BK>>> And, since he was wanted for a terrorist attack on an airliner,
 BK>>> international law requires the US either deport him or put him
 BK>>> on trial. Doing neither is not allowed.

 EC>> You forgot to cite the specific statute of international
 EC>> law that is binding on the US and enunciates this specific
 EC>> requirement.

-> BK>> The 1963 Tokyo convention on the high seas.

 EC> "nothing in this Convention shall be deemed to create an
 EC> obligation to grant extradition."

-> Does prosecute exceed your abilities to understand?

Gee, Bob, I understand the word "seizure" in the Convention, and I
understand that the plane wasn't seized!  Which part do YOU not
understand?

I also understand the term "contracting states" in the Convention.  Do
you?

I also understand the Articles that establish jurisdiction.  Since you
wish to prolong your humiliation on this matter, why don't you quote the
specific provisions of the Convention that would give the United States
any jurisdiction?

You made two other references to air piracy agreements.  What happened
there, Bob?  Were you like a child playing with a loaded google, and it
exploded in your face?

 EC> In fact the ONLY relevant part of it that pertains to this
 EC> thread is in Article 14: "No one shall be liable to be
 EC> tried or punished again for an offence for which he has
 EC> already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance

-> Since he was not *FINALLY* aquitted, from what you posted, it's
-> irrelevant.

Actually, as I already substantiated several times, he was acquitted
twice.

-> The Montreal convention for the suppression of unlawful acts
-> against the safety of civil aviation. Article 7 I believe.

Ah, after looking like a fool on your first THREE answers, you offer a
FOURTH.  And you once again ignore that phrase "contracting state."
Why, Bob?  Did you not read it?  Did you not understand it?

And then there is that same "jurisdiction" thing again.  You still don't
understand that, do you?  Read Article 5.

And, by the way, he was not "found" in the United States.  He was
"found" (that is the specific term in the agreement: "found") in
Venezuela.  Venezuela had jurisdiction, and the other countries that
COULD have claimed jurisdiction to try him waived it.  Venezuela tried
him. Venezuela acquitted him. You tossed out a link to an article in
"Counterpunch," but you missed a RELEVANT link: "After the
arrests of Lugo, Ricardo, Bosch and Posada, Trinidad, Barbados, Guyana
and Cuba ceded jurisdiction over the downing of the passenger plane to
Venezuela, and all four were prosecuted in Caracas for murder."

http://www.counterpunch.org/pertierra04112006.html

You just keep stumbling around in the dark.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10