Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (4508)	2/21/2003 8:58:57 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 15987

I am questioning their jurisdiction which the dictionary describes at dictionary.reference.com as follows: I think, therefore I am.. Or better put.. better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission... Or even better... I'll do as I please... And ultimately... Who's going to stop me?? The bottom line is that they can do whatever they want... declare whatever jurisdiction they want.. and try them under any conditions they want... But first.. they have to get access to the defendants (or try "in absentia"), and the odds of obtaining an extradition.. Hawk

To: kumar who wrote (4508)	2/21/2003 9:40:22 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

The easiest way to understand jurisdiction that I know of it to think of it as "the long arm of the law," aka power. Here is a court. Can that court reach out, somehow, and bring you into one of its courtrooms? If so, it has jurisdiction over you. Or maybe, is there a complex interrelationship between courts in different jurisdictions, so that one court will honor an order from another court? If so, it has jurisdiction over you. But an order entered by a court without jurisdiction is void ab initio. It is nugatory. It is as if it does not exist. Legally, it does not exist. However, don't try to figure this out without a lawyer. There are too many traps for the unwary. If I were Sharon, I'd stay in Israel after my term in office was over, and never take the risk.

To: kumar who wrote (4508)	2/24/2003 9:29:47 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

I understand where you are coming from. I was hoping that the article I posted would clarify the grounds for universal jurisdiction in such crimes of war and crimes against humanity, which generally go unpunished in their country of origin since the criminal is a powerful man against whom the country's own legal system is unwilling to take action. Like when Spain indicted Pinochet for the crimes under his rule in Chile. As the Israeli Supreme Court has said that "peculiarly universal character" of crimes against humanity vests in every state the authority to try and punish anyone who participated in their commission. Apparently, there is both precedent, and a valid reasoning behind universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. In the case of an alleged crime against humanity where the courts in the country of origin are unwilling to pursue the affair, it is only natural for the victims to seek justice elsewhere.