.
@Elaine: As long as we are talking and before I forget, I owe you an apology for the “expatriate” rant. I did not learn the word correctly and I guess I was being ornery. But upon reflection you were right, and I was wrong. So, belatedly — Sorry.
(That is not said to sway you in the current argument in any way; you just brought it up again, which makes me think it still bothers you, which I feel compels me to admit I was wrong.)
@Elaine: I think a number of people who post comments at this blog disagreed with Professor Turley’s opinion …
I think they did too. Did Buddha call Turley an ignorant, stupid, illogical, contradictory, addle-brained buffoon that knew nothing about the law or professional responsibility, and should keep his childish opinions to himself? Or any words to that effect?
Or did they respectfully disagree with Turley and leave it at that? In Buddha’s only response on that thread directly to Turley’s post, (as opposed to sparring with other posters) he made his point without calling into question the intelligence, motives, expertise or legal acumen of Turley. And yes, rafflaw, mespo and others agreed with him; but also did not heap opprobrium or derision on Turley.
This is hypocrisy in action, they are elitists. They hold their tongues when speaking to power, and let fly with their emotional invective when speaking to me about the exact same logic.
Why? I think because for them it isn’t about content or logic, it is about the class they are in; and they see themselves as peers of Turley, and superior to me. Funny, right?
And more to the point, Elaine answered your “question”.
You also are ignoring the issue you brought up was his firing rightful for this reason. Some say yes, some say no (wrongly).
“I do solemnly swear or affirm that: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any action, proceeding, or defense which shall appear to me to be unjust, but this obligation shall not prevent me from defending a person charged with crime in any case; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client at every peril to myself; I will abstain from offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will not encourage either the commencement or the continuance of any action or proceeding from any motive of passion or interest; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless, the oppressed or those who cannot afford adequate legal assistance; so help me God.”
In encouraging the violation of others civil rights, Cox broke this oath to defend the Constitution by, duh, attacking the Constitutional rights of others.
The bottom line is still the following phrase: employee at will.
Repeat it until you understand it.
And you can still blow me.
Well said Elaine.
Blow me, Tuba Boy.