Okay, just because I am in the mood to stir the pot here's this nifty subject to kick around.

Some of you might remember a man name Pinochet. He ran Chile from the early 1970's to about 1990. Under his administration numerous political enemies and every day citizens were jailed or "disappeared" Pinochet was arrested in London in compliance with a warrant issued by a Spanish judge. The judged reasoned he had universal jurisdiction because Pinochet's crimes were against humanity. This was the start of a legal journey that you can find out about if you wish. I am more concern with this issue of jurisdiction.

If you want more info on Pinochet here is a link: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/chile98/index.html

What is jurisdiction: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction

For an explanation of Universal jurisdiction from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction

The theory of universal jurisdiction has been around for some time but not applied in this fashion, against a former head of state before.

Why do I bring this up? Because some of his crimes like torture are similar to actions of the Bush administration. Oh, I should mention this has come up internationally before when some suggested Kissinger could be charged with war crimes in Vietnam.

So, what do you all think? Are there crimes against humanity that justify applying universal jurisdiction? Should states be able to go around kidnapping citizens of other states in order to prosecute them?

wow No thoughts on this...amazing.