US doesn't honor treaties and Texas sucks.

[Verto]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Texas was, and is, a Republic. That's fact. I have a real problem with some ******* coming in, not a citizen, committing a heinous crime, and whining about his rights.

I have even more of a problem with a jerkwad like Oerdin being so blind to the situation.

You should be on the Supreme Court.

[Wittlich]

Texas is a Republic - but so is California.

Besides, any court ruling can be challenged and brought before a higher court; so it's not the end of the world Sloww (but I do understand your anger with it all).

[SlowwHand]

The Supreme Court ruled on it. What else?

[asleepathewheel]

The truly fascinating aspect of this case for me is the conflict created by pitting GW against his former state on behalf of a convicted child rapist/murderer.

What a bizarro world.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Texas was, and is, a Republic. That's fact. I have a real problem with some ******* coming in, not a citizen, committing a heinous crime, and whining about his rights.

Would you rather have it that his rights be trampled on? Because Snoopy is exactly right - this is a very, very helpful thing for Americans. The right to be in contact with your consulate is, on balance, one that benefits us the most. If we don't respect the rights of foreigners in our country, why should they respect the rights of our nationals elsewhere? It's not about coddling a criminal - it's not about any specific person at all. It's about respecting the rights of others so our rights, in turn, will be respected.

[asleepathewheel]

Of course he wasn't really prevented from contacting his embassy, was he? He just wasn't informed he had that right. There is a difference.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Would you rather have it that his rights be trampled on? Because Snoopy is exactly right - this is a very, very helpful thing for Americans. The right to be in contact with your consulate is, on balance, one that benefits us the most. If we don't respect the rights of foreigners in our country, why should they respect the rights of our nationals elsewhere? It's not about coddling a criminal - it's not about any specific person at all. It's about respecting the rights of others so our rights, in turn, will be respected.

Guess what? If an American goes to another country and does the same thing, I have no more sympathy than this pond scum. That's said with the full knowledge that Americans are at gretaer risk whenever they go overseasa. Why? Becuasuse we pay the piper. We negotiate too often. An American that does this is not better than some Mexican up here committing crimes, Americans are at greater risk, even when legally travelling, doing nothing. If you don't realize that, I can't explain it to you.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Guess what? If an American goes to another country and does the same thing, I have no more sympathy than this pond scum.

You're presuming he's guilty. What if he's innocent? What if he's in a country with a judicial system far more corrupt and politically motivated then ours? What if he hasn't done the crime, but is prevented from mounting an effective defense because he doesn't understand the country or legal system and has no aid from his own consulate?

Your mindset of "grrr criminals are evil and I don't care about their rights" isn't worth much in a world where the innocent are also vulnerable to prosecution and wrongful imprisonment.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The Supreme Court ruled on it. What else?

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court. They have to the power to overturn laws/rulings passed by the states. Of course, lord only knows how long it will take for them to review the case, if they even will.

[SlowwHand]

If he's innocent, chances are good he'll be found innocent. To recite an old saying though, "Where there's smoke there's fire".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah... I've skimmed the decision

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-984&friend=nytimes

Anyway, it appears the majority decision is based on the idea that the portion of the Vienna Convention that deals with notifying the consulate of another state for a foreign national is not self-executing and requires a subsequent act by Congress to formulate a domestic law to enforce the treaty provisions:

This Court has long recognized the distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that--while they constitute international law commitments--do not by themselves function as binding federal law. The distinction was well explained by Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 315 (1829), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet. 51 (1833), which held that a treaty is "equivalent to an act of the legislature," and hence self-executing, when it "operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision." Foster, supra, at 314. When, in contrast, "[treaty] stipulations are not self-executing they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect." Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 194 (1888). In sum, while treaties "may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be 'self-executing' and is ratified on these terms." Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F. 3d 145, 150 (CA1 2005) (en banc) (Boudin, C. J.).2

The other questions appear to be can the President tell the states what to do with foreign obligations, and the answer is no... there has to be a law, involving Congress. The President cannot self-execute a treaty by himself.

The last question is whether the ICJ ruling is binding on the US. The language of 94(1) of the UN Charter doesn't automatically make this the case and the language seems to indicate that it is the political arms of the state that is to attempt to enforce the ruling, not automatic judicial enforceability. As Justice Stevens, in his concurrence, points out:

Absent a presumption one way or the other, the best reading of the words "undertakes to comply" is, in my judgment, one that contemplates future action by the political branches. I agree with the dissenters that "Congress is unlikely to authorize automatic judicial enforceability of all ICJ judgments, for that could include some politically sensitive judgments and others better suited for enforcement by other branches." Post, at 24. But this concern counsels in favor of reading any ambiguity in Article 94(1) as leaving the choice of whether to comply with ICJ judgments, and in what manner, "to the political, not the judicial department." Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314 (1829).3

Btw, with Stevens (who concurred on a different aspect... the SCOTUS couldn't compel Texas to change its rules, but urged it to anyway), the decision was a 6-3 ruling.

--

Not that Texas should have just said screw it, though. They should have changed their procedural laws somewhat to allow a foreign national to bring a post sentencing claim that there wasn't notice given to the consulate of the foreign national.

[Wittlich]

Yikes! That was the U.S. Supreme Court!

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Wittlich


Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court. They have to the power to overturn laws/rulings passed by the states. Of course, lord only knows how long it will take for them to review the case, if they even will.

Actually, you wouldn't know this from the op, but the SCOTUS ruled on 3/25 (ie, tuesday) oking the execution.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/25/scotus.texas/index.html

[SlowwHand]

Screw him.

[Wittlich]

Yep, just noticed that.