| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Court seeks to stay US executions |
| 2008-07-16 |
| The US has been advised not to execute five Mexican nationals on death row by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The ICJ - the UN's highest court - had previously ruled that the men had been denied the right to help from their consulate after their arrests. Mexico says the US has not reviewed the cases - as advised by the ICJ. The court told the US it should not execute the men before it made its final judgement. The five are among 51 Mexicans on death row in the United States who were not told after arrest that they were entitled to assistance from Mexican consulates. All five are currently on death row in Texas. One of them, Jose Medellin, is scheduled for execution in less than three weeks for his part in the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls. After the executions were cleared to proceed in the US, Mexico went back to the world court last month to stop the sentences from being carried out. The international court called for a review of all their cases, and President George W Bush directed state courts to do so, but the US Supreme Court overruled him, saying he had no authority to intervene. The ICJ is the highest United Nations court. Set up in 1946, it offers advisory opinions to international disputes brought to it by member states. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #12 IMO it would be a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE requiring formal AMENDMENT TO SAME, not merely by Congressional legislation. Its pretty much a given the majority of the 50 States would resist Federal + UNO interference and control over US State-specific domestic affairs. OTOH, 2008-2012 [2016] > SOCIALISM IN AMERIKA > ISN'T THE WOT/9-11 + OWG-NWO + GLOBAL CONTROL-AUTHORITY OVER AMER AFFAIRS WHAT ITS ABOUT??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-07-16 19:35 |
| #11 FOX NEWS AM > GERALDO - opined that iff anyone deserved to be exceuted, Medellin does for his role in the rape and deaths of these two girls as part of a gang ritual-initiation. Geraldo also brought up the point that the USA is a per se signatory nation to a decades-old UN Treatise allowing foreign citizens-nationals held for serious crimes in resident nations + facing detrimental imprisonment or execution for same to appeal their case directly to the UN ICC = ICJ. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-07-16 19:28 |
| #10 "Mr. Medellin has shown that he [and others] are fully capable of killing teenage girls." Only one at a time, P2k. They really don't want to piss off Texans, of any age or gender. I really do wish the Mexican army would be stupid enough to roll across the border. Unlike in Mexico, the "peasants" have guns, too, and would be happy to use them. And that includes the legal hispanic immigrants, too. I'd make a killing on the popcorn concession. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-07-16 18:52 |
| #9 Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-07-16 18:49 |
| #8 Send the Mexican army to Texas? Better tell them to watch out for the Texas cheerleaders and female soccer players, who would gladly - and handily - kick their collective asses before breakfast. Getting them here is not a problem considering they've infiltrated about 8+ million. And as for their effectiveness, Mr. Medellin has shown that he [and others] are fully capable of killing teenage girls. Together he and his 'raza' have probably inflicted more casualties on the American population than the terrorist did since 9/10. It's time for some pay back. The Mexican government is looking more and more like the Pakistan government every day. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-16 18:20 |
| #7 P2k - here's a different cite for Medellin: Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346 (2008) [if anyone wants to look it up] As for the ICJ - just how do you intend to enforce your "ruling"? Send the Mexican army to Texas? Better tell them to watch out for the Texas cheerleaders and female soccer players, who would gladly - and handily - kick their collective asses before breakfast. "Don't mess with Texas." |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-07-16 15:58 |
| #6 How come nobody ever tries a WMD attack on the UN General Assembly? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-07-16 15:33 |
| #5 Fine legal judgment they have there. I'm sure it's all purdy with seals, official signatures, etc. Too bad it can't be enforced....right Senor Medellin? |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields 2008-07-16 15:17 |
| #4 Tell the court to go pound sand. Bunch of wanna be world domination freaks. Tell me again why we keep funding this freak show called the UN and keeping it here? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-07-16 15:02 |
| #3 "MedellÃÂn v. Texas, 552 U.S. ___ (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.[1]" - wiki Further - "The Court also rejected MedellÃÂn's claim that Article 94 of the U.N. Charter requires the United States to "undertake to comply" with the ICJ ruling. Chief Justice Roberts observed that Article 94(2) of the Charter provides for explicit enforcement for noncompliance by referral to the United Nations Security Council, and for appeals to be made only by the aggrieved state (not an individual such as MedellÃÂn).[25] Even so, the United States clearly reserved the right to veto any Security Council resolutions.[26] The majority also held that the ICJ statute contained in the U.N. Charter also forbade individuals from being parties to suits before the International Court. The ICJ statute is a pact between nations, Justice Roberts said, and only nations (not individuals) may seek its judgment." |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-16 13:29 |
| #2 The ICJ is the highest United Nations court. Set up in 1946, it offers advisory opinions to international disputes brought to it by member states. The key word is advisory. They are not binding. We are not ruled by the UN. Besides, if the guys are guilty, what would the Mexican consulate been able to say? "Dude, you are screwed" (in Spanish, of course, like all educated people) |
| Posted by: Rambler in California 2008-07-16 13:27 |
| #1 One of them, Jose Medellin, is scheduled for execution in less than three weeks for his part in the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls. Yes, I can see why the consulate would wanna help him out. Just doing the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls that Americans can't be bothered to do I'm sure... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-07-16 12:44 |