From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 21:59:11 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"   
    wrote:   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   Indeed but it can effectively "lock them up" in that foreign country   
   if a trial can take place in their absence.   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   Even their own countries and allies can eventually tire of them which   
   is how a few people have gone on trial in Den Haag in recent years.   
      
   >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)