Why was the Armenian assassin of Talat Pasha acquitted for murder? The Armenian assassin of the ex-Ottoman Grand Vizier Talat Pasha, Soghomon Tehlirian was acquitted of murder in his trial. His defence was that he was killing Talat Pasha in retaliation for his crimes in orchestrating the Ottoman Armenian Genocide. Tehlirian was tried for murder, but was eventually acquitted by the twelve-man jury. His trial was a rather sensationalized event at the time, taking place shortly after the establishment of the Weimar Republic, with Tehlirian being represented by three German defense attorneys, including Dr. Theodor Niemeyer, professor of law at Kiel University. Priest and Armenian Genocide survivor Grigoris Balakian, German activist Johannes Lepsius, and German commander of the Ottoman armed forces during the war General Liman von Sanders were among several of the prominent individuals called as witnesses to the trial. The trial examined not only Tehlirian’s actions but also Tehlirian's conviction that Talât was the main author of the Armenian deportation and mass killings. The defense attorneys made no attempt to deny the fact that Tehlirian had killed a man, and instead focused on the influence of the Armenian Genocide on Tehlirian's mental state. Tehlirian claimed during the trial that he had been present in Erzincan in 1915 and had been deported along with his family and personally witnessed their murder. When asked by the judge if he felt any sort of guilt, Tehlirian remarked, "I do not consider myself guilty because my conscience is clear…I have killed a man. But I am not a murderer. However, murder in retaliation for crimes the victim committed is often not considered a legal defence to the act of murder. For example, this 2013 Baltimore case resulted in the sentencing of the killer to 30 years in jail. Similarly, the Lillehammer affair involves Israeli Mossad agents sent to assassinate a (mistakenly identified) mastermind of the Munich attacks on Israelis. The agents were arrested and convicted by Norwegian authorities. A final example was the case of Vitaly Kaloyev, who stabbed to death the air traffic controller responsible for the Überlingen mid-air collision in which his family was killed. He was also convicted for murder in that case and sentenced to prison. What differences in law in that time in Germany led to the acquittal of Soghomon Tehlirian for murder?
See jury-nullification. I'm not a legal historian, so I can't say for sure what the laws on jury acquittals were at that time in that jurisdiction. However, when a jury has final discretion to acquit a defendant of a crime that's it: They can effectively ignore laws if they want to acquit someone. Such acquittals do not set a precedent or have any bearing outside of the trial in which they issue their verdict.
The seminal case on this was Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506 (1889). A grandson stood to inherit a sizeable estate from his grandfather and, concerned that the will might change, killed his grandfather. In the united-states most jurisdictions have passed &quot;slayer statutes&quot; to prevent the killer from taking under the will. In Maryland, one who &quot;feloniously and intentionally kills, conspires to kill, or procures the killing of the decedent&quot; is barred from inheriting or otherwise benefiting under the will. See Md. Est. &amp; Trusts Code § 11-112. Manslaughter is a felony in Maryland. See Md. Code Crim. Law § 2-207. So if a particular instance of manslaughter involves intent (e.g. the grandson intentionally kills the grandfather following some adequate provocation), the slayer statute should bar taking under the will. But if it doesn't, the killer wouldn't be disqualified. Wikipedia adds: The Maryland slayer rule is harsher than most other states. In addition to prohibiting murderers from inheriting from their victims, Maryland's slayer rule prohibits anyone else from inheriting from murder victims through their murderers; Maryland's slayer rule is thus similar in structure to corruption of blood. For example, a mother leaves her son $50,000, and leaves her son's child (her grandchild) $100,000. She leaves her residuary estate (i.e., whatever else is left of the estate) to her daughter. If the son kills his mother, then under Maryland law, the son's child will inherit the $100,000; however the son's $50,000 (which is also the indirect inheritance of the grandchild through his father), is not available under Maryland law to either the son, or his child. The $50,000 becomes part of the mother's residuary estate and goes to the daughter.
US troops deployed to Germany would be covered by the Status of Forces Agreement, which governs jurisdiction. Your question also ignores the nature of the prosecution services in Germany, which do not allow a rogue junior official to file charges at a whim. You would have to assume that at least a state government, if not the federal government, actively pushes the case. (And the federal government could probably take the case away from any state which had such ideas.) If you look for precedents of legal jeopardy, look at the case of Anwar Raslan, a Syrian official convicted of torture in Germany. It is also a closer parallel to the Pinochet case. Finally, the principles underlying such prosecutions were established in Germany but not by Germany. I'm talking of the Nuremberg trials. If German courts were to find the US Army to be a criminal organization, then individual members would be at risk. But as a political scenario, that is absurd.
Can you sue the CIA for civil damages if it killed one of your relatives? Almost never. Governmental immunity (a.k.a. sovereign immunity) bars most suits for intentional use of force by the government that is legally authorized by a government official with the authority to authorize this action under the relevant statutes, regulations, executive orders, and chain of command. The common law state secrets privilege bars a very large share of the remaining cases, such as most killings arising from negligence in the course of covert operations, and most legally unauthorized killings by covert operatives. While this is framed as a question of evidence, in practice, it operates more like a form of extended sovereign immunity without a careful case by case analysis of the relevant non-classified evidence. There are narrow cases in which a proper party can sue for a violation of of the decedent's civil rights in such a killing. The primary remedy against federal law enforcement misconduct is a common law remedy authorized by the case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). But usually, if a national security justification is advanced, the much narrower standard of relief applicable to combat killings and collateral damage in war (subject only to criminal war crimes review rather than civil liability) rather than the 4th Amendment analysis applicable to civilian law enforcement intentional killings by the government, applies. Of course, if the CIA negligent kills someone due to negligence in connection with its non-covert activities (e.g. a non-covert delivery truck delivering ordinary paper gets in a deadly traffic accident caused by negligence en route to CIA headquarters), an appropriate party (I don't recall if it is designated next of kin as in most state wrongful death statutes, or the probate estate of the decedent) may sue the U.S. government under an exception to governmental immunity provide for in the Federal Tort Claims Act which would be brought in the U.S. Court of Claims (generally in a non-jury trial with more limited damages available than in a private automobile accident case and with more involved procedural requirements).
Germany would not extradite to Saudi Arabia. India and Kuwait might, because they and a few other countries have extradition treaties with KSA. To put this squarely in the realm of illegal (it's not clear that accidentally encountering Shiite material online is a crime in KSA), assume that the person deliberately watched porn then fled to India. Generally speaking, this is a severe enough offense to allow extradition under the India-KSA treaty. However, India gets to review the request for exceptions. Under article 3, the central question is whether this is a political crime. There are enumerated acts that are not deemed to be political. Watching porn is not a listed exception. Accordingly, India could determine that this is a political crime, and refuse to extradite. If the crime is advocating atheism, however, then under Article 3 (1)(j), this is presumably not an excludable offense, because atheism is officially terrorism in KSA per Royal Decree 44 (I can't find an official copy). On the third hand, India may still reserve the right to apply their definition of terrorism. Even if there were an extradition treaty between Germany and KSA, German law Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters of 23 December 1982 §3(1) would currently preclude extradition because Extradition shall not be granted unless the offence is an unlawful act under German law or unless mutatis mutandis the offence would also constitute an offence under German law. There might be acts that are offenses in both countries, but not e.g. "watching porn" or "advocating atheism". The boundaries of blasphemy under German law are not clear to me. Section 166 of the Strafgesetzbuch imposes a maximum of 3 years in prison for blasphemy, so it could be an extraditable offense. Sect. 6 of the "Cooperation" law also sets forth exclusions for reasons of political and religious persecution. Also, KSA would have to assure Germany that the death penalty would not be imposed.
Natural law does not prescribe particular punishments, that only comes from statutory law. Under Indian law, this would seem to be a violation of IPC 304a, &quot;causing death by negligence&quot;. There is no intent to cause great injury, indeed it is a complete mystery why the boy died. The penalty is up to two years imprisonment and a fine. There are more details in IPC 300, focusing on intent to kill under extreme provocation, but the required intent is lacking here. The courts may be lenient, having considered surrounding circumstances, and sentence her to less than the maximum punishment.
So Maryland is a Defimation Per Se state, and lists accusations of moral turpitude, criminal conduct, or fraud. I would say on the second statement about offering support ot Hamas and/or Hezbollah, which are considered terrorist organizations. Being buddies with Louis Farakhan's buddy is likely not a Per Se defamatory statement but a Per Quod meaning you would have to prove damages from this false assertion. Remember that just because you disagree with his political positions does not mean you aren't capable of sitting down with him for a friendly happy hour debate over politics. Lots of people have good friends who they debate politics with and will still be friendly with. I would make certain that you go through your history of statements on social media and in public to make certain you don't have anything that can be construed as supporting political beliefs that these organizations support (even if you don't support those organization's methods of obtaining their political goal). Do not limit yourself to just material support (donating things of value to them). I'm not for the purposes of this answer going to comment on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but if your political opinions on the matter are in favor of Palestine, the statements above, while hyperbolic, are not totally out of line and thus defamitory, since all of the accused associations against you are also big names in pro-Palestine support circles. Try to also look for any statements where, unprompted, you are critical of the statements of the three false associations. As always, you should discuss specifics with a lawyer specializing in this matter. Most firms will offer a consultation for free so you can discuss the case and the specifics and get advice as to what you should do. I do not think you will be awarded much beyond basic actual damages and legal fees from the guy, since the statements have not caused you any damages such as loss of job or becoming a target of government investigation by law enforcement agencies.
Not all illegal things are crimes. Lack of evidence. They are asked to testify, and they say "what I said in my book was a lie". There is no general law against lying, except when under oath. Statute of limitations. Saying "10 years ago I did smoke drugs" means that any offence is no longer prosecutable. Lack of details. Which jurisdiction were they in? When did they commit the act, how many acts? You cannot be arrested for being a "bank robber" or a "murderer". You are charged with "robbing Bank X on 123 Fake Street the Thursday 25 April 2018" or "murdering Jim Thio in January 2017". Otherwise the defendant would have a hard time defending himself (how to prove that you have not killed anyone at any time?) All of the above combined with prosecutorial discretion in the form that any possible prosecutor will most likely determine that bringing charges would be just a waste of time and resources. UPDATE February 2018: Just for the sake of completeness, a reference to the situation of Jacques Cassandri, who did boast about a serious crime(a robbery in a Societe Generale vault in 1976) in a book. Unfortunately for him, he made some kind of mistake/miscalculation and the crime had not yet expired, so he has become an example of someone being prosecuted by confessing a crime in a book.