Humanities desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 26

Madame Ngô Đình Nhu a gunslinging Dragon Lady?

I have heard persistent stories for several years now that Madame Ngô Đình Nhu used those pistols she was often photographed with, upon those who incurred her wrath. Examples I've heard include her shooting a hairdresser who gave her a bad 'do, and sniping at strategic hamlets from a helicopter. Google search brings up nothing, maybe I don't have the right keywords, maybe the text is all in Vietnamese, which I can't read... Help?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Vietnamese history, but I would like to remark that such stories fit into a kind of mythology that exists around many autocrats; the idea that behind a dictator or corrupt leader there is the bad influence of a femme fatale or a Lady Macbeth; think Simone Gbagbo, Leila Trabelsi, Elena Ceausescu, Imelda Marcos, Maryam Abacha, Mirjana Marković, Jiang Qing ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have anything to say about the gunslinging aspect, but the fact that Madame Nhu was a bad influence on President Diem is a lot more than mythology. Looie496 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, nothing, then?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court

Let's say that a criminal court case arises that concerns an ambassador, and the Supreme Court decides to exercise its constitutionally-guaranteed original jurisdiction in the case. Would a jury be required; and if so, who would it be composed of? Other ambassadors? Or are average citizens considered to be sufficiently similar to foreign ambassadors that they would qualify as the ambassador's peers? On a somewhat side question, if there were a jury, where would they sit? I can't find pictures of the main courtroom that demonstrate to me that it's large enough or not large enough to put a jury as well as the parties. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Original_jurisdiction, the last jury trial held before the Supreme Court was Georgia v. Brailsford (1794). In general, the Constitution only guarantees a jury trial for criminal trials; the only cases for which the Supreme Court is mandated to hear a case in original jurisdiction is where more than one state is a party to the case; I can't imagine any criminal case, which would require a jury trial, which would occur in that situation. Hypothetically, there are cases where the court could have original jurisdiction, and would occur when one party is under criminal charges; but none of those situations appear to be under mandatory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; my undertstanding is that in practice, the Supreme Court designates that anything requiring a jury trial by the constitution (where one party is charged with a crime) to be heard by a lower court instead; as lower courts are better set up to handle jury trials. There's nothing stopping the Supreme court from holding the jury trial themselves, but since they aren't required to, they never do, at least they never have in over 200 years. As far as where the trial would be held; there's nothing that requires the trial to be held in any particular courtroom. Presumably they would appropriate a larger courtroom in a nearby federal court building; there's no legal requirement that the Supreme Court hear such a case at the United States Supreme Court Building. --Jayron32 04:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the whole jury of your peers thing is a myth in the US, that is actually from English law, not American. Googlemeister (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not a myth in the U.S., its just that (via the foundational premise that All men are created equal) everyone is everyone elses' peer. So, regardless of how a Jury is composed, it is still legally composed of the peers of the defendant. --Jayron32 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a myth, can you describe what aspect of US law guarantees someone a jury of their peers? According to [1] [2] it doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution so I presume since there is a guarantee of a jury of peers it must be somewhere else (although surprisingly these sources don't mention it and in fact many sources says something similar hence I presume why GM thought it was a myth but evidentally he/she was misinformed since it is evidentally guaranteed/required somewhere as per your comment). I would note even if the claim was made in the declaration of independence, it doesn't appear in the US constitution and historic things like slavery bring in to question whether there was really any guarantee at the time that 'all men are created equal'. (Also who are your peers when you are seperate but equal? Since there is evidentally some hidden guarantee for a jury of one's peers, I guess this is something some court dealt with. Surprisingly all-white jury doesn't talk about how the courts dealt with the guarantee for a jury of one's peers that's hidden somewhere either instead only the other dodgy things.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. foundationally demands that all men are created equal, for any given definition of "men". A large part of the history of the U.S. has been about expanding the definition of "men" to include, both in a de facto and a de jure sense, larger and larger groups of people. I understand that because some point in the past some people perpetrated evils that some people believe those historical evils contaminate the ideals of the United States. In other words, because the U.S. once endorsed, in the past, some evil, that makes it impossible to be a just society in the present, or at any time in the future. I personally don't ascribe to that idea, but if you do I am in no position to disposses you of it. --Jayron32 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't ambassadors have diplomatic immunity? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The country that sends them has the option to waive that right. So it is quite possible for an ambassador to stand trial for criminal offenses in the country in which they are sent, as the home country may simply say "No, you're going to stand trial" and the ambassador is stuck. Diplomatic immunity is designed to prevent countries from harrassing the diplomats of another country through vexatious criminal charges. It doesn't often happen that a home country waives diplomatic immunity, though it can (and does occasionally) happen, and in those cases the Supreme Court would have the option of original jurisdiction to hear said trial. --Jayron32 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the peers thing: I understand that the phrase isn't in the Constitution, but for all I knew, the privileged status of ambassadors or other foreigners in the USA on official government business might be different under federal law. Obviously the average alien facing criminal charges gets a jury of all US citizens (since you have to be a registered voter to be called for a jury, at least in all states with which I'm familiar), but the average alien doesn't have the official status that an ambassador does. Thanks for the pointer about the diplomatic immunity thing; I'd not thought of that, but it makes complete sense. I can imagine a sending country being so disgusted with their ambassador's very very bad behavior that they'd be happy to let the other country deal with it. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN report on crime wars in Sri Lanka

Is this report available on the web? Apokrif (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This (PDF) seems to be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Knollys

According to Wikipedia articles, Kate Middleton and Prince William are both descendants of Elizabeth Knollys. What is their relationship? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a family tree showing how the descent of both parties from Elizabeth Knollys here, but it only comes on the authority of the Daily Mail. I'm not sure that's what we mean by reliable sources. --Antiquary (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But assuming it's correct, they'd be 12th cousins once removed, from that line of descent. They may well have other and closer connections from other lines. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American genealogists have pointed out that they are 14th cousins once removed, through Diana and the Fairfax family of Virginia as well.[3] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the wandering Jew Suss

My father used to tell me to stop dithering about "like the wandering Jew Suss (Sus?). The Wikipedia articles refer to his execution/martyrdom but there is no reference to any form of nomadic existence. Can anyone enlighten me as to the possible origin of my father's expression? Are there any books about Jew Suss that might enlighten me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatmad29 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Jew Suss (Jud Süß) would give some directions. --Soman (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A combination of Jew Suss and the Wandering Jew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything either. I think it comes under the heading of idiomatic word play. In other words it doesn't have to be accurate or even make sence. eg. sweat like a pig. I've seen many pigs in tropical heat and I've never seen one sweat. At least not so you could notice. Sounds more like a reference to Moses rather than Jesus but then the word play wouldn't work so well.Phalcor (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Phalcor (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahasuerus? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which US District Court for non-territorial issues?

The discussion about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, above, begs a related question. Presumably there is a modest but ongoing level of criminal activity in US embassies and consulates, between civilians on US bases abroad (where, like Iraq, special legal circumstances prevailed), and on US flag vessels in international waters or US aircraft in international airspace. All this stuff will end up in a US court: but what rubric decides which?

For things like embassy stuff (say a State Dept. worker is accused of defrauding their expenses) does that go back to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and if so is that because it's a general destination for such things, or because the State Dept. HQ is in Foggy Bottom (and not say Albuquerque)? Similarly, would a civilian Pentagon employee (working in some non-US location, but stealing federal paperclips) be tried in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia?
For ships, is the court determined by the ship's home port? Its last US port of departure?
And for aircraft (which don't really have a home port) - last US airport? Airline HQ?

Or is just just negotiated ad hoc by the various court officials? I see for example that a Federal Grand Jury in DC issued criminal warrants in regard of Pan Am Flight 103 (which was owned by a company HQed in NY,NY and flying to JFK). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's determined by venue. For criminal actions it's straightforward: Federal Rules of Criminal procedure Rule 18 says "Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed." There's a physical link to the U.S. in almost all of the crimes you describe. Extraterritorial crimes are determined by 28 USS 3228. The rule is either: where offender's first brought, or where offender last lived within the U.S. territory (and if there's none, then D.C.). Civil jurisdiction's more complicated for a variety of reasons.

Here's a very good, detailed explanation of the issues that generally apply to extraterritorial laws. [4]. Shadowjams (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very helpful, and like any good answer begs more questions :) The number of federal judges would suggest that DDC gets quite a lot of such traffic: if my arithmetic is correct, S.D. Cal. serves about 3.2 million people with 13 judges, whereas DDC needs 2 more judges to serve only 600,000 inhabitants, giving DDC about 6 times as many judges per inhabitant. Plus, SDCal sees a greater amount of border-related cases (e.g. drug smuggling) than DDC (which, with no international land border or airport, and little port facilities, surely gets very little). Should DDC's Wikpedia article, and/or the United States district court article, be amended with details of DDC's role as a "default" federal jurisdiction? And does this additional role alone account for the much higher ratio of federal judges serving that district? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop saying "begging the question" when what you mean is "raising the question". Pais (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few actions are initiated in D.C. because of its the home of the federal agencies and appeals from agency decisions, and a lot of other administrative law ends up in that circuit. I don't know why the district court has more judges, but the appellate D.C. Circuit court gets administrative agency appeals which is a substantial boost to its caseload. Our article on the court explains some of the reasons in detail: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is also based in D.C., gets a lot of cases on specific issues, most notably patent law, regardless of geographical location. I don't know if the D.C. District Court gets a higher-than-its-population-would-suggest caseload or not, because I don't know much about administrative law and how many go directly to the D.C. Cir. and how many go to the district court. You may be correct that that is the reason, but I wouldn't want to add that without a cite.

As to the last sentence... two small things. First is a terminology quibble... it's not a question of jurisdiction but rather venue. The second is that I wouldn't say it's default as a general rule, although in some cases I suppose that's how things turn out. I would doubt that extraterritorial cases add much to their case load in the big picture, but that's just me speculating. Shadowjams (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]