Replies

"The Bush administration has said in court papers that while it disagrees with the World Court's decision in the matter, ** it intends to keep its promise to abide by it."

World Court decisions should have no effect on internal written statutes or Supreme Court decisions. That said if you honor one ... honor all. That's the way it's supposed to be, treaty was ratified. Right? We can't pick and choose what we want to apply, when we want it to apply.

So when a World Court decision comes down on the President or former SECDEF Rumsfield or any other American citizen (as there is talk) ... will it be honored? Will it be brushed aside? Will the Supreme Court review it?

Then again why does this criminal get so much attention. His name is 'Medellin' ... this name comes from Columbia. Ring a bell. [Just me ranting]

Oh well, I'm just gonna chalk it up to 'Politics as usual'.

SCOTUS can’t possibly side with Bush on this. You can’t throw out a conviction just because there was a procedure that the defendant didn’t use. Our courts can’t be hogtied by the lack of a request for help from the embassy. The treaty should recognize this kind of situation as a non-violation. The world court should go to you-know-where.