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 tribunals 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 tribunals 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 ...
"I'm really concerned about an American president who leans on judges to please a foreign tribunal."
My thoughts precisely!
Seems her problem was that she was an American citizen murderer. He might have let her off if she was Mexican, and was a humble servant/nanny of an aristocratic Texas family.
Course I remember the Singapore case. Those ever so enlightened Euroweenies have begun to make the claim that the death penalty is a violation of human rights. They've moved "beyond" due process. ::rollseyes:: I believe Canada takes that position too. I'm not sure whether or not Mexico has gone there yet. So, here we are, among all of the "knuckledraggers" on the issue of capital punishment. lol It is getting more difficult to get many other countries to honor our extradition orders.
We have *got* to dot all of our "i's" & cross all of our "t's" or else we will find little help trying to get treaties enforced when it is an American facing some kind of funky charges brought by another nation.
Fry them, but do it correctly.
I think, the criminals did not volunteer that they were illegals
Doesn't surprise me in the least. I'd think determining status would be among the first responsibilities of the arresting jurisdiction & it should be done before their trial.
When did he do this? Recently. Certainly not when he took office. For the first five years he did nothing. Others talked about it but he turned a deaf ear and refused to discuss.
Remember when Tancredo was told to "never darken the White House door again" when he wanted to talk to Bush about the illegals that were destroying his state?
But you go on believing that he was the forerunner in controlling illegals.
Did you vote for him knowing that he believed in creating a "new America"?
Did you vote for him knowing that he compared our cities to third-world crap holes?
Are our soldiers dying so that millions of illegals from Bush's favored culture can come here and sponge off of our tax dollars?
Does your chest swell with pride when you read these words?
We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture. Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende. For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America. As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico. George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000. |
Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:
In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster
Don't say no one was talking about this issue. this is from 1990.
An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.
How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform Americas ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nations interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. We are a nation of immigrants, we tell ourselves and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.
This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of racism. The very manner in which the issue is framedas a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus racism on the othertends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity, what if they said: We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples. Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in Americas ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choiceas distinct from the theoretical choice between equality and racismthat our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.
This is pointless. I could look up everything from his so called "vigilante" remark to the Tancredo incident and try to explain it, you'd dismiss me or not believe it. Your long post shows that you are set in your beliefs as I am in mine. There is no way either of us are coming around.
ping
If an American breaks the law in another country, and the penalty is death, so be it. As long as there is a fair trial and proper legal representation, the American deserves it. Americans must abide by the laws of the country they decide to go to, just like foreigners need to abide by the laws of this country (and the state they go to).
You've hit upon the issue at hand. When an American is arrested in a foreign country, the only way our country can monitor whether or not they are receiving proper counsel & a fair trial is if our State Department is notified before their trial.
Mexico wasn't notified until after trial & conviction. Those convicted raised the issue of their Mexican citizenship after conviction. Before you lay full fault on those convicted, no claim, no protection, why didn't their lawyers raise the issue before trial? Were those convicted given proper legal representation?
Yeah, you refuse to read the opinion as shown by your moronic remarks on the memo. I'm not surprised that the World Socialist Web Site is where you would go for an authority on the case LOL!
Earlier I said I'd like to think that you [two] kneejerkers might not rant on so mindlessly if you read the unanimous ruling.
I'm just an eternal optimist.
I did a google to find the memo & one of the top hits from the search was the Socialist site. That really cracked me up. You looked to be in solidarity with them, with each of you on either side raising high the banner "ALL BUSH'S FAULT".
I'll take that to mean you can't back up your claims about Bush.
Bttt!
Please. Those treaties do not require ICJ decisions to be enforced by our courts. ICJ decisions are enforceable by the Security Council, *not* by our courts. So you see, when Bush *ordered* the state courts to enforce the ICJ ruling, his order went way beyond anything actually required by any treaty. It was up to our political branches to choose a means of complying with the ICJ ruling, and Bush essentially chose to wash his hands of the matter by ordering the state courts to deal with the situation. It was an idiotic choice at the time and this decision by the Texas court is not the least bit surprising.
Here's the Court's opinion, if you're interested: Medellin v. Dretke.
Thanks. I see I was little wrong. The USSC withdrew certiorari not directly because of the memo but rather indirectly because of new state court action that the memo facilitated. Still, it was an egregious overstep for Bush to tell the state courts what to do.
"Bush never claimed they weren't covered by the "Geneva convention", because they are."
No, they are not. They are known as ILLEGAL COMBATANTS, as they do not belong to a High Contracting Power that signed the Geneva Conventions. They wore no distinguishing uniforms and they most assuredly did not/do not treat THEIR prisoners in the prescribed manner. Nor do they follow any OTHER parts of the Geneva Accords, which they would HAVE to do in order to be covered themselves. In point of fact, they could legally be summarily executed at the very time of their capture (or, presumably, any time thereafter).
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.