Canada Charges Syrian Officer with Torture in Rendition Case

[Eddie Teach]

Rape is illegal in France, yet they won't extradite or prosecute Polanski. 

Are you criticizing the US officials that requested he be extradited?  'Cause that seems to be what you are doing in the Canadian case.

No. I would be criticizing them if they wanted him to be extradited for raping an American in France.

[grumbler]

No. I would be criticizing them if they wanted him to be extradited for raping an American in France.

Ah.  So your problem isn't extradition, but jurisdiction.  Do you think it is okay for the members of ISIS to torture and kill American citizens, because that is legal in the Caliphate?  If not, who has jurisdiction to punish that crime?

Do you think nations have jurisdiction to apprehend and punish pirates outside their own territorial waters?

[alfred russel]

No. I would be criticizing them if they wanted him to be extradited for raping an American in France.

Ah.  So your problem isn't extradition, but jurisdiction.  Do you think it is okay for the members of ISIS to torture and kill American citizens, because that is legal in the Caliphate?  If not, who has jurisdiction to punish that crime?

For starters, the states where ISIS is operating have jurisdiction. Also, those actions probably fall into some sort of crime against humanity that can be prosecuted internationally. But above all, the US is in some sort of quasi state of war with ISIS, bombing them, training and equipping their enemies, and sending drone strikes against them. You bring up a stupid analogy because if we identify the ISIS people torturing and killing americans we aren't going to attempt to extradite them, we are going to send a missile through their window one night.

Do you think nations have jurisdiction to apprehend and punish pirates outside their own territorial waters?

There are centuries of treaties and other international developments specifically for piracy. It really makes for a poor comparative.

[grumbler]

For starters, the states where ISIS is operating have jurisdiction.

And that state is the caliphate.

Also, those actions probably fall into some sort of crime against humanity that can be prosecuted internationally.

Probably not, since it is my hypothetical.

But above all, the US is in some sort of quasi state of war with ISIS, bombing them, training and equipping their enemies, and sending drone strikes against them. You bring up a stupid analogy because if we identify the ISIS people torturing and killing americans we aren't going to attempt to extradite them, we are going to send a missile through their window one night.

I am not sure what a "quazi state of war is, legally, but it isn't war, so your analogy is stupid.  The US doesn't just get to kill anyone they want in the Caliphate; it may take necessary military actions to secure a military objective, but it can't just murder someone on the suspicion that they murdered some American.  Even if they did, that would be asserting some jurisdiction over the crime in question, which was my point.

Do you think nations have jurisdiction to apprehend and punish pirates outside their own territorial waters?

There are centuries of treaties and other international developments specifically for piracy. It really makes for a poor comparative.

So, are you saying that you DO think nations have jurisdiction to apprehend and punish pirates outside their own territorial waters, or that they don't?  Weasel-wording to avoid answering a yes or no question is just weaseling.

[alfred russel]

Newsflash captain grumbles: the caliphate is not a recognized state, and is not going to be in the foreseeable future. If you want to develop a hypothetical where it is, you should make that clear, so it can be ignored along with Tim's alt history maps.

[dps]

Probably not, since it is my hypothetical.

What hypothetical?  Torturing and killing Americans?  From what I've heard, that's actually happened, so it's not exactly a hypothetical.

[crazy canuck]

AR, you have proposed a theory that the only country that has jurisdiction over an act is the country where the act occurs.  Grumbler was proposing a hypothetical to test your assertion. Before you get too wound up you should know that the proposition that the territory where the act takes place has exclusive jurisdiction has not been the law since at least the 19th century.

Grumbler's second hypothetical was provided to give you a hint as to where you were going wrong since much of this law was initially developed by Admiralty courts in response to piracy interfering with international trade.  As you might imagine British courts had little trouble taking jurisdiction over cases of piracy of British ships in non British territories.

In the commercial sphere you should look, as an example, at the willingness of courts in Texas to try civil cases that have no connection with that State.

Then come back and tell us about your theory about exclusive jurisdiction.

[alfred russel]

AR, you have proposed a theory that the only country that has jurisdiction over an act is the country where the act occurs.  Grumbler was proposing a hypothetical to test your assertion. Before you get too wound up you should know that the proposition that the territory where the act takes place has exclusive jurisdiction has not been the law since at least the 19th century.

Grumbler's second hypothetical was provided to give you a hint as to where you were going wrong since much of this law was initially developed by Admiralty courts in response to piracy interfering with international trade.  As you might imagine British courts had little trouble taking jurisdiction over cases of piracy of British ships in non British territories.

In the commercial sphere you should look, as an example, at the willingness of courts in Texas to try civil cases that have no connection with that State.

Then come back and tell us about your theory about exclusive jurisdiction.

I haven't asserted anything. Peter Wiggin expressed a point of view, and grumbler jumped on him with a bunch of extraneous stuff as grumbler so often does. I was just backing up Peter Wiggin from what I think borders on bullying behavior by grumbler.

I'm well aware of how the law works--I spent years auditing with a major focus on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance. I don't think that means Peter Wiggin is wrong to have the point of view he does.

[Jaron]

Peter Wiggins should know better than to go head to head with grumbler. It's like watching a mouse toy with a panther.

[Eddie Teach]

I liked you better when you were serving nachos out of a hat.

[Jaron]

I have to pay moderate lip service to grumbler to keep my grumbler point.


Also, the nachos out of a hat thing sounds vaguely familiar - context?

[crazy canuck]

AR, you have proposed a theory that the only country that has jurisdiction over an act is the country where the act occurs.  Grumbler was proposing a hypothetical to test your assertion. Before you get too wound up you should know that the proposition that the territory where the act takes place has exclusive jurisdiction has not been the law since at least the 19th century.

Grumbler's second hypothetical was provided to give you a hint as to where you were going wrong since much of this law was initially developed by Admiralty courts in response to piracy interfering with international trade.  As you might imagine British courts had little trouble taking jurisdiction over cases of piracy of British ships in non British territories.

In the commercial sphere you should look, as an example, at the willingness of courts in Texas to try civil cases that have no connection with that State.

Then come back and tell us about your theory about exclusive jurisdiction.

I haven't asserted anything. Peter Wiggin expressed a point of view, and grumbler jumped on him with a bunch of extraneous stuff as grumbler so often does. I was just backing up Peter Wiggin from what I think borders on bullying behavior by grumbler.

I'm well aware of how the law works--I spent years auditing with a major focus on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance. I don't think that means Peter Wiggin is wrong to have the point of view he does.

If you understand the applicable law I am confused as to why you are defending a position that you ought to know is incorrect.  Especially since Wiggin himself conceded the jurisdictional point when it was explained to him upthread.

[dps]

Wiggin himself conceded the jurisdictional point when it was explained to him upthread.

He did?

[alfred russel]

If you understand the applicable law I am confused as to why you are defending a position that you ought to know is incorrect.  Especially since Wiggin himself conceded the jurisdictional point when it was explained to him upthread.

First, I wasn't defending a position--as I stated upthread, I thought grumbler was dogpiling and intentionally or otherwise missing the core point of what PW was trying to say.

Second, I see three currents of arguments from Peter: a) what the law is, which as you say was conceded upthread, and is thus no longer relevant, b) what the law should be, and c) how political considerations impact the application in high profile international cases.

B & C don't necessarily hinge on what the law is.

[Eddie Teach]

Hard to drop a thread when people keep mentioning your name. 

I have a philosophical problem with these kind of jurisdictional claims meant to catch people who slip through the cracks. It stems from the same principles as the restriction on double jeopardy. The more people with the discretion to prosecute a particular crime, the greater the chance one of them decides to do so, even if their case is weak. In the extreme case, someone thought to be involved with a mass terror bombing might be investigated by prosecutors in 20 or 30 different countries.

Obviously, piracy and guerrilla groups and states in anarchy constitute special cases. But that's not (quite) the case here. AFAIK, Canada recognizes Assad's government, which still has operating courts.