• 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

ObamacareFail said:
You do understand that the ICC is in Belgium, right? The cases that are being referred to them did not take place in Belgium.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, they took place in Afghanistan...Afghanistan has signed...since the crimes took place in Afghanistan, there is jurisdiction.
Remind yourself why we attacked a sovereign nation in the first place...remember the war in Afghanistan took place, not in retaliation for 9/11, but because they wouldn't fork over Osama Bin Laden. So why should every country in the world be expected to fork someone over on our demand, but we don't do the same?
 
apdst said:
That's already been investigated, charged, tried and convicted.
Click to expand...

Not by the ICC and Afghanistan it hasn't....my point was this is proof of the fact that war crimes occurred there, no matter how much you want to pretend they didn't.
 
I would like to see the USA try it they would be basically declaring war on the EU ... it would make all US bases vulnerable to attack in Europe

https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law

U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law
White House


Print
(New York) - A new law supposedly protecting U.S. servicemembers from the International Criminal Court shows that the Bush administration will stop at nothing in its campaign against the court.

U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on "national interest" grounds.

"The states that have ratified this treaty are trying to strengthen the rule of law," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "The Bush administration is trying to punish them for that."

Dicker pointed out that many of the ICC's biggest supporters are fragile democracies and countries emerging from human rights crises, such as Sierra Leone, Argentina and Fiji.

The law is part of a multi-pronged U.S. effort against the International Criminal Court. On May 6, in an unprecedented move, the Bush administration announced it was "renouncing" U.S. signature on the treaty. In June, the administration vetoed continuation of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia in an effort to obtain permanent immunity for U.N. peacekeepers. In July, U.S. officials launched a campaign around the world to obtain bilateral agreements that would grant immunity for Americans from the court's authority. Yesterday, Washington announced that it obtained such an agreement from Romania.

However, another provision of the bill allows the United States to assist international efforts to bring to justice those accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity - including efforts by the ICC.

"The administration never misses an opportunity to gratuitously antagonize its allies on the ICC," said Dicker. "But it's also true that the new law has more loopholes than a block of Swiss cheese."

Dicker said the law gives the administration discretion to override ASPA's noxious effects on a case-by-case basis. Washington may try to use this to strong-arm additional concessions from the states that support the court, but Dicker urged states supporting the ICC "not to fall into the U.S. trap: the law does not require any punitive measures."

etc etc etc
Click to expand...
 
ClaraD said:
It doesn't matter, they took place in Afghanistan...Afghanistan has signed...since the crimes took place in Afghanistan, there is jurisdiction.
Remind yourself why we attacked a sovereign nation in the first place...remember the war in Afghanistan took place, not in retaliation for 9/11, but because they wouldn't fork over Osama Bin Laden. So why should every country in the world be expected to fork someone over on our demand, but we don't do the same?
Click to expand...

This is why.JPG
 
ClaraD said:
Are you going to continue trolling, or do you have something to add to the thread?
Click to expand...



The United States invasion of Afghanistan occurred after the September 11 attacks in late 2001, supported by close allies. The conflict is also known as the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Its public aims were to dismantle al-Qaeda, and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power.
 
holbritter said:
The United States invasion of Afghanistan occurred after the September 11 attacks in late 2001, supported by close allies. The conflict is also known as the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Its public aims were to dismantle al-Qaeda, and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power.
Click to expand...

No, its aim was to get Osama Bin Laden. We were pissed that they wouldn't hand him over, so we bombed them and went to war. Here we are in 2018, 17 years later and we are still at war in Afghanistan...so what did we accomplish?
What is incredibly hypocritical is we demanded they turn Osama over to face trial for crimes against humanity...yet, now that the shoe is on the other foot, instead of acting like adults, we are throwing a temper tantrum and making threats....welcome to the third world.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From the CBC

Trump administration to threaten ICC judges with sanctions, prosecution
​

The United States is set to adopt a more aggressive posture against the International Criminal Court, threatening sanctions against ICC judges if they proceed with an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Americans in Afghanistan.

U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, will make the announcement in a speech at midday on Monday to the Federalist Society, a conservative group, in Washington. It will be his first major address since joining the Trump White House.

"The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," Bolton will say, according to a draft of his speech seen by Reuters.

COMMENT:-

I suspect that there is more than a tiny bit of "Not only is American law the law of the whole world, but no one but the United States of America allowed to investigate the conduct of Americans REGARDLESS of what that conduct was." behind this announcement (assuming that Mr. Boulton actually makes it).

Equally, should the announcement be made, there might be a bit of rumblings concerning "imposing sanctions of the members of governments who use their governmental power to obstruct justice in countries other than their own".

Fortunately the United States of America doesn't buy anything from any place else in the world that American organizations cannot obtain less expensively from sources inside the United States of America and the United States of America doesn't have to export anything to any other place in the world to keep its economy running well. Equally fortunately, the rest of the world has absolutely no place to sell its products except the United States of America and doesn't have anyone to buy anything it needs from except from American organizations.

Right?
​
Click to expand...

The US has often been bipolar on things like international courts, often setting up systems we then ignore if it doesn't suit our purpose. So it temporarily withdrew from the international court the Nicaraguans tried to take us to for our support of the contras. We tend to act as if it's ok for us to invade or commit acts of war against other countries, not ok if they sue in the venues we helped set up. Very tidy program.

Throughout history empires have often acted this way. No big deal unless you are the one invaded.
 
ClaraD said:
No, its aim was to get Osama Bin Laden. We were pissed that they wouldn't hand him over, so we bombed them and went to war. Here we are in 2018, 17 years later and we are still at war in Afghanistan...so what did we accomplish?
What is incredibly hypocritical is we demanded they turn Osama over to face trial for crimes against humanity...yet, now that the shoe is on the other foot, instead of acting like adults, we are throwing a temper tantrum and making threats....welcome to the third world.
Click to expand...

Where's your proof of that? You think YOU know more than everyone else? Your hatred for your country is obvious, but none of our military personnel has come close to what he did. Your comparison is ridiculous.
 
holbritter said:
Where's your proof of that? You think YOU know more than everyone else? Your hatred for your country is obvious, but none of our military personnel has come close to what he did. Your comparison is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Honesty is not hatred....being blind about the reality is stupidity. You must be too young to have remembered the events of 9/11 or you were asleep the entire time.

Mr. Bush demanded in his speech before members of Congress that the Taliban surrender bin Laden, release imprisoned Americans, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps. These demands are not open to discussion, Mr. Bush said. "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-wont-turn-over-bin-laden/

U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda; bin Laden had already been wanted by the FBI since 1998. The Taliban declined to extradite him unless given what they deemed convincing evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks[5] and ignored demands to shut down terrorist bases and hand over other terrorist suspects apart from bin Laden. The request was dismissed by the U.S. as a meaningless delaying tactic and it launched Operation Enduring Freedom on 7 October 2001 with the United Kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan
 
ClaraD said:
Honesty is not hatred....being blind about the reality is stupidity. You must be too young to have remembered the events of 9/11 or you were asleep the entire time.

Mr. Bush demanded in his speech before members of Congress that the Taliban surrender bin Laden, release imprisoned Americans, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps. These demands are not open to discussion, Mr. Bush said. "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-wont-turn-over-bin-laden/

U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda; bin Laden had already been wanted by the FBI since 1998. The Taliban declined to extradite him unless given what they deemed convincing evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks[5] and ignored demands to shut down terrorist bases and hand over other terrorist suspects apart from bin Laden. The request was dismissed by the U.S. as a meaningless delaying tactic and it launched Operation Enduring Freedom on 7 October 2001 with the United Kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan
Click to expand...

Don't try to school me, youngster, on what the events of 9/11 were. Again, not one person in our military planned and carried out an attack killing over 3,000 civilians as Osama and the Taliban did. Your comparison is ridiculous.
 
holbritter said:
Don't try to school me, youngster, on what the events of 9/11 were. Again, not one person in our military planned and carried out an attack killing over 3,000 civilians as Osama and the Taliban did. Your comparison is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

My son is 28..Im no youngster. Some of our soldiers are accused in engaging in crimes against humanity...that is a crime and they should face justice for it.
 
ClaraD said:
It doesn't matter, they took place in Afghanistan...Afghanistan has signed...since the crimes took place in Afghanistan, there is jurisdiction.
Remind yourself why we attacked a sovereign nation in the first place...remember the war in Afghanistan took place, not in retaliation for 9/11, but because they wouldn't fork over Osama Bin Laden. So why should every country in the world be expected to fork someone over on our demand, but we don't do the same?
Click to expand...

You need to stop shooting wildly and blindly. You are in effect making up law as you go along. You do not have a clue what the hell you are talking about. First, we did not go to war against the nation of Afghanistan. We went to war against Al Queda and the Taliban, both of which are terrorist groups. And we had every right to demand that OBL be turned over to the USA. It was a matter of the Taliban turning him over to us, or we would come over and take him by force The Taliban not only refused to turn him over, they provided safe haven for OBL, Al Queda, and the Taliban. Again, we are not at war with Afghanistan. We are in fact supporting Afghanistan in preventing the Taliban from again turning the nation into one big terrorist camp. And once again, you should have learned about treaties in High School or college if you got that far. The ICC was formed by way of a treaty. By even international law, the ICC has no jurisdiction over any nation who is not a signatory to that Treaty.
 
ClaraD said:
Not by the ICC and Afghanistan it hasn't....my point was this is proof of the fact that war crimes occurred there, no matter how much you want to pretend they didn't.
Click to expand...

What the hell does Afghanistan have to do with Abu Graib?????????? That occurred in Iraq. And the US troops who committed those crimes were court martialed, convicted, and punished through the US Code of Military Justice. And for the last time, the ICC has no jurisdiction whatsoever over any US Citizens. What does it take to get through to you that the court only has jusrisdiction over war crimes committed by citizens of nations who are signatories to the Treaty that formed the ICC? You cannot just assume jurisdiction because you want to. You are making it up as you go along.
 
ObamacareFail said:
What the hell does Afghanistan have to do with Abu Graib?????????? That occurred in Iraq. And the US troops who committed those crimes were court martialed, convicted, and punished through the US Code of Military Justice. And for the last time, the ICC has no jurisdiction whatsoever over any US Citizens. What does it take to get through to you that the court only has jusrisdiction over war crimes committed by citizens of nations who are signatories to the Treaty that formed the ICC? You cannot just assume jurisdiction because you want to. You are making it up as you go along.
Click to expand...

I gave you a link...its not my problem you didnt bother to read.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Only because the US has refused to join the ICC under GWB as I recall. The reason we didn't join is because Bush was very much into the Neocon theory of the Unitary Executive. Bush had Yoo and Bybee construct legal sophistry in defense of torture and in violation of Title 18 of the US Code. We have come a long way from our principled behavior in Nuremberg.

Fortunately Bush & Co were convicted in absentia in Malaysia in 2012, in accordance with international law, by the US citizen and attorney Francis Boyle.

In keeping the US out of the ICC, the Neocons revealed their plans for wholesale crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...

The US is not part of the ICC because we are a sovereign nation and refuse to subordinate our sovereignty to anyone.
 
Deuce said:
Ask Saddam Hussein what it means.
Click to expand...

A nation must also have the willingness and ability to defend their sovereignty. The very first step in defending that sovereignty, is to refuse to give it away to outside groups like the ICC. Like I said in an earlier post in this thread, the victor determines what is defined as a war crime - ask Saddam Hussein about that as well.
 
Beaudreaux said:
A nation must also have the willingness and ability to defend their sovereignty. The very first step in defending that sovereignty, is to refuse to give it away to outside groups like the ICC. Like I said in an earlier post in this thread, the victor determines what is defined as a war crime - ask Saddam Hussein about that as well.
Click to expand...

So why are we in NATO and the UN? Why do we extradite US citizens to other countries?
 
ClaraD said:
So why are we in NATO and the UN? Why do we extradite US citizens to other countries?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom