• 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!

UN court judge quits The Hague citing political interference

Godric1970

Scottish and Proud
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
471
Location
Darkest Ayrshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yet again America acting like a rogue state, under Trump America is a big bully, Turkey is also involved ... that is to be expected of Turkey



Code:
 https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-criminal-court-icc-judge-christoph-flugge-quits-citing-political-interference-trump-administration-turkey

Christoph Flügge warns over ‘shocking’ moves by Trump administration and Turkey



A senior judge has resigned from one of the UN’s international courts in The Hague citing “shocking” political interference from the White House and Turkey.



Christoph Flügge, a German judge, claimed the US had threatened judges after moves were made to examine the conduct of US soldiers in Afghanistan.



Turkey’s government had earlier made “baseless” allegations to end the tenure of a Turkish judge sitting on a United Nations court known as the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals with the connivance of the UN, he claimed.

Aydın Sefa Akay was removed following his arrest and subsequent release over alleged links to Fethullah Gülen, the US-based cleric blamed by the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, for a failed coup attempt.



“Turkey applied its veto against Judge Akay,” Flügge said. “We, the other judges, immediately protested. But his tenure was nevertheless not extended by the UN secretary general. And with that, he’s gone.”



Flügge, who had been a permanent judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) since 2008, told the German newspaper Die Zeit that he had concluded in the wake of the developments that the “diplomatic world” saw no value in an independent judiciary.



He warned that the UN’s blind eye to Turkey’s intervention had set an alarming precedent.





“Every incident in which judicial independence is breached is one too many,” he said. “Now there is this case, and everyone can invoke it in the future. Everyone can say: ‘But you let Turkey get its way.’ This is an original sin. It can’t be fixed.”

etc etc
 
Yet again America acting like a rogue state, under Trump America is a big bully, Turkey is also involved ... that is to be expected of Turkey



Code:
 https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-criminal-court-icc-judge-christoph-flugge-quits-citing-political-interference-trump-administration-turkey

You know the character Alonzo in the movie Training Day?

That's what America is like on the world stage.
 
Yet again America acting like a rogue state, under Trump America is a big bully, Turkey is also involved ... that is to be expected of Turkey



Code:
 https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-criminal-court-icc-judge-christoph-flugge-quits-citing-political-interference-trump-administration-turkey

Oh you mean, if the UN thinks it can begin to criminalize war with made up rules by made up judges, then yeah, I can support the US and any other nation that says .. Um, nope, we're not going to go along with that"... ;)


Tim-
 
Yet again America acting like a rogue state, under Trump America is a big bully, Turkey is also involved ... that is to be expected of Turkey



Code:
 https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-criminal-court-icc-judge-christoph-flugge-quits-citing-political-interference-trump-administration-turkey

Good for the US in protecting our troops from un-elected non-US judges.
 
Yet again America acting like a rogue state, under Trump America is a big bully, Turkey is also involved ... that is to be expected of Turkey



Code:
 https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-criminal-court-icc-judge-christoph-flugge-quits-citing-political-interference-trump-administration-turkey

Going after US troops is the political interference.
 
You know the character Alonzo in the movie Training Day?

That's what America is like on the world stage.

Are you saying that The United States should ignore The Constitution and hand over US citizens to an unconstitutional court?

**** that and **** that judge, too.
 
Are you saying that The United States should ignore The Constitution and hand over US citizens to an unconstitutional court?

**** that and **** that judge, too.

Yeah, I love that kind of stuff.
 
Are you saying that The United States should ignore The Constitution and hand over US citizens to an unconstitutional court?

**** that and **** that judge, too.

The constitution does not grant Americans immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in other nations.
 
The constitution does not grant Americans immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in other nations.

The Hague isn't a court in another nation.
 
The Hague isn't a court in another nation.

It's an international court that's part of the UN charter. You know that, right? It's a court, and it's not in the US. What, do you think it's on Mars?
 
It's an international court that's part of the UN charter. You know that, right? It's a court, and it's not in the US. What, do you think it's on Mars?

It's a court that The United States doesn't recognize. You know that. Right?
 
Someone on the left help me out. I can't find the section of the US Constitution giving jurisdiction to a world court. What article or amendment is that?
 
The constitution does not grant Americans immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in other nations.

Nor does it allow Americans within the USA to be subjected to foreign jurisdictions.
 
It's a court that The United States doesn't recognize. You know that. Right?

I think the overarching discussion is that we should.
 
Someone on the left help me out. I can't find the section of the US Constitution giving jurisdiction to a world court. What article or amendment is that?

Jurisdiction over what? Crimes committed in Afghanistan? No, the US Constitution definitely does not do that.
 
Jurisdiction over what? Crimes committed in Afghanistan? No, the US Constitution definitely does not do that.

The government of Afghanistan could issue a warrant. Whether the USA would honor it and extradite the person is another matter. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing a 'world court" to arrest an American for anything ever regardless of where the claimed crime occurred.

One of the never mentioned good things about electing Trump is the turning over of US sovereignty to the UN was stopped. The Obama team was pursuing outlawing private ownership of firearms thru "treaties" with the United Nations to do so, as one example.
 
The government of Afghanistan could issue a warrant. Whether the USA would honor it and extradite the person is another matter. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing a 'world court" to arrest an American for anything ever regardless of where the claimed crime occurred.

One of the never mentioned good things about electing Trump is the turning over of US sovereignty to the UN was stopped. The Obama team was pursuing outlawing private ownership of firearms thru "treaties" with the United Nations to do so, as one example.

So you think extradition treaties are unconstitutional? Yeah, go ahead and bring that to the supreme court.
 
I think the overarching discussion is that we should.

If the ICC adhered to The Constitution, we probably would. I don't think that would happen, because I can't see the ICC giving American citizens a trial before a jury of the citizen's peers. How would that even work?

The United States is constitutionally bound to protect the civil rights of every United States citizen. Signing onto the ICC would be a violation of that constitutional duty.

And before you start whining about how The Constitution doesn't say that:

Article 6, Section 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
 
If the ICC adhered to The Constitution, we probably would. I don't think that would happen, because I can't see the ICC giving American citizens a trial before a jury of the citizen's peers. How would that even work?

The United States is constitutionally bound to protect the civil rights of every United States citizen. Signing onto the ICC would be a violation of that constitutional duty.

And before you start whining about how The Constitution doesn't say that:

The constitution doesn't apply to crimes in Afghanistan. You think extradition treaties are unconstitutional, you should go challenge them in court.
 
The constitution doesn't apply to crimes in Afghanistan. You think extradition treaties are unconstitutional, you should go challenge them in court.

The Constitutiom applies to United States citizens.
 
The Constitutiom applies to United States citizens.

You can claim a worldwide right to bear arms but if you try and cross into North Korea with a rifle you're gonna get killed.
 
You can claim a worldwide right to bear arms but if you try and cross into North Korea with a rifle you're gonna get killed.

Irrelevant
 
Back
Top Bottom