From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Charles Ellson  wrote:   
   >Wed, 9 Dec 2015 21:59:11 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>Charles Ellson  wrote:   
   >>>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.   
      
   That's something of a joke too.   
      
   >>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.   
      
   Perhaps a bit less hypocrisy up front would lead to more justice   
   in the short run, in lieu of nearly no justice in the long run.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)