PDA

View Full Version : This is why there should be no world court.



Leader
09 May 04,, 00:33
Board urges clemency for Mexican national
Oklahoma governor has rejected previous recommendations

McALESTER, Oklahoma (AP) -- Attorneys fighting to save the life of a Mexican national on Oklahoma's death row now must convince the governor to grant him clemency.

Under pressure from a world court, the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board recommended Friday that Gov. Brad Henry spare Osbaldo Torres, 29, who is set to be executed May 18 for killing a couple during a 1993 burglary.

Since Henry took office in 2003, he has rejected all three clemency recommendations from the pardon and parole board.

Henry is expected to hear arguments from both the defense and the prosecution in the Torres case. His office said in a statement that the governor will "give this case the thorough deliberation it deserves."

Torres is one of 51 Mexicans on death row nationwide cited in a March 31 ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. The world court found the inmates' rights were violated because they were not told they could receive help from their governments as guaranteed by the 1963 Vienna Convention.

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon and Texas also have Mexicans on death row who fall under the ruling.

Death penalty opponents argue that Torres could have benefited from assistance from the Mexican consul if he had known to contact it after his arrest.

Earlier this year, Henry rejected the board's unanimous clemency recommendation for Hung Thanh Le. Le, a Vietnamese refugee, also had claimed he was denied assistance from the consul of his home country. Le, who confessed to a 1992 murder of an Oklahoma City man, was executed March 23.

Mark Henricksen, Torres' attorney, said the circumstances were different in the Torres case because of the world court ruling, the fact that Torres was not the shooter and Mexico would have been prepared to offer assistance if notified.

Vietnam did not have consular relations with the United States at the time of Le's trial.

At Friday's hearing, Carlos de Icaza, Mexico's ambassador to the United States, said Mexico has been successful in helping its citizens accused of crimes in other countries.

Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Miller denied Mexico's claims.

"The best indication of what they would have done is what they did ... nothing," Miller said.

Mexican officials say they didn't learn about Torres' case until after he had been sentenced to death. But Miller said the trial attorney hired by Torres' family claimed to have contacted the consulate during his trial.

Torres has an appeal pending before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on the world court's ruling.

Torres and co-defendant George Ochoa were convicted in 1996 in the deaths of Francisco Morales and Maria Yanez. Prosecutors say Ochoa's gun was used and a child in the home at the time of the shootings described him as the shooter.

Members of the Morales and Yanez families cried as the 911 tapes from the night of the murder were played for the board. A series of gunshots were heard on the tape before Yanez's 14-year-old daughter told a dispatcher that someone was shooting a gun in her house.

Torres said he thought he and Ochoa were just going to burglarize a home. He said he didn't know Ochoa planned to kill anyone.

"I was a thief, but I'm not a killer," Torres said. "Maybe he wouldn't have gone if I hadn't gone with him and two innocent people wouldn't be dead today. I can't ease the pain, but I want to apologize."

No execution date has been set for Ochoa, who has several appeals pending, including one claiming that he is mentally retarded.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/clemency.mexico.ap/index.html

Leader
09 May 04,, 00:37
Since when does the world court get to tell us what to do in our own country?

BTW, "Attorneys fighting to save the life..." that is petty biased. They apparently see him as some kind of innocent victim.

themuffinman
09 May 04,, 07:35
Since when does the world court get to tell us what to do in our own country?

BTW, "Attorneys fighting to save the life..." that is petty biased. They apparently see him as some kind of innocent victim.


Lately, I feel like I've been living in a parallel universe based on everything thats been happening. Thats crazy the world court is going to tell us what to do. Next thing iI here dogs are going to be marrying cats. black is going to be white. and kerry will be president of the united states.

Officer of Engineers
09 May 04,, 07:46
Let's get real here.

All the WC can do is suggest. It has absolutely no enforcement authority whatsoever and hence cannot tell anyone what to do.

However, countries have decided to enforce WC rulings (case in point, Kuwait War).

Leader
09 May 04,, 15:06
Let's get real here.

All the WC can do is suggest. It has absolutely no enforcement authority whatsoever and hence cannot tell anyone what to do.

However, countries have decided to enforce WC rulings (case in point, Kuwait War).

I do not deny that institutions like the UN or the World Court could potentially be useful. However, they have become so corrupted by this extreme leftist anti-Americanism that they will never be useful in the future.

Leader
09 May 04,, 15:07
and kerry will be president of the united states.

I don't think so.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119323,00.html

Officer of Engineers
10 May 04,, 05:19
I do not deny that institutions like the UN or the World Court could potentially be useful. However, they have become so corrupted by this extreme leftist anti-Americanism that they will never be useful in the future.

People in Glass Houses shouldn't throw stones?

What were the American excuses for sabotaging the UN missions in Yugoslavia and Rwanda?

Leader
10 May 04,, 05:36
People in Glass Houses shouldn't throw stones?

What were the American excuses for sabotaging the UN missions in Yugoslavia and Rwanda?

Ok I'll bite. How did we sabotage the UN missions in Yugoslavia and Rwanda?

Officer of Engineers
10 May 04,, 05:52
Ok I'll bite. How did we sabotage the UN missions in Yugoslavia and Rwanda?

You're joking me, right?

The CIA trained, supplied, and armed Croats against UNPROFOR. Do I have to repeat my stories about my regiment facing CIA trained Croats? Or how the the CIA supplied the Croats with 2 R22eR fortification layouts.

Then, there is Kosovo - NATO supporting Al Qeida Allies, the KLA, all driven by the bitch Albright and the idiot Clinton.

Albright's refusal to declare Rwanda a genocide and blocking any Chapter 7 Intervention.

Leader
10 May 04,, 06:06
You're joking me, right?

The CIA trained, supplied, and armed Croats against UNPROFOR. Do I have to repeat my stories about my regiment facing CIA trained Croats? Or how the the CIA supplied the Croats with 2 R22eR fortification layouts.

Then, there is Kosovo - NATO supporting Al Qeida Allies, the KLA, all driven by the bitch Albright and the idiot Clinton.

Albright's refusal to declare Rwanda a genocide and blocking any Chapter 7 Intervention.

Assuming all of that is true, why in light of this should there be a world court and a United Nations that is so blatantly Anti-American?

Officer of Engineers
10 May 04,, 06:09
Assuming all of that is true, why in light of this should there be a world court and a United Nations that is so blatantly Anti-American?

You've failed to noticed the pattern. It is not anti-American. It is whoever is skilled enough to manouver the UN and the WC into doing what they want. Geroge Bush Sr and Bill Clinton did this in spades. Bush Jr fails badly.

Leader
10 May 04,, 06:19
You've failed to noticed the pattern. It is not anti-American. It is whoever is skilled enough to manouver the UN and the WC into doing what they want. Geroge Bush Sr and Bill Clinton did this in spades. Bush Jr fails badly.

Bill Clinton is Anti American. So when he maneuvered the UN and the World Court they were still Anti-American.

Officer of Engineers
10 May 04,, 06:33
Bill Clinton is Anti American. So when he maneuvered the UN and the World Court they were still Anti-American.

WHAT??????????????

Sorry, we didn't elect him. And as you clearly stated, the world can laid blame at the US's doorstep for Clinton's actions.

And again, you're ignoring the pattern, George Bush Sr successfully used the UN and the WC. In fact, good old Ronald did the same with the Tanker War. Both the UN and the WC is subject to skilled manipulators and George Bush Jr is not a skilled manipulator.

Leader
10 May 04,, 06:49
WHAT??????????????

Sorry, we didn't elect him. And as you clearly stated, the world can laid blame at the US's doorstep for Clinton's actions.

And again, you're ignoring the pattern, George Bush Sr successfully used the UN and the WC. In fact, good old Ronald did the same with the Tanker War. Both the UN and the WC is subject to skilled manipulators and George Bush Jr is not a skilled manipulator.

Which is completely irrelevant to whether Clinton is Anti American.

Just because the UN has been useful in the past doesn't mean that it can be useful in the future. All that matters in the UN is the security council. All that matters on the security council is the big five. Well assume for the sake of argument that America and Britain and never Anti American. So that leaves Russia with where anti Americanism has been drilled in the heads of children for about 90 years. China with is a communist dictatorship and represents the opposite of America and is therefore Anti-American in the deepest way. And oh yeah France, I think we all no what they think of us (after all isnít anti Americanism some kind of state religion there). You seem to think these counties can be swayed to join us. So how? And don't say that George Bush should figure it out or that we should kiss their asses some more. How would you convince France, Russia and China to join us in Iraq per se?

Officer of Engineers
10 May 04,, 06:57
Which is completely irrelevant to whether Clinton is Anti American.

Just because the UN has been useful in the past doesn't mean that it can be useful in the future. All that matters in the UN is the security council. All that matters on the security council is the big five. Well assume for the sake of argument that America and Britain and never Anti American. So that leaves Russia with where anti Americanism has been drilled in the heads of children for about 90 years. China with is a communist dictatorship and represents the opposite of America and is therefore Anti-American in the deepest way. And oh yeah France, I think we all no what they think of us (after all isnít anti Americanism some kind of state religion there). You seem to think these counties can be swayed to join us. So how? And don't say that George Bush should figure it out or that we should kiss their asses some more. How would you convince France, Russia and China to join us in Iraq per se?

Again,

You're missing the point. The UN is a tool and those who are skilled at using the tool can use the tool.

I'm sorry but France was with you in the Kuwait War, was in before you in Bosnia, was there with you in Bosnia, was there with you in Kosovo, was there with you in Afghanistan, IS (PRESENT TENSE) THERE with you in Haiti. FRENCH BLOOD BLED AND CONTINUES TO BLEED UNDER AMERICAN COMMAND!

I will answer you as I did before - 14 days. The Canadian compromise finally taken up by the Brits. 30 days for Saddam to finally prove that he destroyed his WMDs which clearly was in his preorgative to do.

And I will answer you before you raise your question, what would 30 days buy the US - THE US 4TH INFANTRY DIVISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leader
10 May 04,, 07:07
Again,

You're missing the point. The UN is a tool and those who are skilled at using the tool can use the tool.

I'm sorry but France was with you in the Kuwait War, was in before you in Bosnia, was there with you in Bosnia, was there with you in Kosovo, was there with you in Afghanistan, IS (PRESENT TENSE) THERE with you in Haiti. FRENCH BLOOD BLED AND CONTINUES TO BLEED UNDER AMERICAN COMMAND!

I will answer you as I did before - 14 days. The Canadian compromise finally taken up by the Brits. 30 days for Saddam to finally prove that he destroyed his WMDs which clearly was in his preorgative to do.

And I will answer you before you raise your question, what would 30 days buy the US - THE US 4TH INFANTRY DIVISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did I ask about Canada? France Russia and China. Where they going to join us in THIS war? (If you think they would have joined us after 30 days you are naive.)

For the record Haiti is Franceís problem all the way it was there colony. The US should not be involved with Haiti at all.

Officer of Engineers
10 May 04,, 07:15
Did I ask about Canada? France Russia and China. Where they going to join us in THIS war? (If you think they would have joined us after 30 days you are naive.)

For the record Haiti is Franceís problem all the way it was there colony. The US should not be involved with Haiti at all.

Here is your question.


How would you convince France, Russia and China to join us in Iraq per se?

The Canadian compromise circumvat those Big 3's objections. They may not join in but the Canadian compromise would prevent their veto.

Haiti is an American problem. Your arguement doesn't hold water. The US was once a British colony and Haiti is in America's backyard, not France. It does not alter the fact that the Americans are in charge in Haiti and France is supplying the troops under American command. Haiti is very obviously an American responsibility whether you like it or not.

Leader
10 May 04,, 07:23
Here is your question.



The Canadian compromise circumvat those Big 3's objections. They may not join in but the Canadian compromise would prevent their veto.

Haiti is an American problem. Your arguement doesn't hold water. The US was once a British colony and Haiti is in America's backyard, not France. It does not alter the fact that the Americans are in charge in Haiti and France is supplying the troops under American command. Haiti is very obviously an American responsibility whether you like it or not.

When Russia and France said that they would not vote in 30 days they were lying. Just like when they voted for 1441.

Haiti is not America's problem if the people of Haiti can't stop killing each other then why should I care? We should not have ever been involved there and to the extent that we are, we should stop. Why should American soldiers die trying to help people on a useless island when they will not help themselves?

Officer of Engineers
10 May 04,, 07:33
When Russia and France said that they would not vote in 30 days they were lying. Just like when they vote 1441.

Haiti is not America's problem if the people of Haiti can't stop killing each other then why should I care? We should not have ever been involved there and to the extent that we are, we should stop. Why should American soldiers die trying to help people on a useless island when they will not help themselves?

I don't know where you've got your facts but a vote's timing ain't up to any member. It's up to the member who bring it forth the USSC. The Korean War made it damned clear that no one can control a vote's timing. You're clearly wrong here.

I don't know why you should care about Haiti. Hell, I don't even know why you should care about anything. But the simple fact is that your President and by extention, the Government of the United States made the committement and that's ALL we non-Americans can go by.

Having stated this, as a fellow member of the UN, the US has signed the GC and as an ally, the US has passed the USMJ as law. I expect and DEMAND ALL US SERVICE MEMBERS LIVE UP TO THOSE COMMITTEMENTS. In this, I have certain rights. As a citizen of a fellow signatory on the GC, I have a right to expect the US to live up the GC. As an Allied Officer, I have a right and an obligation to demand the UCMJ to be obeyed by US Service Members. Both these documents gave "rights" to those terrotrists.

Leader
10 May 04,, 07:45
I don't know where you've got your facts but a vote's timing ain't up to any member. It's up to the member who bring it forth the USSC. The Korean War made it damned clear that no one can control a vote's timing. You're clearly wrong here.

I don't know why you should care about Haiti. Hell, I don't even know why you should care about anything. But the simple fact is that your President and by extention, the Government of the United States made the committement and that's ALL we non-Americans can go by.

Having stated this, as a fellow member of the UN, the US has signed the GC and as an ally, the US has passed the USMJ as law. I expect and DEMAND ALL US SERVICE MEMBERS LIVE UP TO THOSE COMMITTEMENTS. In this, I have certain rights. As a citizen of a fellow signatory on the GC, I have a right to expect the US to live up the GC. As an Allied Officer, I have a right and an obligation to demand the UCMJ to be obeyed by US Service Members. Both these documents gave "rights" to those terrotrists.

I don't care about legal ease. The question is not whether terrorist have rights under some international law. If I wanted to know that, I could just look it up. The question is a moral one. Do you give up your rights when you decide to make your life goal to commit genocide? I believe you do.

Officer of Engineers
10 May 04,, 07:57
I don't care about legal ease. The question is not whether terrorist have rights under some international law. If I wanted to know that, I could just look it up. The question is a moral one. Do you give up your rights when you decide to make your life goal to commit genocide? I believe you do.

The question is not a moral one but a military one. The GC and the UCMJ are standing orders. And you have absolutely no say in altering that fact.

Leader
10 May 04,, 08:03
The question is not a moral one but a military one. The GC and the UCMJ are standing orders. And you have absolutely no say in altering that fact.

if the questions is wheather the soldiers broke the rules. They did. But the questions of whether terrorist have rights is a moral question. The GC and the UCMJ do not equal moral right.