• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump administration to threaten ICC judges with sanctions, prosecution

Good questions.

First, the UN - International relations. However, we don't, nor have we ever, given the UN power over our country or our citizens. The UN is a place where the world's sovereign nations come to discuss relations with each other, and try to come to agreements regarding numerous subjects such as fighting world hunger, fighting global disease, increasing education opportunities and medical care of children in the undeveloped world, and many other subjects - including security but the military peace keeping security missions of the UN are not the primary purpose of the UN. The UN has no legal power over the US.

Second, NATO - NATO is a treaty between the US and a bunch of other sovereign nations where we all agree to assist each other militarily for mutual defense. NATO has nothing to do US sovereignty, but the NATO treaty has been ratified by the Senate so it has the power of law under the Constitution within the US.

Third, Extradition - The US has treaties with numerous nations. One part of many of our treaties, or it could actually be a stand-alone treaty with the US, are what are referred to as Extradition Treaties. Here's a link to a wiki page that describes what basic US extradition law entails - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States.

I hope this helps.

But but but our SOVEREIGNTY
 
The US is not part of the ICC because we are a sovereign nation and refuse to subordinate our sovereignty to anyone.

Rationalize it as you must sir. The fact remains that the US violates any law it pleases any time it pleases. Indeed, our illustrious congresscritters have been the most effective domestic enemies of the US Constitution in the country's history.
 
Rationalize it as you must sir. The fact remains that the US violates any law it pleases any time it pleases. Indeed, our illustrious congresscritters have been the most effective domestic enemies of the US Constitution in the country's history.

No rationalizations - no emotions - no judgments. Just the law and the facts.
 
No rationalizations - no emotions - no judgments. Just the law and the facts.

Correct. And the facts are that the US has violated so many international laws that it is very easy to understand why they are not members of ICC. Not just international laws are violated by the federal government, but also domestic statutes such as those against torture in Title 18, and of course constitutional law such as 4th Amendment and Habeas Corpus.

Rationalize it as you need sir.
 
Correct. And the facts are that the US has violated so many international laws that it is very easy to understand why they are not members of ICC. Not just international laws are violated by the federal government, but also domestic statutes such as those against torture in Title 18, and of course constitutional law such as 4th Amendment and Habeas Corpus.

Rationalize it as you need sir.

Again, I'm not rationalizing anything. If you'd like to bring up accusations of criminality, that's fine, but it doesn't change the facts.
 
Good questions.

First, the UN - International relations. However, we don't, nor have we ever, given the UN power over our country or our citizens. The UN is a place where the world's sovereign nations come to discuss relations with each other, and try to come to agreements regarding numerous subjects such as fighting world hunger, fighting global disease, increasing education opportunities and medical care of children in the undeveloped world, and many other subjects - including security but the military peace keeping security missions of the UN are not the primary purpose of the UN. The UN has no legal power over the US.

Second, NATO - NATO is a treaty between the US and a bunch of other sovereign nations where we all agree to assist each other militarily for mutual defense. NATO has nothing to do US sovereignty, but the NATO treaty has been ratified by the Senate so it has the power of law under the Constitution within the US.

Third, Extradition - The US has treaties with numerous nations. One part of many of our treaties, or it could actually be a stand-alone treaty with the US, are what are referred to as Extradition Treaties. Here's a link to a wiki page that describes what basic US extradition law entails - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States.

I hope this helps.

If we have treaties and extradite US CITIZENS to other countries...there is nothing in our sovereignty that prevents us from extraditing a US citizen to The Hague. In fact, we have an extradition treaty in place with Belgium since 1997.
 
If we have treaties and extradite US CITIZENS to other countries...there is nothing in our sovereignty that prevents us from extraditing a US citizen to The Hague. In fact, we have an extradition treaty in place with Belgium since 1997.

The UN is in New York, yet nothing about the United States or any treaties with other countries that we are party to have anything to do with the UN. Same with Belgium and The Hague (a city in Belgium like New York is a city within the US). The ICC is located in Belgium but they are two completely different entities and would require two distinctly different treaties because Belgium's treaties with the US has nothing to do with the ICC.
 
Again, I'm not rationalizing anything. If you'd like to bring up accusations of criminality, that's fine, but it doesn't change the facts.

Are you claiming that a fact is the government has not committed war crimes?

What is your view of the facts regarding the ICC and its relation to the US? If everything you have is sovereignty, that quality belongs to the individual, every individual, and must be protected by the law.
 
The UN is in New York, yet nothing about the United States or any treaties with other countries that we are party to have anything to do with the UN. Same with Belgium and The Hague (a city in Belgium like New York is a city within the US). The ICC is located in Belgium but they are two completely different entities and would require two distinctly different treaties because Belgium's treaties with the US has nothing to do with the ICC.

They are located in Belgium, we have an extradition treaty with them...if someone committed a crime on FOREIGN soil and are extradited...how is our sovereignty being violated?
 
Are you claiming that a fact is the government has not committed war crimes?

What is your view of the facts regarding the ICC and its relation to the US? If everything you have is sovereignty, that quality belongs to the individual, every individual, and must be protected by the law.

Holy ****, that was a hard left turn just to get to some sort of accusation about me. No. I'm not. And, I'm not talking about herpes either to make sure I didn't get accused of that as well.

To recap - I haven't claimed anything, I've simply been discussing facts regarding the law with a tad of international relations thrown in. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
They are located in Belgium, we have an extradition treaty with them...if someone committed a crime on FOREIGN soil and are extradited...how is our sovereignty being violated?

To answer your question correctly, I need you to answer the following:
1) Which they are you talking about in the very first word in your question? The ICC?
2) When you say we have an extradition treaty with them, which them are we talking about at that point? The ICC or Belgium?
3) The someone that you state commits a crime; are they a US citizen or a foreign national?
4) When you say that the crime was committed on foreign soil, it depends on the citizenship of the person committing the crime and where it was committed. Are we talking about a US citizen that committed a crime on foreign soil, or are we talking about a foreign national that committed a crime in the US which would be foreign soil to them?
5) Where is the person being extradited, to the US or from the US, and did the US request the extradition of the person to the US from a foreign nation or did a foreign entity request that the US extradite a person to them?

Without those questions answered (and maybe even more) it's impossible to give you an accurate answer. However, I'll try to give you a basic SWAG of answer here:

If the US extradites a US citizen in compliance with an extradition treaty that has been ratified by the Senate, then our sovereignty is not being violated.
 
To answer your question correctly, I need you to answer the following:
1) Which they are you talking about in the very first word in your question? The ICC?
2) When you say we have an extradition treaty with them, which them are we talking about at that point? The ICC or Belgium?
3) The someone that you state commits a crime; are they a US citizen or a foreign national?
4) When you say that the crime was committed on foreign soil, it depends on the citizenship of the person committing the crime and where it was committed. Are we talking about a US citizen that committed a crime on foreign soil, or are we talking about a foreign national that committed a crime in the US which would be foreign soil to them?
5) Where is the person being extradited, to the US or from the US, and did the US request the extradition of the person to the US from a foreign nation or did a foreign entity request that the US extradite a person to them?

Without those questions answered (and maybe even more) it's impossible to give you an accurate answer. However, I'll try to give you a basic SWAG of answer here:

If the US extradites a US citizen in compliance with an extradition treaty that has been ratified by the Senate, then our sovereignty is not being violated.

Citizenship doesnt matter when it comes to extradition...we extradite US citizens for committing crimes in foreign countries...the ICC is located in Belgium...we extradite to Belgium. Further we have a hustory of extraditing people from elsewhere to the ICC.
 
Citizenship doesnt matter when it comes to extradition...we extradite US citizens for committing crimes in foreign countries...the ICC is located in Belgium...we extradite to Belgium. Further we have a hustory of extraditing people from elsewhere to the ICC.

I made a statement earlier that you may have missed. The Kingdom of Belgium is not the ICC. The US has an extradition treaty with the Kingdom of Belgium. That has nothing at all to do with the ICC. We have treaties with other countries that we extradite to, under those treaties. If those countries forward the person on to the ICC is not our affair - just as it wasn't the US concern when Slobodan Milosevic was handed over by the Yugoslav government to UN war crimes tribunal officials (even though the UN is located in the US, in New York City) while on his way to the Hague for trial over atrocities in Kosovo.
 
Btw...a good portion of our soldiers are NOT US citizens

1) War crimes are ultimately defined and prosecuted by the victors.

2) US military members in war zones are not subject to the local laws (for the most part) - because it's a frigging war.

3) US military personnel on foreign soil during peacetime are subject to SOFA's, as I stated to you earlier in this thread, which may or may not preclude prosecution of US forces under local laws.
 
I made a statement earlier that you may have missed. The Kingdom of Belgium is not the ICC. The US has an extradition treaty with the Kingdom of Belgium. That has nothing at all to do with the ICC. We have treaties with other countries that we extradite to, under those treaties. If those countries forward the person on to the ICC is not our affair - just as it wasn't the US concern when Slobodan Milosevic was handed over by the Yugoslav government to UN war crimes tribunal officials (even though the UN is located in the US, in New York City) while on his way to the Hague for trial over atrocities in Kosovo.

It doesnt matter if they are Belgium or not...the ICC is in their jurisdiction
 
The right of a country to refuse to extradite one's own nationals is probably the greatest single obstacle to extradition.58 The United States has long objected to the impediment,59 and recent treaties indicate that its hold may not be as formidable as was once the case. U.S. extradition agreements generally contain three types of nationality provisions:

The first does not refer to nationals specifically, but agrees to the extradition of all persons. Judicial construction, as well as executive interpretation, of such clauses have consistently held that the word "persons" includes nationals, and therefore refusal to surrender a fugitive because he is a national cannot be justified.... The second and most common type of treaty provision provides that "neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens or subjects.... " [Congress has enacted legislation to overcome judicial construction that precluded the United States from surrendering an American under such provisions.60]…. The third type of treaty provision states that "neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens under the stipulations of this convention, but the executive authority of each shall have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper do so."61

These three types of treaty provisions have been joined by a number of variants. A growing number go so far as to declare that "extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought."62 Another form limits the nationality exemption to nonviolent crimes.63 A third bars nationality from serving as the basis to deny extradition when the fugitive is sought in connection with a listed offense.64 Another variant allows a conflicting obligation under a multinational agreement to wash away the exemption.65 Even where the exemption is preserved, contemporary treaties more regularly refer to the obligation to consider prosecution at home of those nationals whose extradition has been refused.66

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-958.html#_Toc463609369
 
We objected to refusals of extradition based on nationality....so now how can we object based on nationality? Hypocrisy
 
Citizenship doesnt matter when it comes to extradition...we extradite US citizens for committing crimes in foreign countries...the ICC is located in Belgium...we extradite to Belgium. Further we have a hustory of extraditing people from elsewhere to the ICC.

Extradition is the process of surrendering a person to another country (or state) for trial. We can only extradite FROM US soil, so I'm not sure what other places we've extradited from. We could extradite someone to Belgium for crimes committed there. We would not extradite to the ICC, because we don't recognize their authority over US citizens. Although the ICC is located in Belgium, it's not a part of it.
 
Extradition is the process of surrendering a person to another country (or state) for trial. We can only extradite FROM US soil, so I'm not sure what other places we've extradited from. We could extradite someone to Belgium for crimes committed there. We would not extradite to the ICC, because we don't recognize their authority over US citizens. Although the ICC is located in Belgium, it's not a part of it.

We have the ability to extradite to Afghanistan...and or Iraq.
 
We objected to refusals of extradition based on nationality....so now how can we object based on nationality? Hypocrisy

Probably need a more specific example on this. If a Canadian murdered someone in Michigan and fled across the border, we would expect them to honor their extradition treaty with us and send us their citizen for trial. However, the ICC is not a country, we have no treaty regarding it.
 
We have the ability to extradite to Afghanistan...and or Iraq.

Absolutely -- and that would be the appropriate venue for crimes committed in those countries.

In the case here though, US soldiers are likely covered by a status of forces agreement, which would dictate the process for crimes committed there.
 
People on the right STILL aren't getting this, it's just not registering in their consciousness. Russia won, don't you understand this yet? Putin had one goal in mind when he selected the useful idiot Trump. Putin is a smart ex-KGB agent, he knew exactly what it would take to divide this country and create chaos. He knew very well it would only take a dishonest, lying, populist, racist, Islamophobic like Trump to accomplish that, and he succeeded.

The Democrats are in no means perfect, but at least no Democrat in Congress willing to prostitute themselves for power and money in exchange for the freedoms and democracy of our 260 year history. How much clearer do we need to make this?

View attachment 67240157

Democrats are all about making money through politics. I have no idea what bad things you Think Trump is doing to this nation but I do know some bad things democrats have done. Bill Clinton sold US military technology to the Chinese for money. Barack Obama gave billions of US cash dollars to terrorist states and enemies of the US. Hillary sold US uranium assets to the Russians for personal contributions to her private self-serving foundation.
 
Back
Top Bottom