World Court Tells U.S. to Freeze Mexican Executions

Reuters ^ | 2/05/03 | Abigail Levene

[Servant of the Nine]

Where are "ya'll" leading? You could at least clarify that.

Baghdad, then on to Paris.

After the UN puts Uncle Sam's dentures back in his mouth?

Somebody will Veto and we will go anyway.

So9

[meyer]

Why does the UN need to use military force to enforce a treaty we signed and ratified 40 years ago?

Because the US is going to tell them to go pound salt. This is a Texas matter.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Texas matter? There are 50 equal states jerk. I'm tired of people thinking they're above the law. Try another civil war, and we'll see how that goes. You can't hold out on Galveston forever. The Constitution is the supreme law of these United States. If you don't like it, tough.

[judgeandjury]

The World Court ordered the United States Wednesday to stay executions of three Mexicans...

Ordered!? ORDERED!? Well then, if that's the way that they're going to be, then I'm ordering the World Court to go to hell!

[Trickyguy]

the governor should light one of these boys up in an electric chair just to piss them off

I think you mean piss on them and then light them up. Better current flow that way.

[meyer]

Texas matter? There are 50 equal states jerk. I'm tired of people thinking they're above the law. Try another civil war, and we'll see how that goes. You can't hold out on Galveston forever. The Constitution is the supreme law of these United States. If you don't like it, tough.

Foreign matter in your cereal this morning? What does this have to do with the civil war?

[Buckeye Bomber]

This is not a Texas matter, that's what I meant. This is a matter for the United States government, which signed a treaty relevant to this matter. Last time I checked Texas was one of 50 United States, not an independent nation which does its own diplomacy.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If we informed the convicted murderers of their right to contact the Mexican consul, then we're good to go. If not, we violated a treaty that we signed. That's not an issue of sovereignty. It's an issue of keeping our word.

We did sign that treaty, and most local police forces routinely violate it, either because they don't know about it, or don't ask the immigration status of people they arrest. The problem with this is not these stupid orders from the World Court, which are unenforceable, but the fact that effectively the US will be unable to complain if countries like China or Russia start arresting US citizens and don't let them contact the US Embassy.

[FITZ]

It seems a bit odd that the Mexican government on one hand insists that all it's citizens be given all the rights of American citizens whether they are here legally or not, they are to be given access to any job they want, all our Social Security and other welfare programs but it insists on a separate set of laws for them.

I believe the reason is that most on death row are drug smugglers who shot a law enforcement agent and those are under the protection of the Mexican government. That government does not care about it's little people.

[dark_lord]

Please be specific as to which treaty, and what verbage in that specific treaty, gives the World Court authority? You keep throwing up the Constitutional aspect of "treaties". So what? You need to say which treaty and which clause in the treaty pertains to this.

[FITZ]

This is a matter for the United States government, which signed a treaty relevant to this matter. Last time I checked Texas was one of 50 United States, not an independent nation

But the death penalty is a state matter. Treaties made by the US government shouldn't affect what the Constitution gave to the states as their authority.

[philman_36]

Baghdad, then on to Paris.
And the justification and reasoning for going to war against France?
Simply because that they didn't "go along" with the Hegemon's decisions? WOW! Such a great, justified reason.
Somebody will Veto and we will go anyway.
The Hegemon is psychic too?

[Buckeye Bomber]

The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Rights. I believe article 5 obligates us to contact the consul whenever a citizen of the consular nation is arrested.

I posted this earlier. Does anyone ever read previous posts? And the lurking Libertarian brings up another good point: if we ignore this, does anyone else have a reason to grant that right to our citizens? I love it when smart people agree with me.

[meyer]

This is not a Texas matter, that's what I meant. This is a matter for the United States government, which signed a treaty relevant to this matter. Last time I checked Texas was one of 50 United States, not an independent nation which does its own diplomacy.

I stand corrected on the state v. US matter. As well, I'd like to see the intentions of the founders before judging the constitutionality of this "treaty". I would think that the mere desire to divide powers among the government branches would be evidence enough to discredit the signing of a rogue treaty by one president from circumventing the constitutional trial rights of our citizens.

Regardless, I'd tell the "world court" to go pound salt. Its time to reaffirm the soverign state of this nation anyway. Its a little dangerous to allow the constitution to be signed away by one person, unless one stands to profit from "stroke of the pen, law of the land".

[Buckeye Bomber]

The technicality is that the state violated a treaty signed by the United States. It applies to everyone anywhere in the United States and any other signatory nation. The demand for consuls being informed overrides the state's "right".

[Buckeye Bomber]

Not only was the treay signed, it was ratified. Two government branches signed off on the treaty.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Oh yeah, it's real easy to see the intentions of people dead for 200 years. C'mon honestly, think before you post.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I do wonder if the treaty in question was ever ratified... or if similar to Kyoto and the International Criminal Court it was simply signed by the (previous) president, but then tabled by the Senate, leaving it null and void. It was not necessary to "withdraw" from Kyoto and ICC, for example, because they never went into effect.

There are two treaties which come into play here: the 1963 Consular Rights treaty, and the World Court treaty. The Consular Rights treaty is real, was ratified, and is important (because we would like the US Consulate to be informed if US citizens are arrested abroad). But, under usual rules of international law, a violation of that treaty doesn't void a criminal conviction, it just gives the foreign country the right to take diplomatic retaliation against the US.

The World Court traty was also ratified by the US, but with an important reservation: we agreed to accept the Court's jurisdiction only where it didn't interfere with our internal affairs. These orders clearly do that, which is why we're ignoring them.

[garbanzo]

That's the key legal issue here. Federal executive branch officials have absolutely no legal recourse to stay a Texas execution. Federal courts may have the legal power under the supremacy clause to stay it but that's not a matter of settled law as far as I know.

[Zoey]

It was also a treaty that created the World Court I believe.
And when the US signed THAT treaty they were smart enough (back then) to say that we would decide when the World Court had jurisdiction over our cases. Atleast I think that is how it happens. I'm going from memory here. I'll try to find some old posts about this later.

I also seem to remember that when this same situation happened before the federal government wanted to stay the execution and listen to the World Court, but the state wasn't interested. :) Anyhow it went to SCOTUS and they said the feds had no right to tell the state what to do with a state execution.