Compassion and Justice

Originally posted by FMF
London. Britain. Scotland. Britain. British airspace. British territory. British victims. So?

So, Britian has jurisdiction.

American airline. American airplane. Mostly American victims. Plane already taken off and headed for the United States. Plot hatched with knowledge that most victims would be American and that the victim airline was US based.

So.

The US also has jurisdiction.

It's called concurrent jurisdiction. Happens all the time.

Believe me, US courts have exercised jurisdiction based on far less than this level of connection.

Originally posted by sh76
So, Britian has jurisdiction.

Thank you. The rest of your rooted-in-exceptionalism "but, er... we let the U.K. handle it anyway" twaddle is, at best, charming.

Originally posted by MacSwain
By adding the second sentence I obviously made subject my post too difficult for some to recognise. I will try a more simplistic version.

Muammar Qaddafi had the fellow in hand. Muammar Qaddafi would NEVER turn him oner to ANY country that had capital punishment. There was NO chance of the perpetrator being turned over for trial to the US.

Yes, and I thank you for answering my question. Now I know why the Us did not insist that Britain turn him over to the US, as a practical matter. Thank you.

The discussion has since shifted, however, to whether the US could have exercised jurisdiction from e legal perspective. The answer, of course, is yes.

Originally posted by FMF
Thank you. The rest of your rooted-in-exceptionalism "but, er... we let the U.K. handle it anyway" twaddle is, at best, charming.

There were more than 3.5 times as many American victims as British victims. As such, given the concurrent jurisdiction, the US should have been the one to conduct the trial.

MacSwain answered why this was not done in practice... an explanation that I accept.

Originally posted by sh76
Happens all the time.

Plane takes off from Heathrow. Explodes over Britain. Crashes onto British territory. British people killed. happens all the time? Insist on what? Don't be so daft.

Originally posted by sh76
There were more than 3.5 times as many American victims as British victims. As such, given the concurrent jurisdiction, the US should have been the one to conduct the trial.

Please. Stop being a patriotic little weeble. And talk about the real world. Should? Insist? Pure silliness.

Originally posted by FMF
Plane takes off from Heathrow. Explodes over Britain. Crashes onto British territory. British people killed. happens all the time? Insist on what? Don't be so daft.

Do you really have that much trouble with reading comprehension in context?

I said concurrent jurisdiction happens all the time, not plane crashes.

Jeez! You're not really that thick; are you?


Edit: I can't believe any reasonably intelligent person could have possibly read that I was saying that plane crashes happen all the time. As such, I conclude that you knew what you were saying was absurd and you were saying it simply to make a nuisance of yourself.

Originally posted by sh76
You obviously don't know the first thing about criminal jurisdiction. I don't blame you for that as you are not an attorney. But, before you become incredulous about anything, know this:

Criminal Jurisdiction is based on where the elements of the crime are committed and on the location of the intended victims. If I am sitting in my office in New York and run e US courts would assert jurisdiction over him. That is not even an opinion. It is a FACT

I bow to your superior knowledge, of course (no sarcasm here, btw). I hope you can explain further, then: if criminal law is based on where elements of the crime are committed and on the location of the intended victims, is there any evidence that (i) any of the planning of the bombing was done in the US or (ii) that there was any intention to blow the plane up in any other airspace than that in which it was blown up? If the crime of plotting to blow up the plane occurred in a number of countries (as seems to have been the case) but excluing the US, why would the US be able to claim jurisdiction?

If an Air France flight from the US to Paris was blown up shortly after leaving JFK, with the plane (largely full of French nationals) crashing in to a town in the flightpath, would you not only assert that the French could reasonably claim jurisdiction (I am sure you would) but also state that you believe they ought to have jurisdiction?

Oh, and your second edit: 'I'm not saying the British did NOT have jurisdiction. I'm saying the US ALSO had jurisdiction' sits a little uneasily (note, not in direct contradiction) with this, from earlier:

"I still don't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place. It was an American airline flight en route from London to New York with mostly American passengers.

The US should have had jurisdiction."

EDIT: I see from subsequent discussion how you might answer - that all came in as I was writing this... (just in the hope this caveat might fend off the unfortunate tone you have adopted on these forums recently.)

Originally posted by sh76
Do you really have that much trouble with reading comprehension in context?

I said concurrent jurisdiction happens all the time, not plane crashes.

Jeez! You're not really that thick; are you?


Edit: I can't believe any reasonably intelligent person could have possibly read that I was saying that plane crashes happen all the time. As such, I conclude ...[text shortened]... what you were saying was absurd and you were saying it simply to make a nuisance of yourself.

Where has concurrent jurisdiction ever happened in a case with circumstances like this, Captain America?

You're being utterly daft. The case was heard in Britain because the U.S. didn't insist? Don't be so silly.

Originally posted by DrKF
I bow to your superior knowledge, of course (no sarcasm here, btw). I hope you can explain further, then: if criminal law is based on where elements of the crime are committed and on the location of the intended victims, is there any evidence that (i) any of the planning of the bombing was done in the US or (ii) that there was any intention to blow the plane up ...[text shortened]... on to New York with mostly American passengers.

The US should have had jurisdiction."

Okay; you're right about one thing. I left that important caveat about both sides having jurisdiction out of my OP. Mea culpa.

Yes, in the Air France case, both would have jurisdiction. Yes, France ought to be the one to conduct the trial if the place was mostly full of French nationals. Absolutely!

In my opinion, which is the basis for my assertion, where there is concurrent jurisdiction, the country with the majority of the victims ought to be the one to exercise jurisdiction, under normal circumstances. I have trouble understanding why that's even controversial.

Originally posted by sh76
Edit: I can't believe any reasonably intelligent person could have possibly read that I was saying that plane crashes happen all the time. As such, I conclude that you knew what you were saying was absurd and you were saying it simply to make a nuisance of yourself.

I assume you are making these assertions so as to wear your silly exceptionalist silliness on your sleeve. Name a concurrent jurisdiction case that compares in any way with the Lockerbie bombing.

Originally posted by DrKF
(just in the hope this caveat might fend off the unfortunate tone you have adopted on these forums recently.)

You're right.

I have a cold and the baby has been keeping me up at night. I've been in a bad mood lately. I'm sorry. 😳

I hereby resolve to tone down my rhetoric a little and to go back to ignoring FMF when he starts throwing around silly name calling.

Originally posted by sh76
I hereby resolve to tone down my rhetoric a little and to go back to ignoring FMF when he starts throwing around silly name calling.

Actually you tend to ignore me when you can't answer a straight question, while it is you who has been playing the Nazi card ovber and over again of late. Name a concurrent jurisdiction case that compares in any way with the Lockerbie bombing.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay; you're right about one thing. I left that important caveat about both sides having jurisdiction out of my OP. Mea culpa.

Yes, in the Air France case, both would have jurisdiction. Yes, France ought to be the one to conduct the trial if the place was mostly full of French nationals. Absolutely!

In my opinion, which is the basis for my assertion, wh ...[text shortened]... ction, under normal circumstances. I have trouble understanding why that's even controversial.

OK, then, glad we got the first bit sorted, and I have learned something useful from the discussion.

I am surprised that you really can't see why there is a debate as to who should have jurisdiction, though. The bottom line for those of us who tend to think it should have been Britain will always fall back on the British airspace, British town argument.

I can completely accept that you are consistent enough to side with the (hypothetical) French, but can you really not imagine the reaction in the US were this to come to pass? If you can imagine the reaction, you can surely see that such a decision would indeed be controversial...

Originally posted by sh76
You're right.

I have a cold and the baby has been keeping me up at night. I've been in a bad mood lately. I'm sorry. 😳

I hereby resolve to tone down my rhetoric a little and to go back to ignoring FMF when he starts throwing around silly name calling.

No worries - you're just usually such a reasonable chap!