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

Skip to comments.

Texas Court Ruling Rebuffs Bush and World Court
NY Times ^ | 11/16/06 | ADAM LIPTAK

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: aliens; deathpenalty; icj; immigrantlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last
To: GoLightly
That is a risk spy's take and why it takes guts to be one.

We should of course try to get them out, as we did with the U2 pilot Gary Powers.

In these cases, I think, the criminals did not volunteer that they were illegals and did not request to speak to a Mexican representative until after they were convicted.
81 posted on 11/16/2006 9:20:57 PM PST by Vietnam Vet From New Mexico (Rock The Casbah (said the little AC130 gunship))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

"I'm really concerned about an American president who leans on judges to please a foreign tribunal."

My thoughts precisely!


82 posted on 11/16/2006 9:21:19 PM PST by libertylovinactivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: libertylovinactivist
Yeah, and he's supposedly a conservative president, who got scolded several years ago for a lack of sympathy for a female Texas death-row murderer who got the chair/gas under his governorship.

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.

83 posted on 11/16/2006 9:27:32 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
Good question but if the country does not have a history of human rights violations, I say, if the perp did the crime he must do the time. I recall caning in Singapore?

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.

84 posted on 11/16/2006 9:37:56 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Vietnam Vet From New Mexico
I think we should have a law similar to the one New Zealand has, regarding the necessity of learning the language. I think immigrants are given one year to learn English. It would make separating the wheat from the chaff easier.

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.

85 posted on 11/16/2006 9:46:31 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
So he went about it by talking loudly about it and planning to come up with a comprehensive progrram which includes a physical wall, cameras, infrared, UAVs, and other tools to help enforcemnet. Most people wouldn't even be talking about immigration if hedidn't come up with his proposals. And if he really wants the borders to stay open, all he has to do is keep his mouth shut. The majority of Americans wouldn't be the wiser and certainly many FReepers wouldn't be able to criticize him.

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?

THE "NEW AMERICAN"
..........<

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.

You can read the speech here.

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.


The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

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 America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s 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 framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends 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 America’s 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 choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

86 posted on 11/17/2006 4:12:10 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

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.



87 posted on 11/17/2006 7:34:34 AM PST by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

ping


88 posted on 11/17/2006 9:09:14 AM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
When an American is sentenced to death in a foreign court you might see things differently.

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).

89 posted on 11/17/2006 9:20:40 AM PST by Go Gordon (I don't know what your problem is, but I bet its hard to pronounce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon
As long as there is a fair trial and proper legal representation, the American deserves it.

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?

90 posted on 11/17/2006 11:01:55 AM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
"Knee jerk? Me? "

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.

91 posted on 11/17/2006 11:40:57 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
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!

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".

92 posted on 11/17/2006 11:59:43 AM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
"Guess we need no allies & should shred every single treaty we've ever signed."

Yes like we did with SEATO and should have done with the UN after the Korean "Police Action".
And NATO after we bombed Christians for the al-qaeda backed KLA drug runners.
With our Allies, We do not need treaties.
93 posted on 11/17/2006 12:17:58 PM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim
Incredible. The President sends a memo to the AG directing the state courts to obey a foreign court's decision and the USSC sends it back to the state? Unbelievable.
94 posted on 11/17/2006 12:35:26 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
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.

I'll take that to mean you can't back up your claims about Bush.

95 posted on 11/17/2006 1:21:17 PM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster

Bttt!


96 posted on 11/17/2006 2:36:06 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
It's about upholding treaties the US are signatories to.

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.

97 posted on 11/18/2006 2:56:13 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Incredible. The President sends a memo to the AG directing the state courts to obey a foreign court's decision and the USSC sends it back to the state? Unbelievable.

Here's the Court's opinion, if you're interested: Medellin v. Dretke.

98 posted on 11/18/2006 3:22:36 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

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.


99 posted on 11/18/2006 3:47:59 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

"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).


100 posted on 11/19/2006 1:42:49 PM PST by dcwusmc (The government is supposed to fit the Constitution, NOT the Constitution fit the government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 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