Thread: Universal Jurisdiction??

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Trying very very hard (and apparetnly failing) to not respond to the defense of holocaust deniers...fine company you keep (www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=552003)... Were they not Austrians? Did they not break Austrian LAW? If it is LAW, breaking it is a crime, no? Why is it in quotes? Because you agree with them? Perhaps we can agree to keep this thread on track from now on? These questions are purely for your (and others') thoughts....I will not respond to any further inquiry along these lines in this thread.


As for universal jurisdiction, it is an interesting concept in international law. As opposed to the Hague or Nuremberg, where a multinational coalition applies broadly accepted laws, a single sovereign entity claims that crimes committed outside its borders are bad enough to be crimes against THE WORLD, and as such, they have jurisdiction to protect humaity from the transgressors. Kissinger is a big opponent if I remember correctly.

It is also to be differentiated from extraterritorial jurisdiction, whereas some (or all, depending on the application) of the laws of a country apply to its citizens when travelling abroad. An example is a US citizen smoking a Cuban cigar when travelling....it is against the letter of the law, and they could (in theory) be prosecuted for it!!

Writing a book that deals with historical fact should not be a crime, but that's for another thread. Zündel is a Canadian living in Canada and Toben is living in Australia, not Austria. And watch your manner's fella.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Writing a book that deals with historical fact should not be a crime, but that's for another thread. Zündel is a Canadian living in Canada and Toben is living in Australia, not Austria. And watch your manner's fella.

Yes, another thread indeed. Zundel was bron in Germany, kicked out the US, and Canada for a variety of reasons, and is imprisined in Germany, I thought? We can discuss whether Holocaust denial (denying historical fact might be more accurate? We know your opinions of Jews and the holocaust, and they have little to do with Universal Jurisdiction, though of course the cases have relation) should be a crime in another thread any time, though I believe we already have.

As for my manners, (not manner's) I am terribly sorry, but I see nothing in what I wrote that was beyond the pale. In response to a thread about a concept in international law, you brought up the treatment you see as unjust, of a neo-nazi. In most of what I know as polite circles, this is a far greater breach of manners than anything I might have said.