Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

World court: U.S. violated Mexicans' rights
AP ^ | 3/31/04

Posted on 03/31/2004 3:06:51 AM PST by kattracks

Edited on 07/06/2004 6:39:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-186 next last

1 posted on 03/31/2004 3:06:51 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans, presiding judge Shi Jiuyong said.
Fine. We'll go with the flip of a coin review method. Heads they hang by paino wire. Tails they get strapped to a gurney and a needle goes into their arms.
2 posted on 03/31/2004 3:10:14 AM PST by Asclepius (protectionists would oursource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Did Bush "unsign" that treaty?
What's the status of that joke?
3 posted on 03/31/2004 3:21:05 AM PST by trickyricky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Oh darn....
4 posted on 03/31/2004 3:21:11 AM PST by Drango (2 FReep is 2B --- 2B is 2 FReep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Irrelevant. The World Court has no jurisdiction in the United States. They can't overrule our laws.
5 posted on 03/31/2004 3:22:10 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I suspect the "World Court" is a strong backer of the Kerry campaign.
6 posted on 03/31/2004 3:25:23 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"They can't overrule our laws."

Not yet anyway.
7 posted on 03/31/2004 3:28:03 AM PST by Arpege92 (Ketchup and coffee is like Kerry and the truth....neither go well together. - rickmichaels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
In what way does this 'court' claim
it has jurisdiction?
8 posted on 03/31/2004 3:32:15 AM PST by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
And in the process of making this claim the World Court has violated the rights of 280 Million Americans.
9 posted on 03/31/2004 3:38:20 AM PST by highlander_UW ("Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; StriperSniper; Mo1
No no no no no......

The WORLD COURT can kiss my A**.

If these guys are on death row for Murder inside the US, they belong to us and we can end them.
10 posted on 03/31/2004 3:52:36 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper
*ping*
11 posted on 03/31/2004 3:55:15 AM PST by big'ol_freeper ("When do I get to lift my leg on the liberal?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Mexico doesn't have the death penalty...

On the other hand, there have been reports of lynching in some towns in Mexico, because the people were so frustrated at the failure of the government to keep theives and rapists in jail...
12 posted on 03/31/2004 3:58:36 AM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
And does the world court think our rights are being violated by the millions of illegal immigrants pouring in?
13 posted on 03/31/2004 3:58:51 AM PST by Eowyn-of-Rohan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

World court: U.S. violated Mexicans' rights

By TOBY STERLING
The Associated Press
3/31/2004, 5:53 a.m. ET

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The International Court of Justice on Wednesday ruled that the United States violated the rights of 47 Mexicans on death row and ordered their cases be reviewed.

The United Nations' highest judiciary, also known as the world court, was considering whether 52 convicted murderers had received their right to assistance from their government in a case filed by Mexico.

"The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans, presiding judge Shi Jiuyong said.

Shi Jiuyong said the court had found the United States violated its obligations in all but five cases in Mexico's case. He said the review, in almost all cases, could be carried out under the normal appeals process in the United States.

"In each of these 47 (remaining) cases the duty to inform without delay has been violated," he said. The court also dismissed four U.S. objections of its jurisdiction.

The world court is charged with resolving disputes between nations and has jurisdiction over the treaty.

At the heart of the Mexico-U.S. case is the 1963 Vienna Convention, which guarantees people accused of a serious crime while in a foreign country the right to contact their own government for help and that they be informed of that right by arresting authorities.

The United States is portraying the case as a sovereignty issue, and says the 15-judge tribunal should be wary of allowing itself to be used as a criminal appeals court, which is not its mandate.

In hearings in December, lawyers for Mexico argued that any U.S. citizen accused of a serious crime abroad would want the same right, and the only fair solution for the 52 men allegedly denied diplomatic help was to start their legal processes all over again.

Juan Manuel Gomez said that Mexico "doesn't contest the United States' right as a sovereign country to impose the death penalty for the most grave crimes," but wants to make sure its citizens aren't abused by a foreign legal system they don't always understand.

U.S. lawyer William Taft argued that the prisoners had received fair trials. He said even if the prisoners didn't get consular help, the way to remedy the wrong "must be left to the United States."

In its written arguments, the United States said that Mexico's request would be a "radical intrusion" into the U.S. justice system, contradicting laws and customs in every city and state in the nation.

"The court has never ordered any form of restitution nearly as far reaching as that sought by Mexico," the arguments said.

In 2001, a similar case came before the court filed by Germany to stop the execution of two German brothers who also had not been informed of their right to consular assistance. One brother was executed before the court could act. The judges ordered a stay of execution for the second brother, Walter LaGrand, until it could deliberate, but he was executed anyway by the state authorities of Arizona.

Under the court's statute, its judgments are "binding, final and without appeal." Its rulings have only rarely been ignored, and if one side claims the other has failed to carry out the court's decision, it may take the issue to the U.N. Security Council.

When the court finally handed down the belated ruling in 2001, it chastised the U.S. government for not halting the LaGrand execution, and rejected arguments that Washington was powerless to intervene in criminal cases under the authority of the individual states.

The U.S. written argument urged the court to follow the remedy it suggested in the LaGrand case, and quoted from the court's decision in that case:

"The United States, by means of its own choosing, shall allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence."

In the current case, the court ordered the United States to halt the execution process of three Mexicans, two in Texas and one in Oklahoma, until the ruling.

The prisoners are still alive. The first of the men, Osbaldo Torres, is scheduled to be executed in Oklahoma in May.

Mexican President Vicente Fox canceled a visit to President Bush's ranch in 2002 to protest the execution of a Mexican citizen not mentioned in the world court suit. The visit finally took place earlier this month.


14 posted on 03/31/2004 3:58:54 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This is the same International Court of Justice that claims we violated the rights of Iraqis by freeing them from Saddam & Sons and that the Pallies are getting a bad rap because they're not allowed to put the Israelis under an apartheid government to rape and kill them at leisure.
15 posted on 03/31/2004 4:06:21 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (All the good taglines are taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trickyricky
This is a different court and it has no power over us., There is nothing that the federal govermnet could do about it anyway has it is up to the state's judicial system. These are not Federal cases.

Just more BS from Bush's buddy.

16 posted on 03/31/2004 4:08:00 AM PST by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arpege92; goldstategop
"They can't overrule our laws."

Not yet anyway.

Give it time. We haven't signed away enough rights to the international community yet, but our government is working hard on changing that.

17 posted on 03/31/2004 4:08:10 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (All the good taglines are taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Article 1. The International Court of Justice established by the Charter of the United Nations as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations shall be constituted and shall function in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.

Article 36.(1) The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.
Sections 2-6 regarding further jurisdiction follows that.
It is my understanding that "conventions" is UNspeak for "international law". See international law un convention

Your guess is as good as mine as to what "convention" gives the ICJ jurisdiction in this situation.
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

!NUTS

18 posted on 03/31/2004 4:08:10 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I'd trust a food court more that that bunch of morons. We have to put up with more than enough home grown leftist spew without hearing their whining.
19 posted on 03/31/2004 4:09:16 AM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult (Proud member of the right wing extremist Neanderthals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
Gee .. I wonder if the World Court sent Castro a letter

I didn't think so
20 posted on 03/31/2004 4:10:28 AM PST by Mo1 (Do you want a president who injects poison into his skull for vanity?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-186 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson