Trump administration to threaten ICC judges with sanctions, prosecution

[TU Curmudgeon]

So the process would be that the soldier is subject to the US military courts?

Of course, and if the soldier were to be found guilty of raping and killing a 10 year old girl and the military court were punish them by imposing a $2.00 fine, then the Iraqi government could suck rocks.

However, if the soldier were to be accused of mass murder and the Iraqi government had irrefutable video evidence which showed them killing 400 people but the US military courts decided not to prosecute, then the Iraqi government could also suck rocks.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Really? The Saudis gave Hillary tens of millions of dollars for whatever reason and yet they did not give Trump a dime?

You might find the facts rather interesting.

However I doubt that the facts will change your mind.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We have had an extradition treaty with Iraq since 1936.

There is a significant question as to whether the US/Iraq extradition treaty is still in effect and, even so, what good it would be since the treaty allows BOTH Iraq and the US to decline to extradite their own nationals to the other state.

IF the US government were to attempt to extradite under the 1936 treaty, one of the first questions which the Iraqi courts would ask is "Are you prepared to extradite American citizens who are charged by the Iraqi government with crimes committed in Iraq to Iraq to be tried by Iraqi courts under Iraqi law?".

Upon receiving the "No." answer, then the Iraqi courts would refuse to extradite.

 

[Evilroddy]

The ICC has been given authority to investigate and prosecute five types of international crimes by the Rome Statutes. They are interfering with the administration of justice, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and waging aggressive war (crimes against peace). In my opinion it is the last area of potential prosecution (waging aggressive war) that frightens the US Administration and is behind Mr. Bolton's bellicose threats of Sept. 10th at the Federalist Society. Prosecuting soldiers, seamen, airmen and marines in America by American courts is tolerable, especially if after being found guilty in a few years the sentences are reviewed and often reduced. But investigating and prosecuting the top-most military brass and the senior civilian political leadership of the USA up to and including the President of the United States for initiating wars of aggression is intolerable to the American political leadership.

It is also interesting that John Bolton and the American state claim to be immune to international law and prosecution by international tribunals but Mr. Bolton's speech makes it clear that international jurists, investigators and third-parties working for or cooperating with the ICC will be subject to American law and prosecution, if they dare to investigate or prosecute agents of the American state or its close allies at the ICC. That's a glaring and an amusing double standard on obvious display there.

The idea that the American Government could even successfully prosecute these ICC personnel and cooperating third-parties in an open court is also open for debate. By prosecuting them you would give them the opportunity to prove the alleged crimes which the US wants to keep suppressed. So in camera trials would be needed to keep the muzzling effective. Star-Chamber justice much?
The issue also begs the question,"What US law is being broken by investigating alleged crimes?". Is it illegal in America for lawyers and private investigators to subpoena and/or question/investigate people without the US Government's approval and consent? If so then the legal trade and the free press are in big trouble in the new America which Bolton seems to want. Is it illegal to collect and catalogue evidence of crimes which took place outside of American legal jurisdiction? Is it illegal to hold a trial in a foreign country in which Americans are involved without the American state's consent? Is it illegal to detain a suspect under a legally recognised Interpol warrant of arrest? Is it illegal to publish the findings of foreign tribunals to the world and in the American press?

What crimes would these jurists, investigators and cooperating third-parties be charged with to justify the travel bans, economic sanctions, criminal prosecution and the threatened use of force as delineated by Mr. Bolton in his speech to the Federalist Society? Treason is out because the jurists are not American citizens nor residents of the USA and thus have no allegiance to the American state. Sedition is out for the same reasons. Espionage is out because the ICC and its personnel are operating openly and its agents are not acting covertly. So will the US create a new category of political crime along the lines of "interfering with American interests" or something like that? If so that should be a chilling wake-up call for all Americans who could find themselves in the cross-hairs of such new laws and crimes.

If the USA wants to refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the ICC, okay, that's fine. If it decides to refuse to cooperate with it, well that's fine too. But to announce that it will attack the court, its personnel and any cooperating third-party person, business, organisation or state is beyond reason and is just bellicose bully-boy behaviour on a grand scale. These are peaceful jurists and investigators, not armed enemies and terrorists. They are peacefully acting in pursuit of one facet of the truth and because they threaten to reveal truths and supporting evidence to substantiate those truths, which America and her allies would rather keep quiet, they are to be subjected to economic sanctions and seizures, harassed with criminal prosecution which would undoubtably fail in an open US court and threatened with force by agents of the US state.

This is nuts.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[dcsports]

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.

I believe the Uniform Code of Military Justice gives military court jurisdiction over servicemen anywhere. As to whether servicemen are subject to prosecution by the host country... that's going to be covered in the treaties and agreements with those countries.

 

[dcsports]

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]).

lol -- as I said, it depends on the terms extradition treaty. Assuming the US/State government meets the criteria in the treaty, Canada should provide extradition. If the conditions are met, and Canada refuses, we can then absolutely complain (lodge a complaint).

And, as I'm sure you are aware, there have been cases where extradition requests have met all the required criteria, and it wasn't automatic. We have been told, for lack of a better term, to 'suck rocks'. Hence my reference to the 'mood' of the court.

 

[marke]

You might find the facts rather interesting.

However I doubt that the facts will change your mind.

Speaking of facts your article admits the Saudis have given Hillary between $10 and $25 million, and those numbers are just what are reported by the foundation itself which has no obligation to make all its donors and amounts public.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This is nuts.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Excellent summation.

The stuff before that was very good as well.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

lol -- as I said, it depends on the terms extradition treaty. Assuming the US/State government meets the criteria in the treaty, Canada should provide extradition. If the conditions are met, and Canada refuses, we can then absolutely complain (lodge a complaint).

Quite right, on the other hand, there hasn't been a single case (to my limited knowledge) where the Canadian government has refused an extradition request from the United States of America PROVIDED that the US government manages to comply with all of the terms of the treaty.

And, as I'm sure you are aware, there have been cases where extradition requests have met all the required criteria, and it wasn't automatic. We have been told, for lack of a better term, to 'suck rocks'. Hence my reference to the 'mood' of the court.

No, I am NOT aware of any and I'd be delighted to learn of any.

Now, I am aware that there have been cases where, in the opinion of the court, the criteria have not been satisfied (AND where it is possible to come to a contrary conclusion) and the requests have been rejected.

I am also aware that there have been cases where, in the opinion of the court, the criteria have been satisfied (AND where it is possible to come to a contrary conclusion) and the requests have been agreed to.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Speaking of facts your article admits the Saudis have given Hillary between $10 and $25 million, and those numbers are just what are reported by the foundation itself which has no obligation to make all its donors and amounts public.

You appear to believe that "Hillary Clinton" and "The Clinton Foundation" are the same thing.

Does that mean that you also believe that "Oral Roberts" and "The Oral Roberts University" are the same thing?

How about "George Washington" and "George Washington University"?

 

[marke]

You appear to believe that "Hillary Clinton" and "The Clinton Foundation" are the same thing.

Does that mean that you also believe that "Oral Roberts" and "The Oral Roberts University" are the same thing?

How about "George Washington" and "George Washington University"?

When it comes to laundering money there is no distinction between Hillary and her storefront foundation.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When it comes to laundering money there is no distinction between Hillary and her storefront foundation.

Bias and total lack of rational thought noted.

 

[dcsports]

Quite right, on the other hand, there hasn't been a single case (to my limited knowledge) where the Canadian government has refused an extradition request from the United States of America PROVIDED that the US government manages to comply with all of the terms of the treaty.



No, I am NOT aware of any and I'd be delighted to learn of any.

Now, I am aware that there have been cases where, in the opinion of the court, the criteria have not been satisfied (AND where it is possible to come to a contrary conclusion) and the requests have been rejected.

I am also aware that there have been cases where, in the opinion of the court, the criteria have been satisfied (AND where it is possible to come to a contrary conclusion) and the requests have been agreed to.

I used Canada to try to remove some of the noise from the issue. The challenges have generally been with Mexico.

 

[Grand Mal]

You appear to believe that "Hillary Clinton" and "The Clinton Foundation" are the same thing.

Does that mean that you also believe that "Oral Roberts" and "The Oral Roberts University" are the same thing?

How about "George Washington" and "George Washington University"?

Trump and Trump University?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Trump and Trump University?

But, but, but . . .

(all together now)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

"That's DIFFERENT!!!"