Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Missed this, sorry.
This is part of what I was talking about re. "arrogant"  (Ducks for cover) Your laws mean nothing in Afganistan, just as Wahabi Sunni Law means nothing here. You cannot go around imposing your laws on sovereign states. That is imperialism, and is the source of much anger in other nations - even your allies. Respect is what's important.
In this case, be honest. War disregards a sovereign states rights. Call the spade a spade.
|
This is not a case of one country going around imposing its laws on another.
What we have here instead is individuals going to a country and committs a crime while in the country under the laws of that country. Clearly, the perpetrators of those actions were in violation of US law -- no possible objection to this could be made under principles of international law.
The fact that some of them were outside of the country does not change the fact that they helped arrange a scheme took place within the US. Establishing US jurisdiction and the right to try them in the US for violation of US law is easy in this case, by recognized standards of international law.
The question becomes one of extradition -- i.e., arranging that such persons be brought back to the US for such trial. That becomes a mattter of negotiating with foreign gov'ts in some cases, or perhaps more unconventional (and legally questionable but still practical
) means.
So, no, legally, there is no problem with the US trying bin Laden and co. for Murder and other crimes which took place INSIDE the US. This is not the same as trying to prosecute him under US law for things he did in Afghanistan, for instance, which would indeed be a case of international arrogance.