Mexico asks World Court to stay executions in US
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Mexico asks World Court to stay executions in US

  1. #1

    Angry Mexico asks World Court to stay executions in US

    Another example how the world court trys to impose its crap on the U.S. I think we neet to tell them to go to H_ _ _.

    Mexico asks World Court to stay executions in US | Latest State headlines from AP | Star-Telegram.com

    Mexico asks World Court to stay executions in US
    By ARTHUR MAXAssociated Press Writer
    AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- Mexico appealed to the U.N.'s highest court Thursday to block the executions of Mexicans in the United States, arguing U.S. officials have failed to comply with a judgment ordering a review of their trials.

    The International Court of Justice said Mexico asked the court for an "interpretation" of an earlier ruling to clarify its meaning when it asked the U.S. to "review and reconsider" the cases of the condemned prisoners.

    Until that can be done, Mexico said the United States "must take any and all steps necessary" to ensure that none of its citizens is executed, and asked the court to take urgent measures to intercede.

    The court, informally known as the World Court, ruled in 2004 that the convictions of some 50 Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad can have access to their home country's consular officials.

    The court, which sits in The Hague, said the Mexicans should have new hearings in U.S. courts to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

    President Bush accepted the judgment and asked state courts to review the cases. Texas refused.

    Jose Medellin, a 33-year-old inmate condemned in the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls 15 years ago, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of the World Court's ruling.

    The Supreme Court rejected the appeal March 25, saying Bush had overstepped his authority when he ordered the courts to carry out the decision from The Hague and review the prisoners' cases.

    The Constitution "allows the president to execute the laws, not make them," said the majority opinion.

    Medellin's execution has been set for Aug. 5.

    Mexico asked the court to issue an immediate injunction against the execution and those of four other Mexican-born inmates. In its request, Mexico said it was still in dispute with the United States over "the scope and meaning" of the 2004 ruling.

    The Mexican request said the court's ruling implied that some actual review must result, but the U.S. government says it has already complied.

    The U.S. obligation to follow international law also applies to individual states, Mexico argued in its application to the court.

    "The United States cannot invoke municipal law as justification for failure to perform its international legal obligations," it said.

    A World Court spokeswoman said the 15-judge court would convene soon to weigh Mexico's request to halt the executions.

    The International Court of Justice is the U.N.'s judicial arm for resolving legal disputes among member states. Its decisions are binding and not subject to appeal, but are not always obeyed.

    :icon_sick:
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #2
    The US government needs to be reminded that we are a sovereign nation and that the UN is a silly fiction supported by too much money stolen by political lunatics.

    We need to stop providing support for this idiocy.:duimomlaag:
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  4. #3
    I don't care what country you come from... gang rape and murder is a good enough reason for someone to fry in my book. sick sick people.
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  5. #4
    Maybe if we go ahead and do as planned the UN will kick us out. We can always hope.
    David

    The only person available to protect you 24 hours a day is you.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Falls Church, Va
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidM View Post
    Maybe if we go ahead and do as planned the UN will kick us out. We can always hope.
    No way! They would have to move to another country that would not put up with the bull$hit their member do like we do....

    And I think they live almost rent free, but I am not sure......

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    I agree with SCOTUS - the Executive's role is that of enforcing the law, not interpreting it.

    The "live in the land, live by the law" logic makes a lot of sense. However, we're also subject to that. A lot of Westerners don't like the idea of having to abide by Muslim law when in they commit a crime in the Mideast, though.

    What it comes down to, is that if we can execute Mexicans for murder, then an American caught adulterating in Saudi Arabia can also be executed, or whatever it is their law says.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853
    It wasn't that many months back that Mexico tried something similar in the so called world court, and the US court told them to mind their own business.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    somewhere in north texas
    Posts
    599

    nah...

    there is no such thing as world goverment is there? but no one has a problem with a world court? and it was TEXAS that told them to get bent. not SCOTUS.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Just curious as to what the consequences would be if the World Court rules in Mexico's favor and the U.S. executes Mexicans on death row anyway. Because the U.S. is a sovereign nation, any ruling against it is just that, a ruling. The World Court has no enforcement mechanisms, which is the way it should be. If it did, and sent its "police" to the United States to enforce its rulings, that would be considered an invasion. Honestly, I don't see any need for any sovereign nation (whether it is the United States in this case or Iraq when it defied 17 UN resolutions) to recognize any World Court rulings as legally binding.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Just curious as to what the consequences would be if the World Court rules in Mexico's favor and the U.S. executes Mexicans on death row anyway. Because the U.S. is a sovereign nation, any ruling against it is just that, a ruling. The World Court has no enforcement mechanisms, which is the way it should be. If it did, and sent its "police" to the United States to enforce its rulings, that would be considered an invasion. Honestly, I don't see any need for any sovereign nation (whether it is the United States in this case or Iraq when it defied 17 UN resolutions) to recognize any World Court rulings as legally binding.
    Precisely, anyone else here remember the world court Texas thread that was floating around several months back? It was an almost identical situation, Mexico N Texas, World court interfering with US law, and being told to go sit on it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast