Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sir Wearer of Hats

The US versus the ICC

101 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sir Wearer of Hats

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45474864

The International Criminal Court has just been told by the US that if they try to put US soldiers on trial for war crimes they’ll be arrested and have their assets frozen.

 

well now - who is it that fears judges? The innocent?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
26 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45474864

The International Criminal Court has just been told by the US that if they try to put US soldiers on trial for war crimes they’ll be arrested and have their assets frozen.

 

well now - who is it that fears judges? The innocent?

Yeah this is pretty disturbing. We had already lost our ability to lead with soft power and moral authority in the world this just piles the nails into the coffin on that era of the American experiment.

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

The President's advisor doesn't have the authority to arrest anybody or freeze anybody's assets. So this is bluster (there are other words beginning in "b" that may also apply).

The substantive point, however, is that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over United States persons, since the United States is not a party to the agreements establishing the court. The core of the matter is not "fear," nor even the prattle about sovreignity attributed to the speaker.

It is very deeply ingrained in the legal history of the United States that the United States will enter NO treaty or extradition agreement which would require it to surrender a United States citizen from United States territory.

Further, there is no such thing as "discretionary extradition" in United States law. If the United States is bound by treaty to extradite some non-citizen, then it will perform as it has agreed, but if it is not required to extradite someone, then nobody has the authority to extradite the person. (Basic Constitutional principle: the only powers the government has are those recorded in the Constitution, and discretionary extradition isn't in there.) The United States can expel a person, and maybe doing so would expose the person to extradition elsewhere, but it cannot expel a citizen (there have been some close calls on who is a citizen, but that's irrelevant here).

The speech was objectionable in how it was phrased, but the core principle is how the law is, and that has nothing to do with the identity of the current administration. This goes back a very long way.

It may be interesting to speculate, in a spy novel thriller kind of way, what would happen if the ICC did pull off a "Project Finale" operation targeting an American. Take it to the bank that it wouldn't happen twice; no bluster, just fact.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
13 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The President's advisor doesn't have the authority to arrest anybody or freeze anybody's assets. So this is bluster (there are other words beginning in "b" that may also apply).

Sanctions . The government threatened judges with sanctions. Bolton was speaking for the USA not for himself.

13 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The speech was objectionable in how it was phrased, but the core principle is how the law is, and that has nothing to do with the identity of the current administration. This goes back a very long way.

This is not normal and has everything to do with the identity of the current administration:

Quote

"We will prosecute them in the US criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans," Mr Bolton said.

That isnt normal. Thats witness intimidation

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Man the more I think about it the more I wonder what Bolton was trying to get in front of....

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
53 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Bolton was speaking for the USA not for himself.

Mr Bolton lacks the authority to speak for the United States. Perhaps he was intimating what he'd advise his boss to do, hypothetically. That's not entirely uninteresting, but it has no effect unless, the hypothetical having somehow become real, his advice were to be taken.

The supposed proposal seems a bit odd, since in the scenario, the threat is not from the judges, but whoever might carry out their instructions. As the saying has it, "Them, and what army?" It's that armed force that would be dissuaded from their course. "Freezing their assets" indeed.

Which is probably why it won't happen even once, and definitely won't happen twice.

Quote

This is not normal and has everything to do with the identity of the current administration:

I suspect the current administration would find more joy in "imposing sanctions" than the previous administration would have, to name two contrasting examples. There would be no ICC trial of an American regardless.

This is not a casual, recent or inconstant American commitment to its people. We don't get extradited from our homes. End of story.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
8 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Mr Bolton lacks the authority to speak for the United States. Perhaps he was intimating what he'd advise his boss to do, hypothetically. That's not entirely uninteresting, but it has no effect unless, the hypothetical having somehow become real, his advice were to be taken.

The National Security Advisor does not give a policy speech without the preapproval and direction of the White House, or at least thats how its normally done. From the OP:

Quote

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders backed Mr Bolton, saying President Donald Trump would use "any means necessary to protect our citizens [and] those of our allies from unjust prosecution from the ICC".

 

8 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The supposed proposal seems a bit odd, since in the scenario, the threat is not from the judges, but whoever might carry out their instructions. As the saying has it, "Them, and what army?" It's that armed force that would be dissuaded from their course. "Freezing their assets" indeed.

He actually threatened both the judges and anyone who cooperated with an ICC investigation with sanctions and punishment in the US court system.

 

8 minutes ago, eight bits said:

This is not a casual, recent or inconstant American commitment to its people. We don't get extradited from our homes. End of story.

Agreed , however we also dont give speeches making grand policy announcements about how our actions are not only above international law but also that we're going to punish anyone that even investigates any of our actions.

 

The fact that it's coming from one of the "WMD's in Iraq" Bush crowd makes it that much more insulting.

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Just imagine the chaos if our troops were held responsible for war crimes or our CIA were held responsible for overseas renditions and "enhanced interrogation"!  We wouldn't be able to do important things like loosening up our rules of engagement.  They might actually expect us to press charges against the people we have detained in Guantanamo instead of just keeping them there forever.

And we certainly wouldn't want any outside agencies investigating claims like this against us: https://www.rt.com/news/438008-us-strikes-syria-white-phosphorus/

<sarcasm>

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
15 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

insulting

I don't recall having complimented Mr Bolton on his tact, lol.

ETA: @Gromdor

There is much injustice in the United States. So whose job is it to fix that? Everybody else except us?

No, we have a system. We fix what's broken here, ourselves. By an amazing coincidence, today is primary election day in many places, and there's a general election everywhere in the US in November.

Vote people in who'll fix what's broken.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

.....This is not normal and has everything to do with the identity of the current administration:

Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The ICC was strongly opposed by George Bush, and even Barack Obama wriggled out of ratifying the treaty that would make America a party to the court. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

well now - who is it that fears judges? The innocent?

With a Kangaroo court, absolutely!  The ICC is like Mueller on steroids.  It's very dangerous of having a crime with circumstantial evidence in search of someone to be guilty.  It's just another step toward establishing Globalization, which we don't need.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
27 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Vote people in who'll fix what's broken.

Good luck finding someone...

"It's not that power corrupts. It attracts the corruptible. It's magnetic to pathological personalities. The only way to get good leadership is to pick the person who want's it the least and make them want it even less"- Frank Herbert.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

Are the ICC making noises about arresting Russian troops or Iranian troops or Saudi troops or Syrian troops or any troop that isn't Western?

What about arresting Putin for chemical attacks in the UK?

Edited by seanjo
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

icc is like un, tools for rich to rule. whatever purpose you were told they serve is a lie

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

The ICC was strongly opposed by George Bush, and even Barack Obama wriggled out of ratifying the treaty that would make America a party to the court. 

The military industrial complex doesn't discriminate. The war machine has to keep on moving without fear of trials

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
14 minutes ago, aztek said:

icc is like un, tools for rich to rule. whatever purpose you were told they serve is a lie

The UN making Saudi Arabia the ambassador for human rights sealed the deal for me. The UN is a big, fat corrupt political joke.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
1 hour ago, seanjo said:

Are the ICC making noises about arresting Russian troops or Iranian troops or Saudi troops or Syrian troops or any troop that isn't Western?

What about arresting Putin for chemical attacks in the UK?

Hey, its the UN. Slip them enough cash under the table and I'm sure they could charge a Cat with murdering Rats. 

 

This could be very useful, for Isolationists. 

How can you ask a volunteer military to fight for NATO or anyone else if this sort of thing is what we can expect from the UN? Just dump them all and let them fend for themselves.

ALL of them.

Edited by AnchorSteam
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

With a Kangaroo court, absolutely!  The ICC is like Mueller on steroids.  It's very dangerous of having a crime with circumstantial evidence in search of someone to be guilty.  It's just another step toward establishing Globalization, which we don't need.

If you are going to defend something, use facts instead of the typical attack the source tactic you have inherited.  The ICC is NOT dangerous, and if you think they convict people on circumstantial evidence, post a source.

NOW, with that being said, I agree with this decision...and NOT for the stupid reasons Trump supporters are throwing around, because they don't know any better.  The REAL REASON this is dangerous right now is because we are occupying countries in which we do not have SOFA agreements, such as Syria.  SOFA is a Status of Forces Agreement between the occupying troops and the company being occupied.  When the SOFA agreement in Iraq ran out, we had to completely cease offensive operations until it was restored.  Defending yourself is not considered a crime.  Without a SOFA agreement, any country can bring charges against any person conducting offensive operations.  Syria will never give us a SOFA agreement, and we have stated that we will retain forces there for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
8 hours ago, Agent0range said:

... Without a SOFA agreement, any country can bring charges against any person conducting offensive operations.  Syria will never give us a SOFA agreement, and we have stated that we will retain forces there for quite some time.

Which is stupid.

What the hell are we doing there? Why does the US have to stick its nose into every war in the world, because CAIR said so?

If the EU can't be bothered to defend it's own oil supply and Russia is eager to get involved in the anal cavity of the world, then LET THEM. Or maybe China will finally do something, and I'd love it if they did. I'd also be tickled to hear how the Arabs are waxing nostalgic about the days when scamming the Americans was their daily routine.... instead of cowering before the no-nonsese folks from Russia and China. 

We're just too nice to deal with that part of the world, time to let the real Empire-Builders take over. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
19 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The ICC was strongly opposed by George Bush, and even Barack Obama wriggled out of ratifying the treaty that would make America a party to the court. 

Oh its not the opposition to the court. Its the tone deafness of sending a ****ing war criminal onto a stage to give a speech saying they would prosecute anyone who even assists in an investigation into American war crimes that I was referring to.

More unintended ****ting on America's ability to lead the world.

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh its not the opposition to the court. Its the tone deafness of sending a ****ing war criminal onto a stage to give a speech saying they would prosecute anyone who even assists in an investigation into American war crimes that I was referring to.

More unintended ****ting on America's ability to lead the world.

A war criminal ? Says who ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

A war criminal ? Says who ? 

Just me, thats my personal take on the entire "WMD's in Iraq" crowd in general, the fact that when asked about it Bolton basically thumps his chest and says  we came we saw he died  "no regrets"   just makes it that much more insulting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Ummmm... OK........ < gently tip-toes away > :D 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
22 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Ummmm... OK........ < gently tip-toes away > :D 

Nah no running away wuss! :lol:

https://lobelog.com/bolton-a-prime-mover-of-the-iraq-wmd-fiasco-2/

 

Quote

John Bolton was a key player in the early machinations toward war of the George W. Bush administration. Senior British officials accurately chronicled what was happening in their secret “Downing Street” memo to Prime Minister Blair in July 2002 when they reported that “the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.” As the path to war was paved throughout the fall, Bolton knew very well how the administration was misrepresenting to the public the more nuanced details of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraqi WMD. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence exhaustively documented these distortions in a series of bipartisan reports following the 2003 invasion.

Moreover, Bolton was privy to the detailed reasoning behind INR’s prescient dissent in the top secret NIE on Iraqi WMD, which warned that “the available evidence was inadequate to support the judgment that ‘Iraq is currently pursuing…an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.’”

 

When it comes to war mongering and callousness regarding human life Bolton is everything that people claim makes them sick when it comes to Hillary.  He worked for years to make the Iraq invasion happen resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the utter destruction of millions more.

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Nah no running away wuss! :lol:

https://lobelog.com/bolton-a-prime-mover-of-the-iraq-wmd-fiasco-2/

 

 

When it comes to war mongering and callousness regarding human life Bolton is everything that people claim makes them sick when it comes to Hillary.  He worked for years to make the Iraq invasion happen resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the utter destruction of millions more.

 

Well then, that would explain why he doesn't want the ICC to have authority of US Citizens, as he would end up in the dock :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.