Michael Kelly, professor with several sub specialties in international
law, explained what was wrong with Maduro's capture in terms of
international law. He was a guest on C-SPAN Washington Journal 1/7/2026.
First, Trump was blowing up boats, claiming narco-terroris. That was
war, not law enforcement. No evidence was preserved. No one was captured
to be put on trial.
If there's a war, then Maduro was a legitimate military target as he
gives orders to the military.
But... if Trump kills him in an act of war, then that means Trump
recognized him as legitimate head of state.
Capturing him and putting him on trial is a violation of international
law.
But now he gets American justice and might be acquitted!
In other words, fair trial is a violation of international law. The
professor implied that killing him as an act of war would not have
violated international law.
Frank, I have a sick headache.
Jan 7, 2026 at 4:23:37 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Michael Kelly, professor with several sub specialties in international
law, explained what was wrong with Maduro's capture in terms of >>international law. He was a guest on C-SPAN Washington Journal 1/7/2026.
First, Trump was blowing up boats, claiming narco-terroris. That was
war, not law enforcement. No evidence was preserved. No one was captured
to be put on trial.
If there's a war, then Maduro was a legitimate military target as he
gives orders to the military.
But... if Trump kills him in an act of war, then that means Trump >>recognized him as legitimate head of state.
Why? We kill a lot of enemy citizens during wars. Doesn't mean we believe >they're all heads of state.
Capturing him and putting him on trial is a violation of international
law.
Isn't that what they did with the Nazis at Nuremberg?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2But now he gets American justice and might be acquitted!
In other words, fair trial is a violation of international law. The >>professor implied that killing him as an act of war would not have
violated international law.
Frank, I have a sick headache.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jan 7, 2026 at 4:23:37 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Michael Kelly, professor with several sub specialties in international
law, explained what was wrong with Maduro's capture in terms of
international law. He was a guest on C-SPAN Washington Journal 1/7/2026.
First, Trump was blowing up boats, claiming narco-terroris. That was
war, not law enforcement. No evidence was preserved. No one was captured >>> to be put on trial.
If there's a war, then Maduro was a legitimate military target as he
gives orders to the military.
But... if Trump kills him in an act of war, then that means Trump
recognized him as legitimate head of state.
Why? We kill a lot of enemy citizens during wars. Doesn't mean we believe
they're all heads of state.
Capturing him and putting him on trial is a violation of international
law.
Isn't that what they did with the Nazis at Nuremberg?
He's saying specifically that a head of state is immune from prosecution
by a foreign government.
Killing him as an act of war is not a violatiom
of international law. Putting him on trial is.
It makes no sense.
I've never studied what law Nazis were charged under.
But now he gets American justice and might be acquitted!
In other words, fair trial is a violation of international law. The
professor implied that killing him as an act of war would not have
violated international law.
Frank, I have a sick headache.
On Jan 7, 2026 at 7:52:33 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jan 7, 2026 at 4:23:37 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Michael Kelly, professor with several sub specialties in international >>>> law, explained what was wrong with Maduro's capture in terms of
international law. He was a guest on C-SPAN Washington Journal 1/7/2026. >>
First, Trump was blowing up boats, claiming narco-terroris. That was
war, not law enforcement. No evidence was preserved. No one was captured >>>> to be put on trial.
If there's a war, then Maduro was a legitimate military target as he
gives orders to the military.
But... if Trump kills him in an act of war, then that means Trump
recognized him as legitimate head of state.
Why? We kill a lot of enemy citizens during wars. Doesn't mean we believe >>> they're all heads of state.
Capturing him and putting him on trial is a violation of international >>>> law.
Isn't that what they did with the Nazis at Nuremberg?
He's saying specifically that a head of state is immune from prosecution
by a foreign government.
He thinks that if the Allies had captured Hitler, that he wouldn't have been >on trial at Nuremberg also?
Killing him as an act of war is not a violatiom
of international law. Putting him on trial is.
It makes no sense.
I've never studied what law Nazis were charged under.
But now he gets American justice and might be acquitted!
In other words, fair trial is a violation of international law. The
professor implied that killing him as an act of war would not have
violated international law.
Frank, I have a sick headache.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jan 7, 2026 at 4:23:37 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Michael Kelly, professor with several sub specialties in international
law, explained what was wrong with Maduro's capture in terms of
international law. He was a guest on C-SPAN Washington Journal 1/7/2026.
First, Trump was blowing up boats, claiming narco-terroris. That was
war, not law enforcement. No evidence was preserved. No one was captured >>> to be put on trial.
If there's a war, then Maduro was a legitimate military target as he
gives orders to the military.
But... if Trump kills him in an act of war, then that means Trump
recognized him as legitimate head of state.
Why? We kill a lot of enemy citizens during wars. Doesn't mean we believe
they're all heads of state.
Capturing him and putting him on trial is a violation of international
law.
Isn't that what they did with the Nazis at Nuremberg?
He's saying specifically that a head of state is immune from prosecution
by a foreign government. Killing him as an act of war is not a violatiom
of international law. Putting him on trial is.
It makes no sense.
I've never studied what law Nazis were charged under.
--But now he gets American justice and might be acquitted!
In other words, fair trial is a violation of international law. The
professor implied that killing him as an act of war would not have
violated international law.
Frank, I have a sick headache.
On 2026-01-07 10:52 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jan 7, 2026 at 4:23:37 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
. . .
Capturing [Maduro] and putting him on trial is a violation of >>>>international law.
Isn't that what they did with the Nazis at Nuremberg?
He's saying specifically that a head of state is immune from prosecution
by a foreign government. Killing him as an act of war is not a violatiom
of international law. Putting him on trial is.
It makes no sense.
I've never studied what law Nazis were charged under.
30 odd years ago, I read a book about the Nuremberg Trials written by
one of the American prosecutors, who was very very old at the time of >writing and publication. I still have the book: The Anatomy of the
Nuremberg Trials by Telford Taylor. (I see it is available on the gray
as an audiobook.) If I remember correctly, he acknowledged that there
really wasn't much proper legal basis for the court and its proceedings.
I've just grabbed the book and I see that Chapter 1 talks about the
legal foundations of the trials. (I'm speaking of the famous first set
of trials that dealt with the top Nazis; there were 11 other sets of
trials afterwards dealing with lesser figures.) Already I've found a few >passages that talk about precedents for the trial.
I'm not about to type out the whole first chapter or even major parts of
it but these snippets should address the point at hand.
========================================================================
The ideas which led to the expanded principles of the Nuremberg Trials
were largely developed by a group of New York lawyers during the autumn
and winter of 1944-1945, most notably by Henry L. Stimson, John J.
McCloy, Murray Bernays, William C. Chanler, Samuel Rosenman, Robert H. >Jackson, and (though we do not usually think of him as a lawyer)
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Initially, and in my view most important, was the decision of Stimson,
then Secretary of War, to pass over the military courts-martial
generally used for the trial of military crimes and establish an >international court. On September 9, 1944, he wrote to the President: "I
am disposed to believe that at least as to the top Nazi officials, we
should participate in an international tribunal to try them." The result
was the unprecedented creation of the International Military Tribunal,
the most important and, I believe, successful new entity in the
enforcement of the laws of war.
...
But what law was the International Military Tribunal enforcing? Ordinary >courts and trials were based on the statutes of sovereign nations.
However, the IMT was no ordinary court. It was established by the United >States and three major European nations, and the laws by which the IMT
was bound were not the laws of those or of any other nations. For its
rules on crime the IMT looked primarily to the international "laws of
war", violations of which are called "war crimes".
========================================================================
At which point he launches into pages of discussion of events going back
as far as the Thirty Years war (1618-1648) that dealt with previous
attempts to deal with war crimes.
...--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-01-07 10:52 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jan 7, 2026 at 4:23:37 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
. . .
Capturing [Maduro] and putting him on trial is a violation of
international law.
Isn't that what they did with the Nazis at Nuremberg?
He's saying specifically that a head of state is immune from prosecution >>> by a foreign government. Killing him as an act of war is not a violatiom >>> of international law. Putting him on trial is.
It makes no sense.
I've never studied what law Nazis were charged under.
30 odd years ago, I read a book about the Nuremberg Trials written by
one of the American prosecutors, who was very very old at the time of
writing and publication. I still have the book: The Anatomy of the
Nuremberg Trials by Telford Taylor. (I see it is available on the gray
as an audiobook.) If I remember correctly, he acknowledged that there
really wasn't much proper legal basis for the court and its proceedings.
I've just grabbed the book and I see that Chapter 1 talks about the
legal foundations of the trials. (I'm speaking of the famous first set
of trials that dealt with the top Nazis; there were 11 other sets of
trials afterwards dealing with lesser figures.) Already I've found a few
passages that talk about precedents for the trial.
I'm not about to type out the whole first chapter or even major parts of
it but these snippets should address the point at hand.
Thank you for typing this out.
========================================================================
The ideas which led to the expanded principles of the Nuremberg Trials
were largely developed by a group of New York lawyers during the autumn
and winter of 1944-1945, most notably by Henry L. Stimson, John J.
McCloy, Murray Bernays, William C. Chanler, Samuel Rosenman, Robert H.
Jackson, and (though we do not usually think of him as a lawyer)
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Initially, and in my view most important, was the decision of Stimson,
then Secretary of War, to pass over the military courts-martial
generally used for the trial of military crimes and establish an
international court. On September 9, 1944, he wrote to the President: "I
am disposed to believe that at least as to the top Nazi officials, we
should participate in an international tribunal to try them." The result
was the unprecedented creation of the International Military Tribunal,
the most important and, I believe, successful new entity in the
enforcement of the laws of war.
Huh. I thought Stalin had pushed for this, since they love their show
trials.
You mean the way Hamas honoured the borders of Gaza and stayed strictly...
But what law was the International Military Tribunal enforcing? Ordinary
courts and trials were based on the statutes of sovereign nations.
However, the IMT was no ordinary court. It was established by the United
States and three major European nations, and the laws by which the IMT
was bound were not the laws of those or of any other nations. For its
rules on crime the IMT looked primarily to the international "laws of
war", violations of which are called "war crimes".
========================================================================
At which point he launches into pages of discussion of events going back
as far as the Thirty Years war (1618-1648) that dealt with previous
attempts to deal with war crimes.
I had no idea. Talk about your disaster, a war to suppress the expansion
of Protestantism ended up expanding it, while killing more than half of
the adult male population of central Europe. The Peace of Westphalia established the principle of international law that boundaries, no
matter how disruptive they are to peace and commerce, are inviolate and
you aren't allowed to go to war over them.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
...
On 2026-01-08 2:43 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:The show trials were the exact OPPOSITE of anything resembling proper >judicial procedure. The defendants had essentially been tortured into >confessing and the defense attorneys appointed for them had a habit of >condemning their clients even more viciously than the prosecutors!
On 2026-01-07 10:52 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jan 7, 2026 at 4:23:37 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
. . .
Capturing [Maduro] and putting him on trial is a violation of
international law.
Isn't that what they did with the Nazis at Nuremberg?
He's saying specifically that a head of state is immune from prosecution >>>> by a foreign government. Killing him as an act of war is not a violatiom >>>> of international law. Putting him on trial is.
It makes no sense.
I've never studied what law Nazis were charged under.
30 odd years ago, I read a book about the Nuremberg Trials written by
one of the American prosecutors, who was very very old at the time of
writing and publication. I still have the book: The Anatomy of the
Nuremberg Trials by Telford Taylor. (I see it is available on the gray
as an audiobook.) If I remember correctly, he acknowledged that there
really wasn't much proper legal basis for the court and its proceedings.
I've just grabbed the book and I see that Chapter 1 talks about the
legal foundations of the trials. (I'm speaking of the famous first set
of trials that dealt with the top Nazis; there were 11 other sets of
trials afterwards dealing with lesser figures.) Already I've found a few >>> passages that talk about precedents for the trial.
I'm not about to type out the whole first chapter or even major parts of >>> it but these snippets should address the point at hand.
Thank you for typing this out.
======================================================================== >>> The ideas which led to the expanded principles of the Nuremberg Trials
were largely developed by a group of New York lawyers during the autumn
and winter of 1944-1945, most notably by Henry L. Stimson, John J.
McCloy, Murray Bernays, William C. Chanler, Samuel Rosenman, Robert H.
Jackson, and (though we do not usually think of him as a lawyer)
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Initially, and in my view most important, was the decision of Stimson,
then Secretary of War, to pass over the military courts-martial
generally used for the trial of military crimes and establish an
international court. On September 9, 1944, he wrote to the President: "I >>> am disposed to believe that at least as to the top Nazi officials, we
should participate in an international tribunal to try them." The result >>> was the unprecedented creation of the International Military Tribunal,
the most important and, I believe, successful new entity in the
enforcement of the laws of war.
Huh. I thought Stalin had pushed for this, since they love their show
trials.
The show trials didn't even miss a beat when important evidence was
shown to be false. For example, Trotsky's son was part of one of the
trials and he admitted to having met with other conspirators at the
Bristol Hotel in Copenhagen on a specific date. Later testimony revealed >that the Bristol Hotel had burned down a few years BEFORE this meeting
and had never been rebuilt. This was just ignored and the conviction >rendered regardless.
You mean the way Hamas honoured the borders of Gaza and stayed strictly >inside them on Oct 7, 2023? Or the way Trump honoured the borders of >Venezuela and left Maduro alone?...
But what law was the International Military Tribunal enforcing? Ordinary >>> courts and trials were based on the statutes of sovereign nations.
However, the IMT was no ordinary court. It was established by the United >>> States and three major European nations, and the laws by which the IMT
was bound were not the laws of those or of any other nations. For its
rules on crime the IMT looked primarily to the international "laws of
war", violations of which are called "war crimes".
========================================================================
At which point he launches into pages of discussion of events going back >>> as far as the Thirty Years war (1618-1648) that dealt with previous
attempts to deal with war crimes.
I had no idea. Talk about your disaster, a war to suppress the expansion
of Protestantism ended up expanding it, while killing more than half of
the adult male population of central Europe. The Peace of Westphalia
established the principle of international law that boundaries, no
matter how disruptive they are to peace and commerce, are inviolate and
you aren't allowed to go to war over them.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
...
Yeah, that's definitely not one of the better-observed principles of
modern nations (or wannabe nations in the case of Hamas).
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 2:43 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:The show trials were the exact OPPOSITE of anything resembling proper
On 2026-01-07 10:52 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jan 7, 2026 at 4:23:37 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>
. . .
Capturing [Maduro] and putting him on trial is a violation of
international law.
Isn't that what they did with the Nazis at Nuremberg?
He's saying specifically that a head of state is immune from prosecution >>>>> by a foreign government. Killing him as an act of war is not a violatiom >>>>> of international law. Putting him on trial is.
It makes no sense.
I've never studied what law Nazis were charged under.
30 odd years ago, I read a book about the Nuremberg Trials written by
one of the American prosecutors, who was very very old at the time of
writing and publication. I still have the book: The Anatomy of the
Nuremberg Trials by Telford Taylor. (I see it is available on the gray >>>> as an audiobook.) If I remember correctly, he acknowledged that there
really wasn't much proper legal basis for the court and its proceedings. >>>
I've just grabbed the book and I see that Chapter 1 talks about the
legal foundations of the trials. (I'm speaking of the famous first set >>>> of trials that dealt with the top Nazis; there were 11 other sets of
trials afterwards dealing with lesser figures.) Already I've found a few >>>> passages that talk about precedents for the trial.
I'm not about to type out the whole first chapter or even major parts of >>>> it but these snippets should address the point at hand.
Thank you for typing this out.
======================================================================== >>>> The ideas which led to the expanded principles of the Nuremberg Trials >>>> were largely developed by a group of New York lawyers during the autumn >>>> and winter of 1944-1945, most notably by Henry L. Stimson, John J.
McCloy, Murray Bernays, William C. Chanler, Samuel Rosenman, Robert H. >>>> Jackson, and (though we do not usually think of him as a lawyer)
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Initially, and in my view most important, was the decision of Stimson, >>>> then Secretary of War, to pass over the military courts-martial
generally used for the trial of military crimes and establish an
international court. On September 9, 1944, he wrote to the President: "I >>>> am disposed to believe that at least as to the top Nazi officials, we
should participate in an international tribunal to try them." The result >>>> was the unprecedented creation of the International Military Tribunal, >>>> the most important and, I believe, successful new entity in the
enforcement of the laws of war.
Huh. I thought Stalin had pushed for this, since they love their show
trials.
judicial procedure. The defendants had essentially been tortured into
confessing and the defense attorneys appointed for them had a habit of
condemning their clients even more viciously than the prosecutors!
The show trials didn't even miss a beat when important evidence was
shown to be false. For example, Trotsky's son was part of one of the
trials and he admitted to having met with other conspirators at the
Bristol Hotel in Copenhagen on a specific date. Later testimony revealed
that the Bristol Hotel had burned down a few years BEFORE this meeting
and had never been rebuilt. This was just ignored and the conviction
rendered regardless.
You mean the way Hamas honoured the borders of Gaza and stayed strictly...
But what law was the International Military Tribunal enforcing? Ordinary >>>> courts and trials were based on the statutes of sovereign nations.
However, the IMT was no ordinary court. It was established by the United >>>> States and three major European nations, and the laws by which the IMT >>>> was bound were not the laws of those or of any other nations. For its
rules on crime the IMT looked primarily to the international "laws of
war", violations of which are called "war crimes".
======================================================================== >>>
At which point he launches into pages of discussion of events going back >>>> as far as the Thirty Years war (1618-1648) that dealt with previous
attempts to deal with war crimes.
I had no idea. Talk about your disaster, a war to suppress the expansion >>> of Protestantism ended up expanding it, while killing more than half of
the adult male population of central Europe. The Peace of Westphalia
established the principle of international law that boundaries, no
matter how disruptive they are to peace and commerce, are inviolate and
you aren't allowed to go to war over them.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
...
inside them on Oct 7, 2023? Or the way Trump honoured the borders of
Venezuela and left Maduro alone?
Yeah, that's definitely not one of the better-observed principles of
modern nations (or wannabe nations in the case of Hamas).
I wasn't even thinking of outside Europe, but of the hundreds of
subsequent European-wide wars. The Counter-Reformation was all about Christians slaughtering other Christians to impose religion in war after
war after war. Europe would be a lovely place if not for its kings, the
Pope, and other dictators.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:49:53 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,735 |