Replies

The problem is that the US wants to ensure its citizens have consular access when it is abroad, so from that perspective, the World Court is needed. I think if this were not a big election year, Congress may have intervened.

A big problem in a lot of these cases is Mexico always demands its nationals who commit crimes not face the death penalty. It doesn’t look at whether the accused got a fair trial. And, in this case, the gangbanger was only “nominally” Mexican - a Mexican citizen raised in the U.S. Mexico should not have taken this to the World Court. Lots of Americans and Canadians languish for years in Mexican prisons if they fail to buy their way out.

The problem is that the US wants to ensure its citizens have consular access when it is abroad, so from that perspective, the World Court is needed. I think if this were not a big election year, Congress may have intervened.

What an idiot statement. We don't deserve any special treatment abroad. If we break their laws then we pay the price of doing so. Especially if we rape and kill teenage girls in the process. If congress intervenes on this in any year they will be swamped with phone calls, emails and every other means of communication. Kill the murdering bastards is my cry and kill them soon. F*** the world court, they have no standing in our country and in country that lets them dictate what they can do deserves the tyranny they get as a result.

The problem is that the US wants to ensure its citizens have consular access when it is abroad.

BS! When arrested overseas, an american citizen will get a visit from the embassy security officer (if notified about the arrest), whom will explain that there is nothing they can do. The american citizen broke the local law and is at their mercy, but they will contact his/her family to send money and food.

The problem is that the US wants to ensure its citizens have consular access when it is abroad, so from that perspective, the World Court is needed. I think if this were not a big election year, Congress may have intervened. A big problem in a lot of these cases is Mexico always demands its nationals who commit crimes not face the death penalty. It doesn’t look at whether the accused got a fair trial. And, in this case, the gangbanger was only “nominally” Mexican - a Mexican citizen raised in the U.S. Mexico should not have taken this to the World Court. Lots of Americans and Canadians languish for years in Mexican prisons if they fail to buy their way out.

I am a little old fashioned on this account. I believe sovereign nations should make bilateral arrangements for these matters and not offload their sovereignty to a World Court that can issue "orders" to them.

If Mexico has a problem with US treatment of its citizens who break US law then it should come to the US and negotiate a fair and equitable bilateral treaty.

In that event, both countries are more inclined to keep their end of the deal in fear of similar treatment on the other side. As it is, one side can run to the World Court for a ruling when they themselves have little intention of reciprocating.

“Congress may have intervened..’

On what legal basis could Congress have intervened? When the Federal Government tried to order the State of Texas to review the case the US Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Branch of the Federal Government had no jurisdiction in the matter. They ruled it was a matter for the Texas courts, legislature to handle. Additionally, the Governor does not have the authority to commute his sentance, Texas has a state board of pardons that has that authority.