From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 11-Dec-15 14:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 11-Dec-15 09:02, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
      
   >>>>Several points:   
      
   >>>>1) It's the Law Lords, ...   
      
   >>>Correction noted, but it's immaterial.   
      
   >>It's one of those many weirdnesses about UK government in which they   
   >>don't have separation of powers.   
      
   >It's still immaterial.   
      
   Stephen, in case you failed to notice, the thread drifted. You yourself   
   contributed to thread drift. That's what happens when people chat on Usenet   
   and threads go on for some time. It was a point of interest to me, so   
   I mentioned it. Nothing is immaterial in a casual conversation, so your   
   objection is irrelevant.   
      
   >>>>2) The appeal had to be reheard ...   
      
   >>>Also immaterial.   
      
   >>I don't think so. Even the very worst shouldn't be denied due   
   >>process if we really intend to bring them to justice. He was.   
      
   >The rehearing didn't change the result, so it's still immaterial.   
      
   The result of the first hearing was tossed out. There was no legitimate   
   ruling. Can't get a bigger change than that. It also rather reminded   
   the law lords that failure to disclose conflict of interest is scandalous.   
      
   That's a de-frockable offense for a judge in some jurisdictions.   
      
   >>>>3) The big big point: Most of the charges were dropped because   
   >>>>Pinochet was being prosecuted ex post facto; the UK didn't adopt   
   >>>>legislation implementing the UN Convention Against Torture until   
   >>>>1988, and Pinochet could not be tried on charges from alleged   
   >>>>crimes before the legislation came into effect. I don't know what   
   >>>>crimes Pinochet could have been charged with that late in his   
   >>>>rule as the really awful stuff took place within a few years of   
   >>>>the coup.   
      
   >>>The UK quashed the warrant with respect to several of the charges   
   >>>on such grounds, but he wasn't to be tried in a UK court anyway, so   
   >>>it didn't matter in practice because at least one charge survived.   
      
   >>>Whether those charges would have survived in a Spanish (or   
   >>>Chilean) court is an interesting question, but it's moot now.   
      
   >>The Spanish intended to try him for torture and murder of Spanish   
   >>citizens, not everything else that he did, nothing to do with the   
   >>UN convention. They were simply asserting jurisdiction.   
      
   >>I really don't see that they had any.   
      
   >They specifically asserted universal jurisdiction.  Doing so only with   
   >respect to victims who happened to be Spanish citizens, as a matter of   
   >either Spanish law or prosecutorial discretion, is immaterial.   
      
   Making such assertions is what people do when they lack jurisidiction,   
   isn't it. It doesn't make it true. It doesn't avoid unintended consequence,   
   or do you refuse to acknowledge that?   
      
   >>Chile wasn't planning on trying him at all. It was what they agreed   
   >>to in the first place to get him out.   
      
   >They granted him immunity in return for him resigning from their Senate,   
   >and then their own courts overturned that immunity.  I'm not sure how   
   >legal that was under Chilean law, but that's immaterial to the question   
   >of universal jurisdiction.   
      
   That's the deal they made to get him out of office.   
      
   Your assertion that universal jurisdiction is legitimate is every bit   
   as much handwaiving as governments asserting it themselves.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)