Post by Ketut Royson"NO Australian Law applies outside Australia - it doesn't matter what
"law" you speak off. It is foolish to suggest such. "
How about the laws for people smuggling.
The same! People smugglers smuggling people from Iraq, through Turkey
to Germany are of NO INTEREST to Australia. I would have thought that
kind of obvious.
Post by Ketut RoysonIn that case the Australian
government has sought the extradition from Egypt of a person who
conspired in Indonesia to send people to Australia? Are you saying that
the people smuggling law only applies to Acts done in Australia?
First of all please learn to read properly - you failed on that score!
Further more, "has sought to" does not say "succeeded in extraditing"
- in any event where do you think the extradition was TO - Indonesia?
Post by Ketut Royson"What you read there is that IF a person illegally (meaning, it does
not apply to a lawful executioner)) "
Is this so?
It is - if you don't think it is correct, provide evidence of
something contrary.
Post by Ketut RoysonIt is certainly not express in the description of the
offence, but is it a defence to a prosecution under s104 that the Act
was not unlawful under the local law? Would that defence stand up in a
"war crime" that involved the deaths of Australian citizens if the
accusedperson was issuing military orders in their command?
That nonsense is not even relevant, further more it suggests that no
other nation has a right to make laws applying to their own nation!
Surely it is not reasonable to even suggest such!
Post by Ketut Royson"kills an Australian citizen or a
resident of Australia AND they escape the local law, AND are stupid
enough to come to Australia after that, THEN they can be detained and
prosecuted for that murder."
Yep. Agreed. Or are extradited to Australia from a third country (like
Egypt in the case of the SIEV people smugglers)
Please note your own words above "extradited TO Australia", now why
would that be exactly, hmmm - specially considering it is something
you have been arguing against!
Post by Ketut Royson"If the killer does NOT come to Australia - then Australia CANNOT
prosecute that person either "
No. They can issue a warrant through Interpol or make an extradition
request.
I doubt they would get it -as extradition to the nation the crime was
committed in takes precedence. We have the Falkonio case ongoing right
here. IF it was otherwise than as I say - or as YOU say, the Poms
would have extradited the accused to Britain to stand trial. They
haven't and their request would be denied in any event. Can you think
of a reason why?
Post by Ketut Royson"nor does Australian Law have any bearing at all on LOCAL laws of the
nation the crime was committed in "
No shit?
" they [local laws- lex loci]always take precedence."
Not in an Australian Court trying a case under Australian law.
Please name an "Australian Court" that exists in another nation.
Post by Ketut Royson"Note that the law only applies (can be acted on) IN Australia against
a person IN Australia in relation to an act committed outside Australia
- the LAW does NOT apply outside Australia."
The above is written as clearly as needs be, specially considering
that "applies" has been specifically defined - to NOT understand it,
means not understanding the language!
Post by Ketut RoysonWell our disagreement here seems to be about the what you mean by
"applies".
It has a very well known meaning - the incorrect use of it doesn't
qualify as a "meaning", only as gobbledegook. It this case it does NOT
mean to apply butter to a piece of bread as your use of it infers!
In the correct context it has the well known meaning of "administer"
as in applying the Law to an act. You "apply the law" or "you
administer the Law" and that can ONLY be done IN Australia - nowhere
else, as THAT is the only place where it "applies".
Knowing the language and its correct use in any particular context is
paramount to the ability to communicate - and is specially critical in
law.
Post by Ketut RoysonThe Australian law is framed to apply outside Australia.
THIS is where you stuff up in the comprehension. That above is
bullshit - THIS is what you should have written: "The Australian law
is framed to apply TO CERTAIN ACTS COMMITTED outside Australia" - then
it would have been understandable.
What you are essentially trying to do is say, "I did say that" has the
same meaning as "I did not say that"!
[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------