LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteHey World Court - **** you.
-dale
I thought I could read English but maybe not.
I could swear this report says the World Court just gave Texas an order.
World Court Orders U.S. to Halt Five Texas Executions
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The International Court of Justice has ordered the United States to halt the executions of five Mexicans on death row in Texas. But will Texas comply?
The tribunal also known as the World Court said the executions should be stopped until the defendants’ cases can be reviewed, the Washington Post reports. Mexico contends the five prisoners were not allowed to consult with consular officials in violation of their rights under an international treaty, the Vienna Convention. The Mexican government sought the stay in a new petition.
The World Court had ruled in 2004 that the cases of 51 Mexican nationals should be reviewed for compliance with the treaty, and President Bush asked Texas courts to comply. They refused and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Jose Medellin that Bush could not force state courts to carry out the international ruling. Medellin’s execution is scheduled for Aug. 5.
The new World Court ruling says the United States should “take all measures necessary” to stop the executions and inform the court of what it is doing to comply, SCOTUSblog reports.
A pending bill in Congress would require federal courts to review the cases of Mexican nationals who received the death penalty. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Attorney General Michael Mukasey have also written to Texas’ governor asking him to work with federal agencies to allow a new review of the cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas angle:
Execution of Houston girls' killer still on track for Aug. 5
By ALLAN TURNER and ROSANNA RUIZ
Houston Chronicle
Texas will go ahead with the scheduled Aug. 5 execution of Houston
rapist-killer Jose Medellin despite Wednesday's United Nations world
court order for a stay, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry said.
The U.N.'s International Court of Justice's call for stays in the cases
of Medellin and four other Mexican nationals awaiting execution in
Texas came in response to a petition filed last month by the Mexican
government.
The petition sought to halt executions to allow for review of the
killers' cases to determine whether denying them access to the Mexican
Consulate after arrest impaired their trial defenses.
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations stipulates that, upon
request, an alien offender's national consulate must be notified of his
arrest.
In its order, the world court quotes the Mexican government's argument
that "Texas has made clear that unless restrained, it will go forward
with the execution without providing Mr. Medellin the mandated review
and reconsideration," which will "irreparably" breach the U.S.
government's obligations to the court's 2004 order.
The Mexican government reasons that "the paramount interest in human
life is at stake," according to the court's order. If Medellin and the
other nationals are executed without additional court reviews, "Mexico
would forever be deprived of the opportunity to vindicate its rights
and those of the nationals concerned."
Perry's office dismissed the argument.
"The world court has no standing in Texas and Texas is not bound by a
ruling or edict from a foreign court," Perry spokesman Robert Black
said. "It is easy to get caught up in discussions of international law
and justice and treaties. It's very important to remember that these
individuals are on death row for killing our citizens."
But international law expert Sarah Cleveland, a professor of human and
constitutional rights at New York City's Columbia Law School, said if
the U.S. fails to act on the world court order, other countries may
follow suit.
"This can only come back to hurt U.S. citizens when they are detained
abroad," she wrote in an e-mail. " ... When a global leader like the
U.S. refuses to comply with its clear international legal obligations
(and everyone agrees that this is a clear legal obligation), it
undermines the willingness of other states to comply with their own
obligations and it inspires them not to trust us to obey ours."
Deadly gang initiation
Medellin, 33, was condemned for the 1993 killings of Jennifer Ertman,
14, and Elizabeth Peņa, 16, who stumbled into a drunken midnight gang
initiation rite at T.C. Jester Park in northwest Houston.
One of Medellin's accomplices, Derrick O'Brien, was executed in July
2006. Also sentenced to die is gang leader Peter Anthony Cantu. Three
other accomplices are serving prison sentences. Medellin was the only
non-American involved in the murders.
Wednesday's U.N. court decision in The Hague, Netherlands, was the
latest development in an ongoing legal wrangle that has involved
President Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Mexican government.
In 2004, the U.N. court ordered a review of the cases of 51 Mexican
nationals facing execution in the United States because they had not
been allowed to speak with their nation's consular officials.
In February 2005, Bush directed state courts to abide by the U.N. court
decision, specifically asking Texas to review Medellin's case.
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush had overstepped his
authority. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president cannot order
such court reviews without congressional concurrence.
On Monday, U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., filed a bill providing
for such reviews. As of Wednesday, it was in committee.
Weeks after the Supreme Court's ruling, Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice and U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey jointly wrote Perry
asking for his help in obtaining the reviews.
The United States, they wrote, continues to be bound by the world
court's decision under international law.
Girls' fathers adamant
Meanwhile, Randy Ertman, father of Jennifer Ertman, hotly denounced the
world court's order for stays.
"The world court don't mean diddly," he said. "This business belongs in
the state of Texas. The people of the state of Texas support the
execution. We thank them. The rest of them can go to hell."
Adolfo Peņa, father of Elizabeth Peņa, agreed.
"I believe we've been through all the red tape we can go through," he
said. "It's time to rock and roll."
Last edited by GAU-8; 17 Jul 08, at 21:46.
Hey World Court - **** you.
-dale
World Court has no jurisdiction and has been ignored by both disputing parties at times.
Chimo
Originally Posted by dalem
Giddy up!
It has jurisdiction, it doesn't have enforcement mechanisms though.
Jurisdiction*|*International Court of JusticeJurisdiction
The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).
The key here is that these death row prisoners are Mexican citizens, not US, Mexico doesn't have the death penalty, and disputes their being tried in the US with the death penalty. It's a legitimate grievance from Mexico, so take it up with them. The US has been in violation of international law before: in 1984 IIRC Nicaragua filed with the ICJ when the US mined Managua harbor (illegaly it turns out); the Court sided with the Sandinistas.
Contentious Cases*|*International Court of Justice
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/70/6485.pdf
I'm not real big on capital punishment.
But I'm absolutely NUTS about national sovereignty and defending a state's right to adminster it's own laws as they see fit.
And before some of you point out that some backwater thugocracy that murders it's own citizens is ALSO acting within it's own sovereign laws, let me just say that I disagree, as I'm an American, and all real Americans revere the concept that NO law is valid UNLESS it is enacted and enforced by the consent of the governed.
And Texas has spoken. The World Court is offering us a warning of what will likely be the result of the time when they have an enforcement machanism: imperious demands from people that have no connection with the issue under consideration.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Ditto.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
No fan of the death penalty, but the "WC" and Mexico can go to hell.
If they don't like their illegal aliens to be put to death for rape and murder then by all means stop them from illegally crossing our border. Texas has laws, and those were broken in a horrible manner by Mr. Medellin.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
I have no problem with this statement:
Yes, I'm in agreement that they should get rid of their Killers as wellBut international law expert Sarah Cleveland, a professor of human and
constitutional rights at New York City's Columbia Law School, said if
the U.S. fails to act on the world court order, other countries may
follow suit.
An unenforceable law isn't a law. There is precedent in international law for this.
What a conundrum, eh? Puts your arument in some difficulty.
That's not the key, those are merely facts, and not very relevent ones, at that. KEY is that they were given a fair jury trial and were found guilty according to the laws of the state in which they committed their crimes. THAT is THE KEY.The key here is that these death row prisoners are Mexican citizens, not US, Mexico doesn't have the death penalty, and disputes their being tried in the US with the death penalty.
Let me show you how you got that part wrong, too.It's a legitimate grievance from Mexico, so take it up with them.
Not all grievances are legitimate, and this one isn't, either. These murderers committed capital crimes in THIS COUNTRY, which happens to have a possible penalty of death to the convicted. Their act of coming to this country as well as the capital crimes each committed were freely-made choices and their situation is entirely of their own making.
So, you and the Mexican government can cry all you'd like about what Texas law permits the state to do to people that chose to commit crimes while there, but I don't grant any legitimacy to their argument or yours that it must be entertained as 'legitimate', because that's a risible assertion.
In fact, I'm laughing at your gross misunderstanding of what you conceive the word 'legitimate' to mean right now.
You're simply awesome in your encyclopeic knowledge of US criminal acts in the eyes of the World Court, and I bet you could go on for DAYS about it. I'm not so sure you'd be able to argue a case that the US is absolutely the Number One upholder of international treaties and discharges its obligations around the world with a fidelity to the letter and spirit of those instruments that far outpaces any other contender, though. In fact, I submit that you disagree that the US's word and honor are worth ANYthing, and you'd likely be the first guy in any crowded room to make the case condemning the breaches that you must imagine are complete and continuous.The US has been in violation of international law before: in 1984 IIRC Nicaragua filed with the ICJ when the US mined Managua harbor (illegaly it turns out); the Court sided with the Sandinistas.
Contentious Cases | International Court of Justice
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/70/6485.pdf
I'm right, aren't I? You ARE that guy, aren't you?
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Texas > World Court
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
what is the purpose of wc?(not water closet), there is no world law that i know of, besides traffic light law (it is g.y.r. everywhere), and isn,t a criminal tried in the country's he commited crime in, tried by that country laws? so by which laws does wc go by?
i honestly had no idea wc exsists, untill today, i heard that frase before, but i tought it was a joke, i kid you not.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin
If you agree to the jursidiction of the Court you should abide by its decisions. The Supreme Court has no way to enforce its judgments either; quite a conundrum.An unenforceable law isn't a law. There is precedent in international law for this.
But apparently Mexico, a reliable ally of the US, disagrees.That's not the key, those are merely facts, and not very relevent ones, at that. KEY is that they were given a fair jury trial and were found guilty according to the laws of the state in which they committed their crimes. THAT is THE KEY.
The World Court apprently thinks the grievance is legitmate as it has sided with Mexico.Let me show you how you got that part wrong, too.
Not all grievances are legitimate, and this one isn't, either. These murderers committed capital crimes in THIS COUNTRY, which happens to have a possible penalty of death to the convicted. Their act of coming to this country as well as the capital crimes each committed were freely-made choices and their situation is entirely of their own making
Indeed, and I am beginning to question your knowledge of international law.In fact, I'm laughing at your gross misunderstanding of what you conceive the word 'legitimate' to mean right now.
The US has violated international law in the past; the Nicaragua case is the most egregious example of it. The rest of your post is kind of an incoherent ad hominem as you misrepresent my views; if you have some issue with me, PM me or tell a moderator, otherwise it is probably best to stick to the issue at hand.You're simply awesome in your encyclopeic knowledge of US criminal acts in the eyes of the World Court, and I bet you could go on for DAYS about it. I'm not so sure you'd be able to argue a case that the US is absolutely the Number One upholder of international treaties and discharges its obligations around the world with a fidelity to the letter and spirit of those instruments that far outpaces any other contender, though. In fact, I submit that you disagree that the US's word and honor are worth ANYthing, and you'd likely be the first guy in any crowded room to make the case condemning the breaches that you must imagine are complete and continuous.
That's OK. For the longest time I thought Interpol was the figment of some liberal's imagination.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
The international order is changing; state practice and state behavior are reflecting this. There is no world government, but there is a growing consensus on international law; laws of war, disagreements between states, etc. The US did use the ICJ before, to sue Iran over the hostage crisis, so it does recognize it as a legitimate court. There are many bilateral and multilateral treaties, conventions, compacts etc. that the Court can use for interpertation of the law; Geneva, and Vienna are some examples.
In contentious cases only a state may bring a case against another state; non-state actors I think are not permitted to sue a state. However the ICC is a different story altogether. International law can be a double-edged sword for America, or at least this administration. It is convienent to use against dictators or regimes we don't like, but can be sometimes selectively applied to US foreign policy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: