What are the specifics of that? Without more detail, it kind of sounds like you're saying American's shouldn't be responsible for crimes committed abroad if the US doesn't prosecute on behalf of the foreign parties.
“Due process” is an individual US constitutional right to have access to our established legal procedures and rules prior to any deprivation of “life, liberty, or property”.
I don’t see a due process violation in your link — just an example of how abdicating sovereign judicial authority can go wrong, as is the case with diplomatic immunity.
The executive branch gave itself the authority to murder US citizens abroad by decree without any judicial oversight based on a declaration of a "targeted killing policy" (Anwar Al-Aulaqi being the first). Seems like those constitutional rights are getting weaker without any legislative or judicial review, no?
There was no "diplomatic immunity" issue relevant in that case. The perpetrator had no diplomatic immunity. She was only immune to prosecution because she ran away, and the US government denied extradition because it would be "troubling".
> “Due process” is an individual US constitutional right
Which basically says "the state must respect the legal rights owed to a person" according to the legal process. And those can range from "you have none because we think you're a terrorist" to "whatever you desire because you're rich enough to buy yourself laws, or at the very least judges".
I will quote something I said just 2 days ago:
> Speaking of due process, 97% of criminal cases don't actually go to trial in the US and are instead settled with plea deals [0]. The sentencing is so harsh for anyone demanding trial and losing that it's mostly a paper right at this time. It does give people the warm fuzzy feeling of justice and correctness though.
Under these conditions having "due process" matters a lot less than you think. China also has laws against having more than 3 children, it just happens that Uyghurs are disproportionately imprisoned for breaking them. Can you think of another group of people being disproportionately imprisoned elsewhere?
> We still have extradition treaties
What's the value of treaties if attempts to enforce them are met with threats from a country with powerful economy and military? The US has repeatedly threatened countries to deter them from ever attempting to prosecute US citizens even for things as serious as war crimes (including the famed "Hague Invasion Act [0]) despite never actually taking any actions to punish this even internally. Like a mob "protection tax", it's not a real agreement if it can't realistically be enforced both ways.
What sort of moral high ground do you think you're defending now? I find it both fascinating and depressing that people find pride in defending such behavior just because it's enacted by their country.
That act refers only to the ICC, which is not a sovereign state and only prosecutes cases that the sovereign states are themselves unwilling to prosecute.
> That act refers only to the ICC, which is not a sovereign state
The ICC only has authority in territories where a sovereign state grants them authority. Hence the act, a threat to invade a sovereign state if that sovereign state follows the legal process they've legally decided (by signing the Rome statute) and prosecute an American citizen
> and only prosecutes cases that the sovereign states are themselves unwilling to prosecute.
Cases that the sovereign state defers to the ICC as their established legal process.
