US threatens to arrest ICC judges who probe war crimes

[Swordsmyth]

Unpunished by man, for all intents and purposes, is completely unpunished, as there is absolutely no evidence that any sort of "personal god" exists and engages in the judgment of human beings.

Why do we punish people in the first place for wrongdoings? So that it will decrease the likelihood that similar wrongdoings will be done in the future. If no one will punish US leaders/generals/etc. for obvious war crimes against OTHER COUNTRIES, then they will continue to occur. What is the argument, anyways, against an international body governing disputes between countries? No one is advocating for the UN to prosecute criminals for things they committed within the borders of the US, unless you want to argue a slippery slope fallacy.

If you read the post I linked to you will see that I want them punished if possible but the ICC is not fair or impartial or accountable, it is used to justify international aggression based on trumped up charges and it should be abolished.

[oyarde]

What is your solution? Or do you want US war crimes to go unpunished for all eternity? Cuz that's how it appears.

Who determines what war crimes are ?

[AZJoe]

If Trump's Johnny Bolton doesn't want criminal trial in foreign courts then don't commit murders, torture, renditions, bombings, invasions, in foreign countries.

If Trump's Bolton has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear. He should embrace the trial.

[Origanalist]

If Trump's Johnny Bolton doesn't want criminal trial in foreign courts then don't commit murders, torture, renditions, bombings, invasions, in foreign countries.

If Trump's Bolton has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear. He should embrace the trial.

In other words, he should live like the rest of us do?

[kcchiefs6465]

That is a difficult question that depends on the judicial culture of the foreign country in question, American citizens should not be handed over to governments that will violate their rights and fail to give them a fair trial.

It is often said that when within a foreign country, it is wise to abide by their laws, just or not. Or at least I have read the sentiment.

In the reverse, those who traffic in counterfeit goods, for instance, or even looking at the case of Megaupload; would it not be fair to say that they will receive no fair trial within the US? Especially considering that many of the laws they've allegedly violated were not even applicable in the country they were in.

Yet the United States insists these people be brought here for trial, obviously under the auspices of them receiving a fair trial (for crimes that were not necessarily illegal within the jurisdiction they resided or operated in). You can't have it both ways.

And even still, the US incarcerates per capita higher than any other nation and in terms of the total number. Some 97%+ Federal indictments are plead out to minimize the chances of receiving absurd sentences, the Fourth Amendment hardly applies to citizens and does not begin to apply to foreigners, the Insular Cases have determined that the Constitution only guarantees (in what limited way it does, and in fact, it doesn't) the Rights of citizens of this country.

Would it not be fair then, under the cover of possibly not receiving a fair trial, to say that no foreigner should be held accountable for the crimes they've committed against the US, or more proper, citizens of the US? You can't have it both ways.

Elect better administrations, the odds are poor but they are better than a UN kangaroo court that is not accountable to American citizens.

Is there precedence in expecting that the crimes of one President/Administration will be held to account by the next?

To be fair, one, they're all kangaroos, and two, the US funds the majority of their program. They are accountable in some respect.

Did they commit crimes against us? Will we respect their rights? Was the influence used to gain their extradition just and proportionate?

To really boil it down, many of the crimes which extradition is sought for are not crimes at all.

In that respect, they not only disrespect their Rights, they show contempt for them.

We should put an end to that, but in cases where their guilt is in dispute we should try them here to decide whether or not to hand them over to any regime where their rights aren't guaranteed.

My Rights aren't even guaranteed.

I guess I don't understand the semantics.

Especially when considering history, Insular Cases, torture, renditions...

Obviously there is no Justice.

It seems okay if you assume the UN is fair and impartial, since they are not we shouldn't allow them to come here on their witch hunts, if they find sufficient evidence to indict war criminals in countries where they are welcome and other countries make it harder for them to travel then that is the choice and responsibility of those other countries.

That's pretty much how I envision it. Though of course, there is no Justice for the crimes committed (said war criminal just won't travel, and will receive the benefit of the doubt of every cable news program, eventually ending with a Commissar's Grand exit).

I insist that we not fund it but I also do care to keep the witch hunters out of America for the reasons I have already given.

The US has been giving the finger to that court for decades now.

Many should.

Yeah.

[Swordsmyth]

It is often said that when within a foreign country, it is wise to abide by their laws, just or not. Or at least I have read the sentiment.

In the reverse, those who traffic in counterfeit goods, for instance, or even looking at the case of Megaupload; would it not be fair to say that they will receive no fair trial within the US? Especially considering that many of the laws they've allegedly violated were not even applicable in the country they were in.

Yet the United States insists these people be brought here for trial, obviously under the auspices of them receiving a fair trial (for crimes that were not necessarily illegal within the jurisdiction they resided or operated in). You can't have it both ways.

I don't want it both ways, we should extradite people to countries that will respect their rights and we should not abuse extradition from other countries, those other countries should follow the same policy with their citizens.

And even still, the US incarcerates per capita higher than any other nation and in terms of the total number. Some 97%+ Federal indictments are plead out to minimize the chances of receiving absurd sentences, the Fourth Amendment hardly applies to citizens and does not begin to apply to foreigners, the Insular Cases have determined that the Constitution only guarantees (in what limited way it does, and in fact, it doesn't) the Rights of citizens of this country.

Would it not be fair then, under the cover of possibly not receiving a fair trial, to say that no foreigner should be held accountable for the crimes they've committed against the US, or more proper, citizens of the US? You can't have it both ways.

I dealt with that above, we should respect the rights of those we extradite and we shouldn't extradite people who don't deserve it and other countries should do the same.

Is there precedence in expecting that the crimes of one President/Administration will be held to account by the next?

I don't know but we should set one.

To be fair, one, they're all kangaroos, and two, the US funds the majority of their program. They are accountable in some respect.

The ICC is a globalist imperial tool that is even more of a kangaroo court than usual, rather than legitimizing it by submitting to it the best thing for the world is for us to delegitimize it as Bolton is doing. (admittedly for his own corrupt purposes)

To really boil it down, many of the crimes which extradition is sought for are not crimes at all.

In that respect, they not only disrespect their Rights, they show contempt for them.

Then we shouldn't extradite them and other countries shouldn't cooperate.

My Rights aren't even guaranteed.

Definitely a problem but the ICC won't fix it.

I guess I don't understand the semantics.

Especially when considering history, Insular Cases, torture, renditions...

Obviously there is no Justice.

The ICC won't solve the problem any more than the Nuremberg trials did, it will just give whoever gains control of it a weapon to use against their enemies without regard to truth or justice.
I was suggesting that we should extradite some criminals even to states where their rights might not be respected if their guilt was proved in our courts.

That's pretty much how I envision it. Though of course, there is no Justice for the crimes committed (said war criminal just won't travel, and will receive the benefit of the doubt of every cable news program, eventually ending with a Commissar's Grand exit).

It is better that 100 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be punished, most crimes will go unpunished by an in this life and not only will the ICC not fix that it will be used to punish innocents and justify more crimes.

The US has been giving the finger to that court for decades now.

And it is time we made it official and reduced its legitimacy as far as we can.

[thoughtomator]

Look at what happened to Pinochet. Saved his country from Communism and the Communists used the ICC to prosecute him for it.

[Influenza]

Look at what happened to Pinochet. Saved his country from Communism and the Communists used the ICC to prosecute him for it.

What a gross utilitarian ideology you have. Doesn't matter how many thousands die as long as you like the end result, eh?

[Influenza]

Who determines what war crimes are ?

The UN and affiliated organizations, obviously.

[Influenza]

The ICC is a globalist imperial tool that is even more of a kangaroo court than usual, rather than legitimizing it by submitting to it the best thing for the world is for us to delegitimize it as Bolton is doing. (admittedly for his own corrupt purposes)

You are right, they rarely go after powerful countries or their allies, they only accuse the small and powerless nations that no one gives a $#@! about anyways. So now that they will MAYBE go after a powerful country, that's when you howl for its abolition? Right when it starts becoming a bit more balanced and going after powerful countries, that's when they go too far?

[Swordsmyth]

The UN and affiliated organizations, obviously.

That is not good.

You are right, they rarely go after powerful countries or their allies, they only accuse the small and powerless nations that no one gives a $#@! about anyways. So now that they will MAYBE go after a powerful country, that's when you howl for its abolition? Right when it starts becoming a bit more balanced and going after powerful countries, that's when they go too far?

I have always wanted it dead and I will take any opportunity to kill it.

[bunklocoempire]

Who determines what war crimes are ?

The "winning" government.

[oyarde]

The "winning" government.

Yep .

[oyarde]

That is not good.


I have always wanted it dead and I will take any opportunity to kill it.

My thoughts exactly , abolish it all . As far as the Flu's comment to me personally about war crimes , well it means nothing to me . I have survived more gun battles probably than anyone people here are likely to meet and I never sought anyones opinion on it , I am fully aware of the fact of my choices . I would never though surrender to submit myself to a trial lead by some asshat , useless eater lawyers and I really would not encourage anyone else to .

[oyarde]

The UN and affiliated organizations, obviously.

Yeah , I would pass on that . I do not even believe the US should be supporting the UN , allowing it here or participating .

[Swordsmyth]

In practice, the International Criminal Court is a failed experiment.
Its trials appear selective and political. While the court has received more than 10,000 written complaints referring to 139 countries, according to the London-based Africa Research Centre, it has focused its prosecutions exclusively on sub-Saharan Africans. Of the 10 investigations in progress, nine relate to African leaders or rebel leaders. (The only non-African case was against Serbian extremists.) This leads to the all-too-easy accusation that the court is racist, neo-colonialist or, in the words of one African writer, "white justice for black Africans." Following a 2013 African Union summit, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn denounced the court as a "racial hunt". While these charges are hyperbolic, the court's selective prosecutions have undermined its credibility among Africans.
The ICC has also not been successful in Africa. The court's first chief prosecutor, Luis Ocampo, pledged to indict and try the leaders of Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a Ugandan terror group linked to slaughter, rape and kidnapping, by the end of 2005. The LRA's leaders have yet to face justice. Almost a decade ago, the court indicted Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir. No trial has occurred and Bashir continues to travel freely to Arab and African states that have signed the ICC's implementing treaty. The court has not delivered on its promise to bring justice to people who have none.
As a result, African nations are pulling out. South Africa, Burundi, Gambia have voted to withdraw from the ICC and other African states are joining the stampede for the exit.
The ICC likes to refer to itself as the world's court, but it represents fewer and fewer of world's nations. The U.S., Israel, China and Russia have refused to ratify the court's implementing Treaty of Rome. The African Union itself has openly criticized the ICC and debated leaving the court's jurisdiction en masse.
The court's leaders have, in addition, not held themselves to particularly high standards. Chief prosecutor Ocampo, defended his use of offshore bank accounts by saying that his salary was insufficient. Such a remark hardly inspires confidence.
Even worse for the court's credibility are the allegations brought by David Nyekorach Matsanga, president of the Pan-African Forum, that Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi, the ICC's president, allegedly received illegal sums totaling some $17 million between 2004 and 2015. These payments, Matsanga said, were to bribe prosecution witness against Sudan's president. A court spokesman dismissed Matsanga's evidence as a falsified invoice and unverified bank records. (Matsanga is no angel. He was spokesman for the infamous Lord's Resistance Army in the 1990s.) Still, the evidence deserves an impartial review.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...led-experiment