• 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

dcsports said:
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.
Click to expand...

If a US citizen is wanted for a crime in another country, we extradite them. Here are some examples
https://freedomoutpost.com/us-citiz...10-year-old-murder-with-conflicting-accounts/
https://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2018/061618.htm
https://japantoday.com/category/crime/former-u-s-sailor-extradited-to-japan-on-drug-smuggling-charge
 
marke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Um Saudi Arabia....Trump is in their back pocket..
And Osama was a Saudí
 
dcsports said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is rape commited against an Iraqi child an act a soldier should be allowed to do as a part of war and be protected? How about murdering said child and their family?
 
ClaraD said:
Um Saudi Arabia....Trump is in their back pocket..
And Osama was a Saudí
Click to expand...

Trump is in the back pocket of Saudi Arabia? Did he get money from Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal like Obama did, and did he bow to the Saudi king like Obama did and did he snub Netanyahu like Obama did? I don't think so. Is Trump shutting down US oil exploration in favor of OPEC like Obama did? No.
 
marke said:
Trump is in the back pocket of Saudi Arabia? Did he get money from Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal like Obama did, and did he bow to the Saudi king like Obama did and did he snub Netanyahu like Obama did? I don't think so. Is Trump shutting down US oil exploration in favor of OPEC like Obama did? No.
Click to expand...
Actually Trump did get money from bin Talal and then declared bankruptcy and screwed him and taxpayers over.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
Beaudreaux said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering, sort of.
 
ClaraD said:
Is rape commited against an Iraqi child an act a soldier should be allowed to do as a part of war and be protected? How about murdering said child and their family?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Note that I never said things shouldn't be prosecuted - only that the status of forces agreement should give the process for doing so. I don't know what the process is.
 
dcsports said:
Of course not. Note that I never said things shouldn't be prosecuted - only that the status of forces agreement should give the process for doing so. I don't know what the process is.
Click to expand...

The case I presented happened, it happened during the Iraqi war and our soldiers committed the atrocity. If a crime is committed in a foreign country by our soldiers...like this one...they should face justice either where the crime is committed or if we dont trust that government's justice system...in an international court like the ICC...
 
PeteEU said:
Actually Trump did get money from bin Talal and then declared bankruptcy and screwed him and taxpayers over.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Trump supposedly screwed a Muslim prince and now people claim Trump is in the pockets of Saudis? I'm not following the attempt at logic.
 
ClaraD said:
Good? That someone tries to threaten judges from investigating crimes?
Click to expand...

ICC judges have no jurisdiction over the US. we are a sovereign nation.
They have no authority over the US.
 
Carjosse said:
This is not a foreign government, this a court setup specifically to deal with cases like this, and in this case it looks like the US failed to do so. Just because the US does not want to investigate it doe snot mean they get away with it. The crimes were committed in another country, they don't get immunity because of that.
Click to expand...

In which that court has 0 jurisdiction over the US or US citizens.
If people commit crimes in other countries then they are arrested in that country.

If they commit crimes by being party of the military then they are arrested by the military and
they are charged and prosecuted by the military.

We do not allow other countries try and charge our troops.
 
ClaraD said:
Nothing procludes us extraditing a citizen to anywhere...it doesnt impede on our sovreignty, because we have a history of doing just that ... extraditing.
Click to expand...

We're not prevented from doing so... but the point here is that there's no agreement saying we'll do it.
 
ClaraD said:
The case I presented happened, it happened during the Iraqi war and our soldiers committed the atrocity. If a crime is committed in a foreign country by our soldiers...like this one...they should face justice either where the crime is committed or if we dont trust that government's justice system...in an international court like the ICC...
Click to expand...

I agree that the soldier should face justice in an appropriate court. In this case, however, we're saying it should not happen in the ICC, because they do not have jurisdiction.

Do you have more specifics as to what happened in this example?
 
ClaraD said:
Anything Congress deems impeachable is....think about that
Click to expand...

only in liberal coo coo land.
the constitution says otherwise.
 
ludin said:
only in liberal coo coo land.
the constitution says otherwise.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesnt. In the time of the writing of our Constitution misdemeanors were defined as bad behavior...the left it to Congress to define it. If Congress votes to impeach for any reason...its in their authority and no one can overturn that decision.
 
marke said:
Trump supposedly screwed a Muslim prince and now people claim Trump is in the pockets of Saudis? I'm not following the attempt at logic.
Click to expand...

The claim was Clinton took money from a Saudi prince... Trump did also take a big loan from one, and then screwed him over by declaring bankruptcy and not paying him back..
 
ClaraD said:
Actually, it doesnt. In the time of the writing of our Constitution misdemeanors were defined as bad behavior...the left it to Congress to define it. If Congress votes to impeach for any reason...its in their authority and no one can overturn that decision.
Click to expand...

We have a definition to misdemeanors.
Actually they could that is why we have a SCOTUS.

The constitution is clear high crimes and misdemeanors.
congress can't just make **** up.

that is liberal coo coo language.
 
ludin said:
We have a definition to misdemeanors.
Actually they could that is why we have a SCOTUS.

The constitution is clear high crimes and misdemeanors.
congress can't just make **** up.

that is liberal coo coo language.
Click to expand...

Scotus wouldnt have a say over impeachment...that is the sole authority of Congress
 
ClaraD said:
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?
Click to expand...

Extradition treaties are made between national governments.

Of which national government is the ICC a part?

[HINT - Phantasia is NOT a national government.]
 
ClaraD said:
We objected to refusals of extradition based on nationality....so now how can we object based on nationality? Hypocrisy
Click to expand...

I believe that that calls for "Standard Form Answer #3", which is "That's DIFFERENT!!!".
 
ClaraD said:
We have the ability to extradite to Afghanistan...and or Iraq.
Click to expand...

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have extradition treaties with the United States of America.

The US government does, however, have the physical ability to deliver any person who is in the custody of the US government to any country in the world - and can do so WITHOUT the need for any extradition treaty. The term you are looking for is "rendition" and the "legal process" involved in "rendition" is

  1. decide to get rid of person;
  2. take person into custody;
  3. load person in custody onto an aircraft;
  4. fly aircraft to destination country;
  5. boot person in custody off aircraft; and
  6. return aircraft to the United States of America.

This "legal process" is frequently accompanied by a "Step 3.1." which is "Tell government of destination country where that person in custody will be arriving and where." - but this is NOT mandatory.
 
dcsports said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that Canadian is accused of murdering someone in Texas and fled across the border, would Canada be required to extradite that person to Texas for trial under all conditions? If not, what would prevent the Canadian government returning that person to Texas to face trial.

[NOTE:- Assume that the Texas government is able to present a sufficiently compelling case (that means that, at a minimum, the Texas government could show that there was a reasonable ground to put the person on trial {which is an incredibly low standard of proof that would have to be met}) that the Canadian did, in fact, commit the deeds alleged.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom