From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   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.   
      
   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)