Compassion and Justice

Originally posted by FMF
Name a concurrent jurisdiction case that compares in any way with the Lockerbie bombing.

Later on, when I have some more time, I will go on Lexis and try to find some examples. If I forget, by all means, please remind me.

For now, I have to do some work.

See you later... sleep tight. I know it's getting late over there.

Originally posted by sh76
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.

What nonsense.

You "don't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place"? Really?

You don't see it?

Note to self: whatever else this analyist says about this case can be safely discounted as silly, blinkered American exceptionalism. Why? He doesn't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place. Utherpendragonesque.

Originally posted by FMF
Note to self: whatever else this analyist says about this case can be safely discounted as silly, blinkered American exceptionalism. Why? He doesn't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place. Utherpendragonesque.[/b]

😴

Originally posted by sh76
I still don't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place. [then, later...] Britain has jurisdiction.

Which is it to be?

Originally posted by FMF
Which is it to be?

You can HAVE jurisdiction and not assert it because you feel that someone else ought to have jurisdiction instead.

You have have a chocolate bar in your cupboard and not eat it.

You can own the right to eat the chocolate bar but concede that someone else has more of an interest and/or justification for eating the chocolate bar than you do.

Britian can have the right to assert jurisdiction and decline to do so because they feel that since there were 3.5 times the number of US victims, the US ought to be the one to hold the trial.

Originally posted by sh76
You can HAVE jurisdiction and not assert it because you feel that someone else ought to have jurisdiction instead.

You have have a chocolate bar in your cupboard and not eat it.

You can own the right to eat the chocolate bar but concede that someone else has more of an interest and/or justification for eating the chocolate bar than you do.

Britian can ...[text shortened]... nce there were 3.5 times the number of US victims, the US ought to be the one to hold the trial.

So why do you still not see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction?

Originally posted by FMF
So why do you still not see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction?

MacSwain explained it well. Otherwise, Libya would never have turned over the terrorist without an assurance that the US would not assert jurisdiction.

I understand and accept that explanation.

Under ordinary circumstances though (i.e, circumstances without that factor), I would expect Britian to concede jurisdiction to the United States under the same facts for the reason I already mentioned (vast majority of the victims).

Originally posted by sh76
MacSwain explained it well. Otherwise, Libya would never have turned over the terrorist without an assurance that the US would not assert jurisdiction.

How is that an answer to the question: "So why do you still not see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction?"

Originally posted by FMF
How is that an answer to the question: "So why do you still not see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction?"

Because the question is based on the premise that I "still [do] not see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction."

That premise is incorrect.

As such, answering the question is an impossibility.

If you ask me "Why does the Sun rise in the West?" I would not be able to answer that question either.

Originally posted by sh76
Because the question is based on the premise that I "still [do] not see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction."

That premise is incorrect.

As such, answering the question is an impossibility.

But it's you who said I still don't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place, not me, nor is it an invention. So how is the premise incorrect?

Originally posted by sh76
If you ask me "Why does the Sun rise in the West?" I would not be able to answer that question either.

I haven't, I am not, and I won't ask you why the sun sets in the west.

I asked you "So why do you still not see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction?" because you said "I still don't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place."

And the reason I am pressing you on this is because you have taken it upon yourself to lecture us on "jurisdiction". And yet your knowledge of "jurisdiction" in this case appears to hinge on something posted by someone else a few moments ago.

Originally posted by FMF
But it's you who said [b]I still don't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place, not me, nor is it an invention. So how is the premise incorrect?[/b]

But that "still" was written BEFORE MacSwain's explanation.


NOW, on the other hand, is AFTER MacSwain's explanation.


BEFORE MacSwain's explanation, the premise was correct.


AFTER MacSwain's explanation, the premise is NOT correct.


NOW, we are living in the POST-MacSwain's explanation era, NOT the PRE-MacSwain's explanation era.


Ergo, NOW, the premise is NOT correct.

Originally posted by sh76
But that "still" was written BEFORE MacSwain's explanation.


NOW, on the other hand, is AFTER MacSwain's explanation.


BEFORE MacSwain's explanation, the premise was correct.


AFTER MacSwain's explanation, the premise is NOT correct.


NOW, we are living in the [b]POST-MacSwain's explanation era, NOT the PRE-MacSwain's explanation era.


Ergo, NOW, the premise is NOT correct.[/b]

So you have taken it upon yourself to lecture us on "jurisdiction" and yet your knowledge of "jurisdiction" in this case appears to hinge on something posted by McSwain a few moments ago?

Are you being serious?

Originally posted by FMF
So you have taken it upon yourself to lecture us on "jurisdiction" and yet your knowledge of "jurisdiction" in this case appears to hinge on something posted by McSwain a few moments ago?

Are you being serious?

The lecture on jurisdiction was designed to educate everyone that the US does have jurisdiction over the case, not that Britain does not.

Notice:

I did not say that I didn't see why Britain HAD jurisdiction; I said I don't see why Britain ASSERTED jurisdiction.

Those are two very different concepts.

Now, because of MacSwain's explanation, I do see why Britain ASSERTED jurisdiction.

The point of the lecture on jurisdiction; that the US also had jurisdiction, stands.

Originally posted by sh76
The lecture on jurisdiction was designed to educate everyone that the US does have jurisdiction over the case, not that Britain does not.

Notice:

I did not say that I didn't see why Britain HAD jurisdiction; I said I don't see why Britain ASSERTED jurisdiction.

Those are two very different concepts.

Now, because of MacSwain's explanation, I do see w ...[text shortened]... tion.

The point of the lecture on jurisdiction; that the US also had jurisdiction, stands.

How is it possible that someone who claims to undertsand concurrent jurisdiction could not understand why Britain asserted its jurisdiction?