Forums | MacLife

Jdude wrote:

How exactly do they intend to enforce this decision?

They don't.

Informally known as the World Court, the tribunal is the U.N.'s judicial arm for resolving disputes among nations. Its decisions are binding and final, but it has no enforcement powers.

It's really up to the willingness of the countries who sign the treaties to follow them and also to appreciate that it would be in their best interest for others to likewise uphold the treaties that they sign.

It is my express desire that no foreign court ever has power in These United States.

Jdude wrote:

It is my express desire that no foreign court ever has power in These United States.

Keep that attitude in mind if you ever run into legal trouble abroad.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Jdude wrote:

It is my express desire that no foreign court ever has power in These United States.

But can you see how this sort of thing might improve judicial systems in other countries ? 

And that's a good thing.

I suppose Canadastan does need some improvements.

With our 50% error rate in capital cases most death sentences could bear greater scrutiny.

jerwin wrote:

Jdude wrote:

It is my express desire that no foreign court ever has power in These United States.

Keep that attitude in mind if you ever run into legal trouble abroad.

Every trip to a foreign country I have ever visited has been accompanied by a large number of my friends, and we all had the express intent of killing people. I didn't even get my passport stamped.

The legal system here, while sometimes out there and wrong, overall is fair and just. I would not want to be tried under any other system in the world.

everlong205 wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

radarman wrote:

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.)

Rather than hoping for the US consulate to bail me out I'd rather not get into situations that would get me thrown in jail. For example. knowing the laws against drug running, and not wanting to see the insides of a turkish prison I'd do my best not to drug run while in Turkey.

Seriously, there are legitimate cases of people being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting railroaded, but more often than not, people are in foreign countries behaving like jackasses or fools not caring about the laws of the country, and behaving responsibly and assuming that their foreigner status immunizes them against prosecution or that the country they are visiting is exactly like home only more exotic.

Exactly - if you mind your own business, know what the laws are ahead of time, and avoid making an ass of yourself, you can generally go just about anywhere and not get in trouble. People do it all the time. It helps to not get drunk, stoned, or otherwise incapacitated.

Seriously, though. Why would you expect to NOT get in trouble for killing the locals, running drugs, or other stupid crap? If you are that dumb, maybe you DESERVE the local punishment.

radarman wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

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.

Not really. My thoughts on these international courts is quite clear. I think they are, at best, a waste of time. At worst, they are a dangerous assault on national identity and sovereignty. IMHO, they should be dismantled, and he previous members required to send notes of apology sent to any nation unfortunate enough to have been entangled with them.

You should have written your government representatives before they turned this into American law, then.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

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

The crime they were accused of and the punishment for the crime if found guilty is the domain of the state.

The constitution does not give the federal government authority to take that right from the state for the purpose of signing a treaty.

Damn you Bratboy... I was gonna post that. You must have opened your pocket Constitution right before I did.

bratboy wrote:

That's not what the Supreme Court said, however.

The Constitution reads: 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

A wiki summary of Medellin:

A treaty is not binding domestic law, it said, unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it is "self-executing." None of the relevant treaties—the Optional Protocol, the U.N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute—were self-executing, and no implementing legislation had been enacted, the Court found.

If the federal government made a treaty with, oh I don't know, Saudia Arabia, stating that no abortions would be performed in the United States - would that overide Roe vs Wade, or would the supreme court bitch slap the federal government?

As I'm guessing you figured out, the U.S. Constitution trumps a treaty.

Some peoples crimes are so mortifying and the evidences of the accused so overwhelming against them, death should be swift. They don't deserve a ten year appeal process. It's ridiculous. And the last meal smurf?