[mrustow]

I can't believe you would use such polibabble in an argument over illegals. The article you posted is a travesty of specious reasoning and the piling of legal fiction upon legal fiction. And the U.S. bears much of the responsibility for such tortured rationalizations, due to our triumphalist prostitution of the law in prosecuting the Nazis after WWII.

But crimes against humanity are also deemed to be part of jus cogens-the highest standing in international legal norms. [The highest of the fictions] Thus, they constitute a non-derogable rule of international law. The implication of this standing is that they are subject to universal jurisdiction, [Universal jurisdiction is a socialist law professor's dream.]meaning that all States can exercise their jurisdiction in prosecuting a perpetrator irrespective of where the crime was committed. It also means that all States have the duty to prosecute or extradite, [rhetorical posturing] that no person charged with that crime can claim the "political offense exception" to extradition, and that States have the duty to assist each other in securing evidence needed to prosecute. [No such duty exists.] But of greater importance is the fact that no perpetrator can claim the "defense of obedience to superior orders" [More Nuremberg nonsense caused by the U.S. If such rules were truly followed, a nation's military would have to cease operations.] and that no statute of limitation contained in the laws of any State can apply. Lastly, no one is immune from prosecution for such crimes, even a head of State. [Giving nations yet one more reason to refuse to cooperate with foreign prosecutors.]

These international law fabulists took things that were born of treaties between specific states under very specific conditions, like the Geneva Conventions, ignored their conditional nature, and universalized them. Their dishonesty about the law is approached only by their moral hubris.

[Capitalist Eric]

I can't believe you would use such polibabble in an argument over illegals.

I can't believe you didn't read the series of posts, leading to my posting of the legal and technical definitions of a "crime against humanity."

I don't know what you think you're saying, or proving... Because your statement is so torturous to read, so utterly absent of structure or direction, that you have posted babble.

A piece of advice to you- before you exhibit such moral outrage again, read the thread, and understand what is being said, and why.

If you do, you'll avoid looking foolish in the future.