From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Charles Ellson  wrote:   
   >Wed, 9 Dec 2015 20:54:31 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 08-Dec-15 12:50, henhanna@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>>On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 4:25:53 PM UTC-8, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
      
   >>>>>Congress only gave them jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns in very   
   >>>>>specific circumstances, none of which applied here.  Therefore, they   
   >>>>>lacked subject matter--not personal--jurisdiction.   
      
   >>>>>They _did_ appear to have personal and territorial jurisdiction, but   
   >>>>>without subject-matter jurisdiction too, that was moot.   
      
   >>>>Hello.  Thanks for the comments.   That makes sense.   
      
   >>>>>They _did_ appear to have ... territorial jurisdiction,   
      
   >>>>            territorial jurisdiction -- really?   
   >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_jurisdiction   
      
   >>>Yes; due to "long arm" laws, as long as _part_ of the act (in this case,   
   >>>the sale of her ticket by a US travel agent) is within the court's   
   >>>territorial jurisdiction, then the rest of the act is as well.   
      
   >>>This is how, for instance, the US prosecutes people for war crimes or   
   >>>terrorism committed overseas; as long as _part_ of the act was in the US   
   >>>(even if that part alone was completely legal!), we can prosecute them   
   >>>for the _entire_ act.   
      
   >>The foreign country in which the crime occurred has to cede jurisdiction,   
   >>or the country in which the alleged criminal is in has to recognize   
   >>US authority to prosecute and extradite.   
      
   >Not necessary with war crimes :-   
   >https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter44_rule157   
   >and IMU commonly not necessary where a state prosecutes one of its own   
   >citizens even if the offence was entirely abroad.   
      
   Um, ok, but that doesn't get the country asserting jurisdiction cooperation   
   in extradition if the foreign country fails to recognize the assertion.   
      
   Despite what the Geneva Convetions state, there's no practical recognition   
   of war crimes. There isn't a dictator on the planet who maintains power   
   without committing human rights violations, some of which probably do   
   rise to the level of war crimes when committed during a civil war. Yet   
   they maintain foreign trade and foreign relations and have little trouble   
   buying arms on the open market.   
      
   Lots of times, when foreign nations want them gone, they let them keep   
   the money they've stolen and don't prosecute for war crimes, simply because   
   we're trying to delay the start of the inevitable civil war.   
      
   Who says there's no sense of humor in diplomacy?   
      
   >>We're not going to prosecute crimes from Maoist China or Stalinist USSR.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)