Skip to comments.
World Court Tells U.S. to Freeze Mexican Executions
Reuters ^
| 2/05/03
| Abigail Levene
Posted on 02/05/2003 1:14:48 PM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: virgil
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Blame Mexican society for crimes being committed? If Americans were fleeing somewhere (not bloody likely, but work with me) would it be our fault? Suing the Mexican government for illegal immigrants is no different from the demand for slavery reparations.
What difference does it matter if the crimes were horrible or minor? The point is that the process was flawed. I hate people who hate the Constitution, whether they be on the right or left. If evidence was obtained illegally, or if a confession was beaten out of someone, the "evidence" is null and void, as is any conviction obtained with it. If we can end protections for these sorts of things when it is convenient, why can't the liberals take my gun?
To: philman_36
I have no idea what Ashcroft might do. I'm not part of the psychic Network. You don't have to be psychic, just connected enough to get the midnight E-Mails from the center. Some of us lead, the rest of you will follow one way or the other.
The Hegemon has no teeth.
Ask Saddam about that on March 7.
So9
42
posted on
02/05/2003 3:45:06 PM PST
by
Servant of the Nine
(We are the Hegemon and you're not. We can do anything we damned well please.)
To: Bogolyubski
Where did the US sign away its rights? Not in the
1963 Vienna Convention. So where exactly where these rights signed away?
To: Happy2BMe
Vicente Fox is one of Bush's closest international allies, and Bush and he are considered reasonably close on a personal level. And invoking this threat of war seems rather puerile. "Hey, I'd love to respect the Constitution, but there's a war to be fought." This line of reasoning seems faulty. Once again, if you continue this to its logical extreme, why could the government not take our guns away if "the situation demands"?
Please do not misconstrue my previous statement as opposition to an attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
To: kattracks
screw the world court
45
posted on
02/05/2003 3:51:46 PM PST
by
The Wizard
(Demonrats are enemies of America)
To: The Wizard
Good idea. How about we just don't sign any treaties and just assume we'll be fine on our own.
Neo-isolationists obviously don't know anything about economics. The globalization of the economy is good for all, and it demands some sort of international law dealing with the interactions between states. Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan are two sides of the same idiotic coin.
To: kattracks
U.S. to "World" Court: Freeze your collective weenies off.
47
posted on
02/05/2003 3:56:41 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
To: Servant of the Nine
Some of us lead, the rest of you will follow one way or the other.
I may not want to follow where you and the rest of your "us" wants to lead.
Where are "ya'll" leading? You could at least clarify that.
Ask Saddam about that on March 7.
After the UN puts Uncle Sam's dentures back in his mouth?
To: Buckeye Bomber
You can't abrogate a treaty after the fact. At that point, I believe it would be know as "breaking" a treaty Perhaps not, but I think you can announce that you are "withdrawing" from a treaty, and then do so. But you would have to make the decision that it was worth it to do so. In this case I would not do so without careful consideration. Notifying a consulate isn't such a pain as to warrant withdrawel. An "order" to stop an execution might be.
We would certainly like for our embassy to be notified if we were arrested for murder in Mexico, though I don't believe it actually happens. It usually falls to the arrestee himself to get word out. And of course, our embassy is of no help whatever. I think they will pass your name to a local lawyer, if you don't have one. If you have no money to pay him, too bad for you. But otherwise you are on your own, unless your case takes on any higher political significance. Someone arrested for espionage in Russia gets their attention, but someone arrested for a crime in Mexico does not. This is a misconception many people have when they travel overseas, that the embassy will help you if you're in trouble. They frankly have bigger fish to fry, and they don't want your trouble.
No, a public defender might not be aware that he should notify the consulate, the arrestee himself might not think of it, likewise the prosecutor may not have either in the past. No one ever made an issue of it until recently. I find it difficult to believe it would have made any difference in the outcome of the trial.
But if its an issue, then we should direct our prosecutors to ascertain the citizenship of the arrestee, and notify the relevant embassy in the future. But I wouldn't retry anyone already convicted. There is a pretty rigorous appeal process before these guys go to the chair, anyway. And Mexico's treatment of US prisoners is nothing to brag about, and they resist criticism on the basis that their justice system is sovereign.
49
posted on
02/05/2003 4:41:08 PM PST
by
marron
To: Cicero; pabianice; upchuck; Camachee; Centurion2000; Dog Gone; steve-b; Post Toasties; virgil; ...
To: Buckeye Bomber
If evidence was obtained illegally, or if a confession was beaten out of someone, the "evidence" is null and void, as is any conviction obtained with it. The answer to this is obvious. That is presently the law. That is not affected one way or the other by any treaty, that is our system. If someone can prove that the evidence is tainted, the guy gets a new trial. But thats not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a new trial just because someone failed to call the embassy.
I think the burden of proof should be on the convicted, and upon the Mexican embassy, to show that notifying them would have changed the outcome of the trial. If it would have, then he gets a new trial. But the burden of proof is on them, not on the prosecutor.
If this can be demostrated convincingly in any of the cases, then people may be more inclined to take the issue seriously. I would say that, if they are serious, they should get busy looking for a good test case.
51
posted on
02/05/2003 4:52:34 PM PST
by
marron
To: Buckeye Bomber
Well, why now? Why wait until now to raise a stink about consular representation? The trial is over. Way over. Why wait until Mexicans cross the US border illegally and then commit felonies before they suddenly care about the rights of Mexicans? Has Mexico raised a travel advisory to Mexican citizens thinking about going to the US? I haven't heard about one. Would it stop illegal immigration anyway? And don't trivialize the effect on victims of violent crime. The seriousness of the crime does matter. Surely the Constitution never intended to deny people the right to relief if they are harmed and I am referring to the victims of their dasterdly deeds.
As for personal responsibility, these criminals apparently didn't act very responsibly when they got here. Nor did they consult their own gov't or ours before they crossed the border. They're invaders...infiltrators. You are suggesting we release them or commute their sentences on a technicality that their lawyers apparently made no issue of at the time of trial. Maybe because they are here illegally, they don't have the right to consular representation anyway. And how do you know these lawyers were public defenders?
52
posted on
02/05/2003 4:55:17 PM PST
by
virgil
To: seamole
It's time for Bush to find the 'cojones' to secure our borders and send these murderer's ashes back to Mexico in a vacuum cleaner bag.
53
posted on
02/05/2003 5:00:49 PM PST
by
4Freedom
(America is no longer the 'Land of Opportunity', it's the 'Land of Illegal Alien Opportunists'!!!)
To: kattracks
THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The World Court ordered the United States Wednesday to stay executions of three Mexicans -- two on death row in President Bush's state of Texas -- and reserved the right to intervene in dozens more cases. Where in the constitution does the UN have jurisdiction over any US court?
54
posted on
02/05/2003 5:02:04 PM PST
by
meyer
To: pabianice
re: #5, you're much more polite than I. Well, at least on the screen, you are. :^)
55
posted on
02/05/2003 5:03:14 PM PST
by
meyer
To: meyer
I hate to repost, but here we go again.
US Constitution. Article VI, sentence 2:
"The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in the Persuance thereof; and all Treaties made, and which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
To: TheBattman
Exactly what authority (or Jurisdiction for that matter) does the world court have in these cases?They back their assumed authority with all the military might of.... well, er, the US army who does nearly all the UN's fighting.
57
posted on
02/05/2003 5:05:04 PM PST
by
meyer
To: virgil
"As for personal responsibility, these criminals apparently didn't act very responsibly when they got here. Nor did they consult their own gov't or ours before they crossed the border. They're invaders...infiltrators. You are suggesting we release them or commute their sentences on a technicality that their lawyers apparently made no issue of at the time of trial. Maybe because they are here illegally, they don't have the right to consular representation anyway. And how do you know these lawyers were public defenders?"
1) By personal responsibility I was mocking the idea that idea that we should sue Mexico when their citizens cross into our country.
2) The law is all about technicalities. That is the way it is. "Constitutionally" and "technically" mean essentially the same thing.
3) OK, who thinks an illegal immigrant will be able to hire a lawyer in private practice?
4) The Mexican government has been complaining about this issue for a long time. You are obviously naive about the speed with which any court works. If this ruling came down today, I'd guess the Mexican government has been working on this for 50 years or so.
To: meyer
Why does the UN need to use military force to enforce a treaty we signed and ratified 40 years ago?
To: archy
Well, if it's stiffs they want....
60
posted on
02/05/2003 5:13:20 PM PST
by
unspun
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-110 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson