Forums | MacLife

radarman · 2008-07-16 9:25 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_ … _mexico_us

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The U.N.'s highest court is ruling Wednesday on an emergency Mexican appeal to block the execution of its citizens on death row in the United States.

At hastily convened hearings last month, Mexico argued that the United States is defying a 2004 International Court of Justice order to review the cases of 51 Mexicans sentenced to death by state courts.

That order was based on the Hague-based court's finding that the condemned prisoners had been denied the right to help from their consulate following their arrest.

Wednesday's ruling comes less than three weeks before the first of the death row inmates, Jose Medellin, is scheduled for execution by lethal injection in Texas for taking part in the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls 15 years ago.

What is it with this world court crap. Shouldn't these idiots be out eating some cheese somewhere? I'm sorry, but how is our justice system any of their business. Mexico's business, maybe - though the clowns in question were on US soil when they committed their crimes.

Hey, international folks - don't want to face the US death penalty? Don't come to the US and kill someone. Simple, see?

While I hate Bush, I would give him props if he got on TV and gave the Hague the finger.

user · 2008-07-16 9:34 am

Don't hold your breath:

After the World Court's ruling, President George W. Bush issued a directive to the state courts to abide by the decision and also asked Texas specifically to review Medellin's case ahead of his planned Aug. 5 execution.

It's the Texans who are giving the finger, and the activist Federal judges are helping.

....Texas refused, and in March the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 vote that Bush lacked the authority to compel state courts to comply with the judgment from The Hague.

It's all about those pesky treaties the US signs every once and a while. While I agree that they should be punished in the US for crimes committed in the US, our insistence on the death penalty is a national shame.

jerwin · 2008-07-16 9:50 am

Planning to travel outside the country anytime soon, radarman?

ShnickyShnack · 2008-07-16 10:01 am

Why sign treaties, then enter them into US law, if obeying them is optional? I fail to see the point.

radarman · 2008-07-16 10:28 am

jerwin wrote:
Planning to travel outside the country anytime soon, radarman?

No, but if I do, I plan to obey the laws where ever I go. I generally find that when you obey the law, these sorts of things don't happen. (Ok, sure - sometimes crazy stuff happens, but not generally)

Had the clowns in question obeyed the law, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

radarman · 2008-07-16 10:29 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
Why sign treaties, then enter them into US law, if obeying them is optional? I fail to see the point.

Better question - why are we signing these treaties? What did we get out of it, besides a warm fuzzy feeling?

ShnickyShnack · 2008-07-16 10:35 am

radarman wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
Why sign treaties, then enter them into US law, if obeying them is optional? I fail to see the point.
Better question - why are we signing these treaties? What did we get out of it, besides a warm fuzzy feeling?

But they were signed, they did become US law. And they've been violated.

But anyway it doesn't matter, because the US Supreme Court has already ruled that the international court does not affect US law.

Though up to a couple of years ago, the international court was a viable participant in such cases. Then the US pulled out of that section of the Vienna Convention.

No matter what, no international body can ever tell the US what to do, ever. So it's all a waste of time anyway.

Funny to hear Americans expressing outrage over the concept, of course.

Chickenhawk · 2008-07-16 10:50 am

radarman wrote:
jerwin wrote:
Planning to travel outside the country anytime soon, radarman?
No, but if I do, I plan to obey the laws where ever I go. I generally find that when you obey the law, these sorts of things don't happen. (Ok, sure - sometimes crazy stuff happens, but not generally)

Had the clowns in question obeyed the law, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes, but if you were in a foreign country, and committed a crime, and were sentenced to a punishment the US feels is barbaric and inhumane, say death by stoning. Would you not want the US consulate placing pressure on that nation to reduce the sentence?

(Mexico does not have the death penalty, and does not extradite to the US unless the death penalty is waived.)

JakeTheTall · 2008-07-16 10:54 am

radarman wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
Why sign treaties, then enter them into US law, if obeying them is optional? I fail to see the point.
Better question - why are we signing these treaties? What did we get out of it, besides a warm fuzzy feeling?

We get justice, you barbarian.

Farmerkev · 2008-07-16 10:54 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
Funny to hear Americans expressing outrage over the concept, of course.

Only to a collectivist.

Tallgeese · 2008-07-16 11:05 am

And this is why one shouldn't visit backwards, barbaric countries. I live practically on the Mexican border but I don't plan on visiting there. Why? I don't want to, in addition to money for food, drink, and transportation, have to carry money for bribes.

ShnickyShnack · 2008-07-16 11:06 am

Farmerkev wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
Funny to hear Americans expressing outrage over the concept, of course.
Only to a collectivist.

No, to someone familiar with America's history of influencing in the affairs of countless countries in every corner of the planet.

jerwin · 2008-07-16 11:08 am

radarman wrote:
jerwin wrote:
Planning to travel outside the country anytime soon, radarman?
No, but if I do, I plan to obey the laws where ever I go. I generally find that when you obey the law, these sorts of things don't happen. (Ok, sure - sometimes crazy stuff happens, but not generally)

Had the clowns in question obeyed the law, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Even if you generally try to obey the law, there's still a possibility that you could be falsely accused. And in certain cases, it is possible that you might commit a crime that you didn't know was on the books. And even if you did willfully commit a crime with full knowledge that your acts were illegal, a lawyer is still going to be helpful.

The Vienna Convention, among other things, allows consular officials to procure lawyers for their citizens. Think of it as insurance against "crazy stuff."

A lot of conservatives rail against the prospect of extended appeals. Some of these extended appeals, however, rely on issues that were never raised at trial because the original lawyer was incompetent and/or overworked. Just imagine if criminals had lawyers who played out their hands at trial-- and lost or won their cases accordingly.

Warin · 2008-07-16 11:09 am

Tallgeese wrote:
And this is why one shouldn't visit backwards, barbaric countries. I live practically on the Mexican border but I don't plan on visiting there. Why? I don't want to, in addition to money for food, drink, and transportation, have to carry money for bribes.

Chickenhawk wrote:
(Mexico does not have the death penalty, and does not extradite to the US unless the death penalty is waived.)

I didnt know you could so easily bribe officials in Texas.

You're right. ne should visit such a backward and barbaric place!

Farmerkev · 2008-07-16 11:22 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
Funny to hear Americans expressing outrage over the concept, of course.
Only to a collectivist.
No, to someone familiar with America's history of influencing in the affairs of countless countries in every corner of the planet.

And is our history that different than the history of the other major world powers when they were on top?
Did they often take directions from the "world"?

Tallgeese · 2008-07-16 11:26 am

Warin wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
And this is why one shouldn't visit backwards, barbaric countries. I live practically on the Mexican border but I don't plan on visiting there. Why? I don't want to, in addition to money for food, drink, and transportation, have to carry money for bribes.
Chickenhawk wrote:
(Mexico does not have the death penalty, and does not extradite to the US unless the death penalty is waived.)
I didnt know you could so easily bribe officials in Texas.

You're right. ne should visit such a backward and barbaric place!

I'm not just talking about the death penalty.

ScifiterX · 2008-07-16 11:38 am

It sounds more like we originally integrated to international regulations on their merit and are ignoring them now because they are inconvenient. Laws accepted on merit should not be discarded because of convenience. If they are ineffective simply due to poor enforcement, better means of enforcement need to be explored. If they are ineffective due to in an inherent lack of enforceability they need to be rewritten or replaced. If the merit is lost or was an illusion, then the law should be be rewritten, replaced, or discarded.

bedstuy · 2008-07-16 11:55 am

radarman wrote:
(Ok, sure - sometimes crazy stuff happens, but not generally)

Which is why there are international courts.

You know, you kind of betrayed yourself with that "cheese" comment.

user · 2008-07-16 12:08 pm

I though that comment rather cutting.

ShnickyShnack · 2008-07-16 12:09 pm

Farmerkev wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:

Only to a collectivist.
No, to someone familiar with America's history of influencing in the affairs of countless countries in every corner of the planet.
And is our history that different than the history of the other major world powers when they were on top?
Did they often take directions from the "world"?

I agree with you 100%, they too were rank hypocrites.

Warin · 2008-07-16 12:09 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
I'm not just talking about the death penalty.

YOU WERE?!?!?! eek

wink

jerwin · 2008-07-16 12:28 pm

Apparently one of the interpretations of the Vienna Convention is that only the signatory state has standing to complain about treaty violations-- and presumably only in specific cases, at the proper time, when it doesn't know about them.

Jdude · 2008-07-16 12:50 pm

How exactly do they intend to enforce this decision?

Last edited by Jdude (2008-07-16 12:51 pm)

jerwin · 2008-07-16 1:23 pm

One of the arguments commonly levied against the rights of the accused is

I'm not the sort of person that needs these rights

You may know that. Your friends and family may know that. Some people on this forum might know that. But, can you trust your government to know that? Can you trust foreign governments to know that?

In any case, Prison in Japan seems relevant to the discussion.

Jdude · 2008-07-16 1:48 pm

The Supreme court blog has some details.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Forums | MacLife

#1 2008-07-16 9:25 am

"World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

#2 2008-07-16 9:34 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

#3 2008-07-16 9:50 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

#4 2008-07-16 10:01 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

#5 2008-07-16 10:28 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

jerwin wrote:

#6 2008-07-16 10:29 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#7 2008-07-16 10:35 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#8 2008-07-16 10:50 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

radarman wrote:

jerwin wrote:

#9 2008-07-16 10:54 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#10 2008-07-16 10:54 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#11 2008-07-16 11:05 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

#12 2008-07-16 11:06 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#13 2008-07-16 11:08 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

radarman wrote:

jerwin wrote:

#14 2008-07-16 11:09 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

Tallgeese wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

#15 2008-07-16 11:22 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#16 2008-07-16 11:26 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

Warin wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

#17 2008-07-16 11:38 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

#18 2008-07-16 11:55 am

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

radarman wrote:

#19 2008-07-16 12:08 pm

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

#20 2008-07-16 12:09 pm

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

#21 2008-07-16 12:09 pm

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

Tallgeese wrote:

#22 2008-07-16 12:28 pm

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

#23 2008-07-16 12:50 pm

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

#24 2008-07-16 1:23 pm

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

#25 2008-07-16 1:48 pm

Re: "World Court" to render judgement on US executions?

Board footer