Again, I'll have to disagree. You are comparing apples to oranges.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/15/02 12:10PM >>> >>I find it a bit hypocritical(?) to say that the US can have laws that >>govern what Americans do in Afghanistan, but other countries can not >>have laws that govern what Americans do in Afghanistan (ICC). What would be hypocritical (not wrong and not unlikely, but hypocritical) would be to say the US can have laws that govern what Americans do in Afghanistan, but other countries can not have laws that govern what THEIR CITIZENS do in Afghanistan. So, the Americans make laws saying that if an American guy goes to Thailand, and engages in sex with an underage girl or boy, that American can and will be charged with breaking American law. But, the French should not be able to charge that American. But they can make a law charging a French guy for the same action. That is a more direct (and fair) comparison than the example you gave. Jerry Johnson Judith Dinowitz wrote: > We were fighting the Taliban. He is an American citizen. He helped an enemy > we were at war with. That's called treason. Even when helping an enemy you are at war with is treason (I presume it is), it was not done on American territory and he was there not in a sworn profession. Therefore, it should not be punishable under US law. Or else accept the consequence that other countries make laws that are extraterritorial as well. Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
