Posted on 11/16/2006 3:10:33 PM PST by kiriath_jearim
Texas can proceed with the execution of a death row inmate notwithstanding a ruling by an international tribunal and a memorandum from President Bush directing state courts to comply with the tribunal’s decision, Texas’ highest court for criminal matters ruled yesterday.
“We hold that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary,” Judge Michael Keasler wrote for the court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
The case, which has been considered by the United States Supreme Court, appears quite likely to return there.
In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that 51 Mexicans on death row in the United States were entitled to “review and reconsideration” of their claims that their rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations had been violated.
The convention requires that arrested foreigners be told of their right to speak with consular officials. If asked, local officials must contact the appropriate consulate. Both actions, the convention says, must be taken “without delay.”
The international court added that American courts performing the required review and reconsideration could not rely on a doctrine known as procedural default to decline to hear arguments not raised at trial. That is at odds with recent death penalty jurisprudence in the United States and with state and federal laws that limit what kinds of arguments may be made if they are not raised early on.
When the question of whether the international tribunal’s ruling must be followed reached the United States Supreme Court last year, President Bush issued a memorandum to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales directing state courts to abide by the decision of the tribunal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
As soon as the Hague sends soldiers to Texas for enforcing their farcical rulings, I will care. Meanwhile, swift justice is denied for the victims. We must move forward and carry out the sentences.
Mexico doesn't extradite anyone to the US if it's a possible death penalty.
If he was refused services of our Consulate, damn straight we should complain! Our failure to comply with a lawfully enacted treaty with a foreign county got us into this mess.
The defendants did not request consular service. Are we Texans required to check with every consular and embassy in the world? No. These convicts are Jonesing the system, pure and simple.
It's really not in question that we didn't observe our treaty obligations. The question is what to do about it in light of the World Court ruling.
It's a close call. I think the President was right to respect the treaty obligations by calling for new hearings.
However, I respect the court's decision that it didn't make a damn bit of difference. These folks were guilty.
So it all worked out in the end.
We are signatories to some of the provisions of The Hague. Children caught in cross national custody disputes are one of those areas.
The first sentence, I was speaking generally. Regardless, we still have legal agreements between the two states.
I'm really concerned about an American president who leans on judges to please a foreign tribunal.
Bingo! Now for your well reasoned argument, you will be dubbed a Bushbot by some.
The question is what to do about it in light of the World Court ruling.
If the World Court overstepped its authority, ruling beyond the provisions in our treaty... what's diplospeak for "pound sand?".
We still have plenty of room!
We should try to establish nationality because we'd want other nations to do the same if it's an American.
Hopefully. I don't want American lives put in jeopardy or see the President trashed unfairly.
I don't care what people dub me, because I've been known to dub them back.
We shouldn't break the obligations we've agreed to in our treaties. They all have an escape clause where either side can decide to end them, but until we do that, we're obligated to observe them. We expect no less of the other party.
Either treaties mean something or they don't and most rational people agree there is a need for them.
So President Bush couldn't really do an FU to a ruling that we broke the treaty when we clearly did.
But the court here said the World Court ruling that required a start over is clearly wrong. The treaty never said that.
Like I said, it all worked out. But we still do need to observe our treaties in the future.
We ask, and the named consul is contacted. When a Mexican national travels from Mexico and does not pay the emigration tax, they are not listed. When US nationals travel to foreign countries, the individual is responsible for notifying the US consul of their presence. The US government does not "automatically" register each US citizen or national in foreign countries. Neither does Mexico, unless their national notifies them. These cases are being played to require legal restrictions on free travel. Using convicted criminals to justify imposing emigration interviews, taxes, and fees upon US nationals.
"The situation has international implications. When an American is sentenced to death in a foreign court you might see things differently."
If the American would have gotten death, here, I have NO problem with another country doing the same.
FReepers didn't do that. He did.
Unless he deserves it, Holly.
What Country is Bush the President of?
Mexico?
Iraq?
Israel?
Venezuela?
Agreed.
World Court ruling that required a start over
I didn't see a start over in the ruling (though I may have missed it), but instead see a ruling for additional considerations (the treaty) in the appeal process. If the treaty is silent on capital punishment, it can not be brought in after the fact. If there is a reciprocal agreement on that issue in the treaty, that's a whole different ballgame. Redress for technical failures may or may not have been in the treaty, which would be an added procedural step for the cases at hand.
What is precedent in cases previously heard in US courts, when a technical failure has occurred in the past? (Rhetorical, cuz I wouldn't expect you to know the answer, but it is the key question that needs to be answered in an additional question to the Texas court.)
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.