Jurisdiction “to infinity and beyond”

I’ll draw your attention to LawFont’s article that includes the gories that the charges against Haneef have no geographical constraints – as I’d say, they reach "to infinity and beyond".

Now, if that principle is accepted by the current executive, then other nations can apply the same geographical reach to their own laws. JWH (or GWB) couldn’t argue philosophically against those laws!

Thus a nation big on human rights abuses (racist treatment of aboriginals, recklessly causing deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians by giving support to Bush that helped him justify the invasion in the first place) to legitimately bring charges against John Howard and arrest him if he sets foot on, or travels in the airspace of that nation, or any others with which they have extradition arrangements.

Epidemiological methods can estimate deaths and morbidity above background/previous levels, so there is the ability to prove that people have been recklessly or knowingly harmed, that is, a crime has been comitted.

Was John Howard reckless in supporting Bush?  Yes.

Belgium’s court claims to have the ability to prosecute abuses of human rights wherever they occur, so it’s not only the Hague that claims universal jurisdiction.

Don’t expect JWH to go on prime-ministerial jaunts to countries with a large Muslim population and strong rights in their constitution.  He might start understanding the rule of law.