US to try a terrorist....BUT....

[Bricktop]

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/06/25/aust-won-t-advocate-bali-bomber-death-penalty.html">http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stor ... nalty.html">http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/06/25/aust-won-t-advocate-bali-bomber-death-penalty.html



The Bali bombing killed 88 Australians and some Americans.



The alleged chief offender and organiser was later arrested in Bangkok, presumably by the Thai police.



So, whilst I fully support the prosecution of all terrorists, I cannot help but wonder how the US claims it has jurisdiction over a crime that occurred in Indonesia.



Once again, the US talks the talk, but fails to walk the walk when it comes to matters of justice. It reserves the right to act any way it likes, to impose its legal force on people no matter where they commit their crime. Now, if an American commits a crime in America, killing Australians, and Australia grabs this American citizen and tries him in Australia, what do you think the American response would be.



As expedient as it may seem, as persuasive as the US argument against terrorism no doubt is, its failure to recognise the sovereignty of other nations is a core reason it is condemned by others as hypocritical.

[Angry White Male]

It does appear he violated the "Law of War," as that's what he's charged with.



I don't really know much about the governing bodies with relation to enforcing the "Laws of War," but it does appear the US obviously has the ability to do so internationally.

[Anonymous]

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/06/25/aust-won-t-advocate-bali-bomber-death-penalty.html">http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stor ... nalty.html">http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/06/25/aust-won-t-advocate-bali-bomber-death-penalty.html



The Bali bombing killed 88 Australians and some Americans.



The alleged chief offender and organiser was later arrested in Bangkok, presumably by the Thai police.



So, whilst I fully support the prosecution of all terrorists, I cannot help but wonder how the US claims it has jurisdiction over a crime that occurred in Indonesia.



Once again, the US talks the talk, but fails to walk the walk when it comes to matters of justice. It reserves the right to act any way it likes, to impose its legal force on people no matter where they commit their crime. Now, if an American commits a crime in America, killing Australians, and Australia grabs this American citizen and tries him in Australia, what do you think the American response would be.



As expedient as it may seem, as persuasive as the US argument against terrorism no doubt is, its failure to recognise the sovereignty of other nations is a core reason it is condemned by others as hypocritical.

I don't know why the Thai authorities handed him over to the US either. I don't really care either as long as he is convicted and sentenced to death.

[Bricktop]

Nor I.



But if the US believes it has authority all over the globe, what's to stop them grabbing someone from Canada and whisking them off to a kangaroo court???