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

Skip to comments.

World Court Orders Changes in U.S. Death Penalty
The New American ^

Posted on 05/05/2004 8:15:31 AM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy

World Court Orders Changes in U.S. Death Penalty

On March 31, the International Court of Justice, more commonly known as the World Court, ruled that the United States "should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of 47 Mexican citizens currently on death row. The case initially dealt with 52 convicted Mexican murderers, five of whom have been executed. Prior to issuing its decision, the World Court "ordered the United States to halt the execution process of three Mexicans, two in Texas, and one in Oklahoma, until the ruling," observed the London Guardian. (The Oklahoma case, incidentally, involved the murder of another Mexican national.)

The Mexican government, which purports to regard the death penalty as inhumane, accused the U.S. of neglecting to inform Mexican defendants in capital cases of their right to contact the local Mexican consulate, as provided in the 1963 Vienna Convention. In its defense, the U.S. correctly described Mexico’s complaint as a "radical intrusion" into our nation’s justice system.

The World Court insists that its rulings are "binding, final and without appeal" — and in this unprecedented case it acted as a de facto Supra-Supreme Court. Mexican President Vicente Fox told reporters, "It is up to the United States to comply here." Fox, noted an April 13 AP report, "has pushed to make the United Nations stronger, so that it can help resolve international disputes." He discussed the World Court decision with President Bush in an April 13 phone call, but neither would discuss the specifics of that conversation.

Interestingly, the current presiding judge of the World Court is Shi Jiuyong of Communist China, a regime that has hardly distinguished itself as a haven of due process.

It’s worth noting as well that Mexico flagrantly violates international conventions by using its consulates to aid and abet criminal behavior by its nationals in the United States (see the cover story "Stealth Invasion" in our April 5 issue). The Mexican government also refuses to extradite Mexicans accused of murder in the U.S., insisting that it would be impermissible to subject its citizens to the prospect of execution.

Although Mexico claims to have abolished the death penalty, "Mexico’s own Constitution permits the application of the death penalty … for homicide, arson, kidnapping, as well as for treason and grave military crimes," writes historian Patrick Timmons in the April Texas Observer. "Last November a military court imposed death sentences upon two soldiers convicted of killing superior officers...." Mexican President Fox commuted those sentences to life imprisonment, but under Mexican law it would have been perfectly legal to execute the offenders.

Mexico’s World Court complaint was not rooted in humanitarian opposition to the death penalty — since it remains on the books in Mexico — or respect for diplomatic protocols — which Mexico violates with impunity. Rather, it was a manifestation of that government’s persistent drive to subvert our laws and sovereignty. Roughly a decade ago, then-Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo angrily denounced U.S. efforts to enforce our immigration laws, declaring that "we will not tolerate foreign forces dictating laws to Mexicans." Mexico’s solicitude for its nationals who break our laws extends even to those who murder other Mexican citizens in this country.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; icj; orderschmorder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

1 posted on 05/05/2004 8:15:31 AM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
Asked for a response to the World Court declaration, the USA was quoted as saying, "Nuts."
2 posted on 05/05/2004 8:17:20 AM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
Ahh... the sound of silence...
3 posted on 05/05/2004 8:17:20 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
U.S. to ICC: "Chupa le".

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

4 posted on 05/05/2004 8:18:21 AM PDT by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
World Court...kiss our ever-lovin' a$$.
5 posted on 05/05/2004 8:19:20 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr ( Warning: content may cause emotional stress to over-sensitive Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
The World Court insists that its rulings are "binding, final and without appeal"

Bind this.

}:-)4

6 posted on 05/05/2004 8:19:30 AM PDT by Moose4 (Those who serve--thank you. May you find us worthy of the sacrifices you make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
World court........sit down and shut up.
7 posted on 05/05/2004 8:19:43 AM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
Yep,we'll get right on it.
8 posted on 05/05/2004 8:19:57 AM PDT by Redcoat LI ("help to drive the left one into the insanity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
Flip, flip, flip, flip. Nope. Just checked, no mention of a World Court in the Constitution. Must just be some made up thing.
9 posted on 05/05/2004 8:20:22 AM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig (Pat Tillman took a bullet for me and mine. RIP Ranger Tillman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
OK, so when do we tell the World Court to p!ss up a rope? IIRC, the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the World (Kangaroo) Court.
10 posted on 05/05/2004 8:20:28 AM PDT by RebelBanker (Now, I don't wanna kill you, and you don't wanna be dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Attencion por favor.
11 posted on 05/05/2004 8:21:38 AM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig (Pat Tillman took a bullet for me and mine. RIP Ranger Tillman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
And some people don't think this coming election is important?
12 posted on 05/05/2004 8:21:42 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
Hmmm.

Any chance the vaunted World Court can convince Mexico to stop sending us its murderers and crooks?

Maybe instead of Baghdad, the 1st Cav should've deployed to the border.
13 posted on 05/05/2004 8:21:48 AM PDT by Gefreiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
Our response to the ICC should be to take all 47 of the Mexican miscreats out to a public square -- the Mall in DC will do -- and hang them in one fell swoop.
14 posted on 05/05/2004 8:22:27 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
A very well thought out and politically sensitive response is required.

I suggest a nation=wide death row survey that, in effect, asks, "OK, Pancho, who's next!"

15 posted on 05/05/2004 8:23:05 AM PDT by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
"we will not tolerate foreign forces dictating laws to Mexicans."

I THINK THAT ABOUT SUMS IT UP.... HOW DARE THOSE AMERICANS ENFORCE THEIR LAWS ON THEIR LAND TO OUR CITIZENS. GEEEZ!!!
16 posted on 05/05/2004 8:23:24 AM PDT by MeSpikeLibs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
I wonder what the World Court justices would do if instead of reviewing the case of the 47 Mexicans, we just bombed the hell out of the Hague. Completely Dresdenified it.

Just wondering.

17 posted on 05/05/2004 8:23:57 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nasty McPhilthy
Kerry likes the world court.
18 posted on 05/05/2004 8:24:08 AM PDT by Unicorn (Two many wimps around)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
IIRC, the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the World (Kangaroo) Court.

That is correct. The US is not a signatory to the ICC, and therefore the ICC by their own guidelines should not have even taken this "case".

19 posted on 05/05/2004 8:24:14 AM PDT by kevkrom (The John Kerry Songbook: www.imakrom.com/kerrysongs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
Someone needs to tell these people that we are the United States and we abide by the rules of OUR country.
20 posted on 05/05/2004 8:24:25 AM PDT by Sangria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-79 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