“IIRC, the law of the high seas is Admiralty law, which is concurrent in jurisidctional application on land as statutory law, which regulated by administrative law at the sate and federal levels.
So the translation of this little “addendum” of yours is that “Failing to act is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of, with or without knowledge of the danger, except under US law.”
So you’re saying that Stevens and Smith were murdered on the high seas by their ship foundering (terrorists were scuttling the hold?), and Hillary was right nearby on a freighter in calm seas and let her go down?
Admiralty law does not apply to Libya and terrorists running amok in Libya and killing US personnel. Neither does it apply to dry land all together, even within the United States, or even on American embassy grounds.
If you let a ship sink on the high seas, and then dock your ship in Gloucester and head into town for a drink, you can be arrested for letting a ship sink on the high seas, and they can do the same thing to you in Portland or New York City. They do not have to arrest you on the high seas for the Admiralty Law to have jurisdiction, or in the state adjacent to the stretch of wet in which you did it. That’s all that bit of garbled legalese you site means.
Reading comprehension is your friend. Law is often made up of subtleties and defined jurisdictional relationships. Read up on it.
You ask: So you’re saying that Stevens and Smith were murdered on the high seas by their ship foundering (terrorists were scuttling the hold?), and Hillary was right nearby on a freighter in calm seas and let her go down?
And I reply, through constructive jurisdictional application, YES.
And not only that - you know it's true. But you also know that the linkages of constructive authority and obligation are so bizarre to those untrained in law, they will think it's a farce. And, of course, they're right, when it is applied to non-government employees. But it IS applicable to government employees, and it DOES derive its constructive application from Admiralty law contractual authorities and obligations, as applied to specific jurisdictions, as indicated by statutory and administrative operations.
But then there's the other thing - the basic fraud of you saying that failure to act can never be held as murder. Never is a big, big word, and NEVER applies absolutely. I could go on and talk about criminal negligence, criminal failure to act under sworn obligation, etc., and then you'd go on about the limits of specificities, etc. But the very argument is nonsense, because the obligation Hillary had to save those people was inescapable and obvious. And what you are doing, in trying to spin away that obviousness and common sense and LAWFUL OBLIGATION, is, IMO, sedition through fraudulent misrepresentation.