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.
Bind this.
}:-)4
I suggest a nation=wide death row survey that, in effect, asks, "OK, Pancho, who's next!"
Just wondering.
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".
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.