Bush Sides With Mexican Killers Against U.S.

AIM Report ^ | 6/12/07 | Cliff Kincaid

[Mike Bates]

The State Department's top legal adviser told international lawyers on June 6 that President Bush is so committed to the primacy of international law that he has taken his home state of Texas to court on behalf of a group of Mexican killers. The Mexicans had been sentenced to death for murdering U.S. citizens, including young children.

John B. Bellinger III, legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, cited the case, Mexico v. United States of America, in trying to convince the attorneys that the administration is doing what it can to enforce international law in U.S. courts.

In the case, Bush has come down on the same side as the U.N.'s International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled 14-1 on behalf of Mexico against the U.S. The ICJ was headed at the time by a judge from communist China, who also ruled against the U.S.

Bellinger's audience was gathered at The Hague, a city in the Netherlands which is home to over 100 international organizations, including the U.N.'s International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

Sworn in as the Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State on April 8, 2005, Bellinger is described by the State Department as "the principal adviser on all domestic and international law matters to the Department of State, the Foreign Service, and the diplomatic and consular posts abroad."

The Bellinger speech, designed to convince the pro-U.N. globalists in attendance that Bush is really on their side, should have been big news. Not only did he praise Bush for coming down on the side of foreign killers of Americans, in a major court case with international implications, but he demonstrated how far the administration is prepared to go to impress the "international community."

In a major disclosure, Bellinger said. . .

[2ndDivisionVet]

Don’t forget about the McCain/Kennedy/Bush “comprehensive immigration reform” bill (aka Lindsey Grahamnesty)

Just say NO to Amnesty!! Keep calling!! It’s NOT OVER!!

U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121

U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121

White House comments: (202) 456-1111

Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep

Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[dsutah]

Even you, PhiKapMom? You’ve turned against him too? Why?

[stimpy17]

OK, I’ll say it because I have to-WTF?

[samtheman]

I don’t think he’s fundamentally changed

Would the George W Bush of 2001-2004 have sided with a UN court against the voters of the state of Texas? He's changed. He saw how popular Arnold got when he switched to becoming a Democrat, and he decided to make the switch too.

[Ben Chad]

But he’s a dweeb.

Striving to be universally despised.

[samtheman]

Why can't we simply attribute it to the lack of principles. The man has been buying votes all this time. That's why the borders are open; that's why the government is bigger by 50%; that's why, after sending troops abroad, he has not exercised appropriate leadership at home. In his first campaign he kept saying he was a uniter. Not at all: he is an appeaser of opposition at home, a sell out.

You hear this from someone who kept supporting him while waiting for a truly conservative domestic policy to emerge.

Of course you are right. I only said "he's on drugs" as an expression of my utter frustration with a President who I, like you, supported over many years.

He 's not on drugs, but as you say, he has no principles.

He has goals. He has the goal of being finally accepted by the Liberal Establishment, the press, Hollywood, the UN.

And he has the goal of going down in history as being The Immigration President (though God alone knows why).

But such goals do not add up to principles, especially when those goals run counter to the years and years of promises he made to us, his loyal supporters, who he has now kicked in the face repeatedly over the last couple of years.

His goals also run counter to his duty, which he swore to, to protect the sovereignty of this nation. He has forgotten that duty, if, indeed, he ever fully accepted it. (All those years we screamed at our TV and computer screens "Bush why don't you fight back"... maybe he never wanted to fight back.)

If it ever comes out that Bush/Cheney/Rove made a conscious choice to throw the 2006 election to better enable an immigration bill, then the name George W Bush will go down in history as worse than Jimmy Carter, who at least committed all his blunders out in the open, and with the full agreement of the people who voted him into office.

[samtheman]

What makes you think Cheney is not in full agreement with all this?

[samtheman]

The other day someone suggested a Thompson/Rice ‘08 ticket.

There was a time when I would have thought that idea worthy of consideration. But that was years ago. Condi has proved herself to be a GHWBush Republican, through and through. She’s about as conservative as Arlen Specter.

[samtheman]

I feel your pain, joydoc, but uppercase and repetitious isn’t the way to get your point across.

[wolfinator]

I have a question about one of the principles involved here. When a person is arrested for a major crime in a foreign country, should they have the right to speak with a representative from their own country? If you were arrested for murder in Mexico, wouldn’t you want that right?

Just asking.

[antisocial]

“If you were arrested for murder in Mexico, wouldn’t you want that right?”

Why the Hell would anyone in his right mind be in Mexico to be arrested for anything?

[gunnyg]

A true son of the World—I hereby dub thee...”Global George”!!!!!

[Mike Bates]

Uh, somebody looks like they’re on drugs....

At first, I thought it was me.

[TomasUSMC]

I think Cheney is much smarter than Bush, more conservative and sees .... that Bush is falling and failing as leader of this country.

[reagan_fanatic]

[zeugma]

There was a time when I would have thought that idea worthy of consideration. But that was years ago. Condi has proved herself to be a GHWBush Republican, through and through. She’s about as conservative as Arlen Specter.

That's entirely possible, and quite frankly, since she's been pretty much a policy wonk all her adult life, I wouldn't be surprised  at all if she has the same yearning for the NWO that the Bushes do, but that's something you can't really tell about. She serves at the President's pleasure and implements whatever policies he directs. She might have reservations about the desirablity of merging Can/US/Mex, but she can't really do anything about it from her current job.

[Paperdoll]

>You and I may well think the way he has dealt with the border issues is ‘criminal’, but it still boils down to a policy difference at its base.<

I believe the oath of office says something about protecting the nation against the enemy foreign and domestic. He has broken that oath by opening our border to those enemies, and leaving them open, even when the nation has complained to him. He has signed a treaty, the NAU, dissolving our sovereignty. The NAU is surely unconstitutional. I don’t consider those things ‘policy issues’. More like perjury?

[TomasUSMC]

He has broken that oath by opening our border to those enemies, and leaving them open

---

Sounds like grounds for Im..........

[Old Professer]

EOA?

[Paperdoll]

>EOA<

Sorry?