SubscribeWorld Court Tells US To Stop Executions
From those champions of world government at Reuters:
In this June 19, 2008 file photo, U.S. legal advisor John Bellinger, left, stands behind the lectern as he addresses the World Court as Mexico’s delegation is seen, bottom left corner, in the Great Hall of Justice at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.
World Court: U.S. must delay Mexican death sentences
THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The World Court on Wednesday ordered the United States to do everything necessary to ensure five Mexicans on death row are not executed before the court makes a judgment in a dispute between the two countries.
One of the five on death row, Jose Medellin, is due to die on August 5 in Texas.
In 2004 the World Court found in favor of Mexico and ruled the United States had violated international law by failing to inform 51 Mexicans sentenced to death of their right to consular assistance and ordered the cases should be reviewed.
In 2005 U.S. President George W. Bush directed state courts to do so but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March that Bush had no authority to do this, leading Texas to schedule Medellin’s execution for August.
Did you ever think you would see the day when the UN’s “World Court” — or any foreign body — would be deciding how and when the US punishes criminals?
And that our President would cooperate with them?
Of course if he had refused, the Hague would probably have issued a warrant for his arrest — for crimes against humanity.
Just imagine how much influence the United Nations will have over our daily lives under a President Obama.
Related Articles:
8 Responses to “World Court Tells US To Stop Executions”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am
So let me get this in this straight - since 1946 - American states (37) with the death penalty have not ever executed a Mexican (or foreigner)? Or is it only because evil bushitlerburtonco is in office? Could it be these particular ‘Mexican’s’ were in fact illiegal aliens? Thus the crime for which a death penalty would be indicated was just one among several crimes - and ‘consular assistance’ might actually be an ‘illegal ticket out of the US’ - which is what the evil bushitlerburtonco justice people were worried about.
And I can’t believe that the Supremes stopped this and that the World Court isn’t on the same page - so to speak. . .
It is all so confusing - however given what ‘crime’ is necessary to get a death penalty option - I really don’t care - carry their butts to the border and shoot ‘em so that they fall on the Mexican side. . .Maybe that will make the point as to how Americans feel about criminals in America, the Death Penalty, and The World anything telling us how to run our lives, country and sovereignty.
Where in the heck has vibrant, strong American independent spirit gone? Imagine a bunch of euro uber whinnies (judge and european to boot) telling America how to run it’s judicial system - imagine the howls if American’s told them how to run their systems. It would be deafening.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
“And I can’t believe that the Supremes stopped this and that the World Court isn’t on the same page - so to speak…”
Yes, the SCOTUS is against the “World Court” on this one.
Which just goes to show that even they will stand up to these unelected tinhorn dictators — when it’s a matter of defending their personal turf.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:42 am
And why the hell is Mexico upset about frying criminals anyway?
You think if they’d caught Ted Bundy down there we’d be pissing and moaning because he’s not frying in an American electric chair?
July 16th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Interesting.
The Bush Administration was forced to get involved, due to the complex treaties the US is committed to.
In hopes to protect the rights of traveling US citizens in the future.
Texas clearly made a mistake, but the conviction is welcome, and were glad the Appointees of this fine President helped maintain it.
However, see the next President, either the Liberal McCain or Obama do so much worse…
July 16th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Oh boy, my Grandpa isn’t so crazy after all of these years. Anyway, I would like to petition the world court to set a lawsuit in motion against mexihole and their crimes against the US such as illegal immigration, murder, drug trafficking, sucking our health care system dry, stealing jobs from legal citizens, paying absolutely nothing to enter this country while folks that immigrate from Asia, Europe, etc., have to pay an arm and a leg just because they are trying to do the right thing, la raza, etc………
July 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
The United States of America is a sovereign nation. Screw the World Court!
July 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
If Mexico doesn’t want us to execute their citizens, the Mexican government needs to prevent said citizens from entering our country illegally and committing capital crimes, end of story.
By the way, Medellin is a POS.
http://tinyurl.com/66j694
He was in this country illegally, was a gang member in the Houston area and he was convicted of raping and strangling a 16 year old girl in 1993. A fine upstanding citizen of Mexico.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Years ago I read a great oppinion in the WSJ by PJ O’rourke, here it is:
We’ll Run
This Planet
As We Please
And if you don’t like it, go back where we came from.
by P.J. O’ROURKE
Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
Are Americans pursuing a misguided course of unilateralism? Are we failing to cooperate and coordinate with other countries in matters such as the Kyoto climate treaty, missile defense, and peace processes in the Middle East, the Balkans and elsewhere? Are we telling foreigners to go pound sand?
But we are foreigners. Every person in America came from, or is descended from someone who came from, somewhere else, even if it was 30,000 years ago on a land bridge across the Bering Strait. Of course we’re unilateral. If we Americans had wanted to be ordered around by English wig-tops, French functionaries, bossy Germans, disorganized Italians, tin-pot Latin American dictators, and Ice Age Siberian bureaucrats, we would have stayed where we were. And in the case of us Americans who were shipped here, due to slavery or exile, we could have gone back. Both the history of Liberia and the type of American who lives in Paris indicate this is a bad idea.
Being foreigners ourselves, we know what you other foreigners are up to with your Faustian bargaining sessions, your venomous covenants, lying alliances, greedy agreements, back-stabbing ententes cordiales, and trick-or-treat treaty ploys. Count us out.
And, while we’re counting, let’s count all the nations on the face of the earth that really count. The number seems to be one. Russia used to be a superpower but resigned “to spend more time with the family.” China is supposed to be mighty. But the Chinese leadership sweats and trembles when a couple hundred Falun Gong members show up in Tianamen Square for a mass tai chi workout.
The United States, with 4.5% of the world’s population and 6% of its land area, produces one-fifth of everything in the world. And we consume even more than that. No nation compares to America in wealth. Certainly not Japan. Japan turned out to be a macroeconomic Pokémon craze. Impoverished citizens of the developing world do not wade the Pacific in the middle of the night seeking a better life in Japan.
No nation compares to America in influence. American fashions, entertainment, aspirations and ideals dominate the planet the way Chandra Levy dominates Fox News Channel. Britain, France and Germany are obscure branch offices of American culture and may be closed in the interests of rational consolidation.
As for comparisons in matters of life and death, America spends more on defense than the next 12 top defense-spending countries combined. If the U.S. is going to be involved in military multilateralism, it should ask its partner nations that ancient question of diplomacy, “You and what army?”
Indeed, getting America involved in anything of a multilateral nature is like naming The Rock to an Olympic rowing team and giving the other oars to David Spade and Calista Flockhart. When America does manage to participate, as an equal, in the community of nations, the results are not pretty. Look at the stupid U.N. And somewhere in the hills of former Yugoslavia the ghost of Woodrow Wilson wanders Marley-like, dragging his chains and regretting the deeds of his life. Yet the foolish notion of one-worlders persists: Let the lion lie down with the lamb chop.
What is the point of multilateralism? Is it supposed to prevent wars? There aren’t many wars at the moment–except in Israel, Macedonia and a few other places where multilateralism has been attempted. Is nuclear holocaust to be prevented? America’s unilateral missile-defense system will do that, albeit unilaterally. And, by the way, how come all the people who were so in favor of unilateral nuclear disarmament are so opposed to unilateral protection against nukes?
Is the environment to be cleaned up? What’s needed for environmental cleanup is money. America has most of it. A Kyoto treaty that damages the American economy is not going to leave us Americans with extra money to help you foreigners recycle your trash–like all those corrupt, deposed dictators you’re always sending here.
Or is the point of multilateralism simply that America is expected to imitate the elder and better nations of Europe? They, in their wisdom, decided that their continent did not have enough government and needed one more big one. After Hitler, Napoleon and Attila the Hun, the Europeans should know where this leads. Undeterred by historical example, however, the EU looks to fulfill the age-old dream of having a country of English cooks, German lovers, French defense forces and Italian efficiency experts.
America is not an insular country. Unilateralism is not isolationism. America has always been outward-looking, as the beleaguered Sioux and high-tailing Mexican armies of the century before last could testify. An isolationist America would mean New York State champagne and Mississippi catfish caviar. And there is an intrinsic element of the multilateral in the American character. Look at our malls. We are perfectly willing to accept what the rest of the world deems good–if it comes in attractive colors.
But the rest of the world should not push America too far with claims upon international relations. The earth is not a family. And only an idiot would try multilateralism in a family, anyway. If you foreigners want America to join in a family marriage of nations, fine. But I warn you, we will be a strict dad. Because it’s our planet. And we said so.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001025