From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 02:37:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"   
    wrote:   
      
   >Charles Ellson  wrote:   
   >   
   >>As applied to General Pinochet when there was an attempt to deal with   
   >>him in the UK some years ago, that's sovereign immunity not diplomatic   
   >>immunity (which most "sovereigns" be they monarchs or presidents don't   
   >>have). It only applies to acts within their own country not those in   
   >>other countries; the immunity continues beyond their end of period of   
   >>rule/office but only WRT events within that period. It was one of the   
   >>various reasons why Emperor Hirohito was not tried after WW2. Those   
   >>who did come to a sticky end (e.g. Hitler, Mussolini, Ceausescu,   
   >>Hussein, Quisling and others) generally did so at the hands of   
   >>themselves, their own country or as a general war victim.   
   >   
   >What case would have been made against Hirohito? Even if he'd been   
   >personally responsible for any of the more attrocious orders, Japan   
   >never signed the Geneva conventions.   
   >   
   Victors don't always pay attention to legal niceties; IIRC there was a   
   degree of dubiety about the legality of the Nuremberg trials.   
   In Japan's case there seemed to be an acceptance that Hirohito was for   
   practical purposes a titular head rather than the real man in charge;   
   the prime minister went to the gallows. He also provided a convenient   
   non-military and favoured focus for the Japanese people allowing Japan   
   to take a different path after WW2; there was possibly also the factor   
   that Uncle Joe Stalin (whose general solution to most problems seemed   
   to be to kill people) didn't have the same amount of control as he   
   might have had in Europe.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)