Skip to comments.Important Supreme Court Ruling on Illegal Aliens; Contradicts Hamdan Ruling on Geneva
Posted on 06/30/2006 10:26:23 AM PDT by radar101
Lost amidst yesterday's absurd ruling in the Hamdan case, was another Supreme Court ruling on two very important companion cases we've written about, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon and Bustillo v. Johnson, both concerning alien criminals in the U.S.
Fortunately, not all the liberal justices are consistently intent on ruining America. On Wednesday, the Court ruled 6-3 that foreign suspects--mostly illegal aliens--whose government (or diplomatic embassy) was not notified of their arrests cannot keep statements made to police from being considered during trial.
The majority ruled against the plaintiffs, illegal alien criminals from Honduras and Mexico, who claimed their rights under the 1969 Vienna Convention treaty were violated when police didn't tell them they could contact their consulates.
At issue was whether foreign prisoners in the U.S. have a right to reopen their cases if they AND their consulates were not read their rights at the time of arrest. The World Court said Mexican illegal immigrants in our prison system have legal rights to contact their consulates, under the Vienna Convention, and that, if not informed of and afforded that right, they can re-open, and in many cases, even have the charges against them thrown out.
Had the court ruled the other way, THOUSANDS of illegal alien criminals--many of them hardened, violent criminals--would have the right to bail hearings and new trials. Many of them would be set free into the great American abyss until they committed their next crime.
But their ruling on the cases reveals inconsistencies regarding U.S. obligations under foreign treaties. In yesterday's Hamdan ruling, the court said the U.S. must abide by the strictest interpretations of the Geneva Accord, which is not kept by most other countries and is largely null and void. Yet, in these cases, the Court ruled otherwise--that an international treaty, the Vienna Convention, was not binding.
The Supremes are wrong on military tribunals for terrorists, but Thank G-d, they got it right on this one.
Still, they must reconcile the inconsistency regarding the treaties and why some are binding while others aren't.
Ping to your attention.
Very interesting. Although, I'm sure the ACLU are busy filing more paperwork.
It's a bit murky, but since the Kennedy concurrence (joined in by three liberals) refused to base the decision on the Geneva Convention, it appears only Stevens agreed with that part of the opinion.
Hamdan was political on its very face. There is no basis in fact or law that the Geneva Convention applies to Gitmo "detainees", just that the Supremes say so.
All hail, mighty Supremes!
Doesn't it make you want to blow chunks?
This is bad reporting. The Court totally skipped the question of whether the treaty rights are judicially enforceable. The Court only said that even IF the treaty were judicially enforceable, the exclusionary rule wouldn't be an appropriate remedy for its violation. The plaintiff wanted the Court to create something similar to the Miranda rule, meaning if a suspect wasn't read his treaty rights, his confession or whatever would get thrown out. The Court said take a hike.
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.