World court orders halt to 3 U.S. executions (Oh my God ALERT!)

Fort Worth[less] Startlegram ^ | 1/16/04 | Adam Liptak (an outsider butthole)

[rintense]

Unreal. Simply unreal.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I agree that Mexico's proposed remedy is ridiculous. My disagreement is with the idea that it simply doesn't matter what anything except OK law or TX law says. If we have a treaty, it does.

I agree on both points.

[sweetliberty]

Okay, I can see your point there....but I think "visiting" is the key word here....or should be. I'm not sure the same protections should exist for people who are not supposed to be here in the first place. I wonder how much deference we would get if we were found ILLEGALLY in another country and committed additional crimes while there. I'm guessing, not much.

[Dog Gone]

We are certainly obligated to observe any treaty we sign. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

What the penalty should be for breaking a treaty should be specified. Perhaps it's termination of the treaty, or perhaps it's something else.

The problem with this treaty is based in reality. Mexicans here illegally do not usually volunteer that they have that status before trial. The police and the DA are not on notice that the treaty provisions apply to the suspect.

A fair and logical outcome would be that IF a defendant asks to contact the consulate and it is denied, the trial is illegal. A retrial would be required. But an evidentiary exclusion rule is nonsense.

[browardchad]

The problem with this treaty is based in reality. Mexicans here illegally do not usually volunteer that they have that status before trial. The police and the DA are not on notice that the treaty provisions apply to the suspect.

I have a feeling that the Mexican government would demand consular intervention whether the accused were a citizen of the U.S. or not, on the basis of dual citizenship, and that the World Court would be only too happy to oblige.

[ladyinred]

What???? For reals?

[Lurking Libertarian]

What the penalty should be for breaking a treaty should be specified. Perhaps it's termination of the treaty, or perhaps it's something else.

The usual remedy under international law for violation of a treaty is that the other country doesn't have to respect the treaty as to us. If we violate this treaty, Mexico can arrest U.S. citizens in Mexico without giving them the right to contact the U.S. Embassy.

[Dr. Marten]

"If we don't have to listen to the U.N. then no one does."

Only the idiots do anyway...

[COEXERJ145]

They've ruled this same tripe before and it has been ignored in the past. I don't know about OK. but Texas will most likely ignore it.

[harpu]

"I am saying that, if we gave our word to a country in a binding treaty that we will give their criminal citizens access to consular officials, we ought to do it."

AND, I'm sure we have. BUT does the treaty say that foreign criminals convicted in the U.S. for crimes against U.S. citizens are not subject to the U.S. due process and penalties that are U.S. law? IF SO, please point us to the treaty language that supercedes domestic law.

What you want us to beleive is that if Canada does NOT have the death penalty for murder, and a Canadian murders someone in Texas, then the canadian cannot be punished with the death penalty!

Yeah, okay. Take your treaty, place it neatly where the sun don't shine, and sue me for giving your murdering Canadian citizen the needle.

[harpu]

Here's an update; Decision in executions challenged, on this outrageous BS.