• 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

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...

I'd most certainly like to see your proof of those allegations.

I'll save you some trouble and point out that the US uranium assets" that were involved in the sale of a Canadian company to a Russian company consisted of the right to process Uranium ore in the United States of America (and that right only extended to about 10% of the Uranium processing capacity), did not actually include any Uranium ore within the United States of America and did NOT include the right to export any processed Uranium ore from the United States of America. You might also want to take cognizance that there were (at least) nine other portions of the US government that were involved in approving the sale of the Canadian company to the Russian company.

I rather suspect that your "proof" of the other allegations of fact will be just as substantial - but I always live in hope.
 
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 "process" under the SOFA agreement that Mr. Bush had insisted on and which the Iraqis rejected was

"If the US government doesn't feel like prosecuting the offence then the Iraqis can suck rocks. HOWEVER, if the US government does feel like prosecuting the offence and the Iraqi government doesn't like the results then the Iraqis can suck rocks.".
​

What could be clearer than that?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
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.]
Click to expand...

That depends on the extradition treaty and the mood of the Canadian courts. We would certainly have the right to complain if they didn't... which was the question.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The "process" under the SOFA agreement that Mr. Bush had insisted on and which the Iraqis rejected was

"If the US government doesn't feel like prosecuting the offence then the Iraqis can suck rocks. HOWEVER, if the US government does feel like prosecuting the offence and the Iraqi government doesn't like the results then the Iraqis can suck rocks.".
​

What could be clearer than that?
Click to expand...

So the process would be that the soldier is subject to the US military courts?
 
PeteEU said:
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..
Click to expand...

Really? The Saudis gave Hillary tens of millions of dollars for whatever reason and yet they did not give Trump a dime? Trump managed to screw them over over a failed loan? What should they care if they can afford to throw millions in American money to American politicians for no apparent reason?
 
ClaraD said:
Scotus wouldnt have a say over impeachment...that is the sole authority of Congress
Click to expand...

Either way congress cannot just make **** up to impeach a president.
There has to be a clear violation and the president must be convicted of high crimes of office.

Simply not liking a president is not enough to impeach someone.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
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.
Click to expand...

We have had an extradition treaty with Iraq since 1936.
 
ludin said:
Either way congress cannot just make **** up to impeach a president.
There has to be a clear violation and the president must be convicted of high crimes of office.

Simply not liking a president is not enough to impeach someone.
Click to expand...

Show me where they cant determine what is impeachable and who can stop them.
 
marke said:
Really? The Saudis gave Hillary tens of millions of dollars for whatever reason and yet they did not give Trump a dime? Trump managed to screw them over over a failed loan? What should they care if they can afford to throw millions in American money to American politicians for no apparent reason?
Click to expand...

Um Trump has sealed a $350 million weapons deal with Saudi Arabia....the country who gave us 9/11
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-...nearly-110-billion-as-trump-begins-visit.html
 
ludin said:
Either way congress cannot just make **** up to impeach a president.
There has to be a clear violation and the president must be convicted of high crimes of office.

Simply not liking a president is not enough to impeach someone.
Click to expand...

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official, and it makes the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials. The power of impeachment is limited to removal from office but also provides for a removed officer to be disqualified from holding future office. Fines and potential jail time for crimes committed while in office are left to civil courts.
Other impeachments have featured judges taking the bench when drunk or profiting from their position. The trial of President Johnson, however, focused on whether the President could remove cabinet officers without obtaining Congress’s approval. Johnson’s acquittal firmly set the precedent—debated from the beginning of the nation—that the President may remove appointees even if they required Senate confirmation to hold office
Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Being drunk isnt illegal, but judges have been removed by Congress....anything can be impeachable
 
marke said:
For good reasons or bad? How about the idea of giving the most radical terrorist nation on earth $1.5 billion in American cash with which to build more weapons to kill Americans and Jews? Who dreams up this stuff?
Click to expand...

There are no good reasons for giving weapons deals to the creators of 9/11
 
ClaraD said:
What jurisdiction do civilian US courts have for crimes committed on foreign soil?
Click to expand...

I don't know. What does that have to do with the scenario?
 
ClaraD said:
There are no good reasons for giving weapons deals to the creators of 9/11
Click to expand...

That is why I opposed the gun giveaway in Libya under Obama and Hillary, and the billion American dollar boost to the Iranian weapons manufacturing process in Iran thanks to Obama. I also opposed Obama's support for terrorist enemies of Israel in Palestine.
 
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...
Why are we still in Afghanistan?
 
dcsports said:
I don't know. What does that have to do with the scenario?
Click to expand...

The crimes took place in a foreign country, not in the US. Remember the Mexican kid shot across the border by a BP agent? Evidently, the US lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him or even allow for a lawsuit in the US, because the crime happened in Mexico....so again, do we have jurisdiction to prosecute for crimes in foreign countries? If not, we should be extraditing to a place that claims jurisdiction....such as Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria. If those countries so choose they can defer prosecution to the ICC.
 
marke said:
That is why I opposed the gun giveaway in Libya under Obama and Hillary, and the billion American dollar boost to the Iranian weapons manufacturing process in Iran thanks to Obama. I also opposed Obama's support for terrorist enemies of Israel in Palestine.
Click to expand...

We did not directly give money for weapons manufacturing in Iran...we did remove sanctions and allow them to develop nuclear electricity....what we did do was return money they had already paid us in 1979 from an aborted arms deal....it was THEIR money.
 
ClaraD said:
We did not directly give money for weapons manufacturing in Iran...we did remove sanctions and allow them to develop nuclear electricity....what we did do was return money they had already paid us in 1979 from an aborted arms deal....it was THEIR money.
Click to expand...

You say "we" as if you and Barry O. did this together. Congress certainly gave him no approval for his unilateral support of international terrorism. Iran owed tens of $millions to Americans for the crimes they committed against American men, women and children in past atrocities, but Obama made such damage awards to the American victims of Muslim terror all but impossible with his unilateral giveaway and irrational compounded interest addition to the payment. Obama proves he loves Muslims as he has also proved he hates Christians and Jews, except for ungodly Christians and Jews who promote and support wickedness just like he did.
 
marke said:
You say "we" as if you and Barry O. did this together. Congress certainly gave him no approval for his unilateral support of international terrorism. Iran owed tens of $millions to Americans for the crimes they committed against American men, women and children in past atrocities, but Obama made such damage awards to the American victims of Muslim terror all but impossible with his unilateral giveaway and irrational compounded interest addition to the payment. Obama proves he loves Muslims as he has also proved he hates Christians and Jews, except for ungodly Christians and Jews who promote and support wickedness just like he did.
Click to expand...

I say we as in the US...and his name is not Barry...is name is Barack Obama. The money was theirs not ours...if the families want to sue for those crimes there is an ICC where they can go to.
 
The rich already got richer. Why does the right wing want to cut spending on Labor and social services for the Poor, instead of wage increases for Labor and no cuts to social services for the Poor.

Providing for the common Defense is not the same as providing for the common Offense on a longitudinal basis.

All war powers not directly related to the common Defense are discretionary, not entitlement spending.
 
dcsports said:
That depends on the extradition treaty and the mood of the Canadian courts. We would certainly have the right to complain if they didn't... which was the question.
Click to expand...

In short, your answer is "I don't know.". Why not stick to that.

The "mood" of the Canadian courts is irrelevant, what is required is that the "requesting authority"

  1. present sufficient evidence to show that there is SOME prospect of a successful prosecution;
  2. establish that the alleged offence is contrary to BOTH Canadian and American law (which is why "draft dodger" cannot get extradited but "deserters" can); and
  3. establish that the maximum proposed punishment does not exceed the maximum punishment available under Canadian law.

In short, the Canadian courts will NOT approve an extradition request for a person accused of committing a murder (which is contrary to BOTH Canadian and American law) so that they can be tried in the Texas courts REGARDLESS of the strength of the evidence available UNLESS the Texas government undertakes that, upon conviction, the maximum sentence will not exceed the maximum sentence available under Canadian law.

The last point is not "problematic" for states which DO NOT have the death penalty, but can be for those which do (as does Texas).

Since those three points ARE covered in the Canada/US extradition treaty, then there is no "right to complain" if the "requesting authority" doesn't meet all three of them (as would be the case if the Texas government were to insist on retaining the right to impose capital punishment [which EXCEEDS the maximum punishment available under Canadian law]).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom