Good court case

[greg334]

One of the most important court cases in a long time has been decided.

For some of you, the idea of the UN or the World Court being in control of the United States is a good thing. Many feel we are an unjust country with discrimination and hatred throughout the nation.

There are two issues that have been solved with the Supreme Court taking the case of a Mexican national who murdered two girls in Texas and was found guilty. The problem was that he was denied his to consular assistance by the Mexican government. The Mexican government forces the issue by suing the US at the world court which ruled that we don’t have the right to deny him right to consular assistance in any form. There are 51 criminals who were part of this issue.

But here is the bizarre thing, Bush ordered the states to retry all 51 people but Texas said no, the US government does not have the authority to tell them to uphold a foreign court ruling and it went to the Supreme Court.

The court ruled 6 to 3 that the president can not enforce that ruling –


"We conclude that neither (the ICJ) nor the president's memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations," Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said in the court's opinion.


Bush "has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one is not among them," he added.


But here is the most disturbing thing, ‘the People for the American Way Foundation said called the Supreme Court's ruling a "deeply troubling opinion ... signaling that the United States can simply ignore its obligations under international treaties."


"We can and must enforce our laws and defend our borders without abandoning the treaties we have signed," the group added in a statement.’


The other thing that this can stop is the UN panel on discrimination which is demanding we do more for our poor and eliminate discrimination throughout the country.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I guess I missed the point....It reads that the Mexican government denied him consular assistance...where was the injustice??

 

[terryandrene]

"he was denied his

to consular assistance by the Mexican government."​

i.e. the Mexican government didn't deny the right to assistance, he was either denied or not ensured that he had a right to seek their assistance​

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Thanks Terry...I was reading that backwards....

So in effect Texas denied him his legal rights under International laws?

So the president and the world court wanted him retried and Texas said No ...because International Law doesn't apply to them?

And the Supreme Court ruled that Texas was right? That Texas need not follow international law?

 

[greg334]

OK, I really goofed, I have to learn to proof the stuff and rewrite it. Got to stop writing when I am tired.

Yes OVM, you got it right.

The point I am trying to make is that now the states rights are above international rights unless there is a change at the federal level. This may shut the door to the UN with their human rights and discrimination commissions who have been targeting the US at the same time ignoring real issues.

 

[arrbsthw]

He shoulda stayed in Mexico and not murdered US citizens if he wanted Mexican consulte to help him.. that's just my opinion..

 

[arkjarhead]

It makes me think of the old argument is our nation a sovereign nation of states or a sovereign nation of sovereign states?

 

[D Team Brothers]

We need to place ourselves in this situation to understand why people should be allowed to contact their Embasseys. More often than not when an American in a foreign country commits a small crime he's slammed and needs to be able to reach out for help (often hindered by many countries). We stop allowing foreigners (even illegals) to contact their country reps. - they STOP us even more.

 

[arkjarhead]

Places like Mexico have corrupt Cops that will grab you up for nothing and tell you if you give them 40 bucks or so you can leave. Trust me I know. It happened to me in Tiajuana while I was in the service. If you don't have the money like a friend of mine, and can't get your friends attention to bring you a 20 to get you out the tough spot you get stuffed and cuffed. Its a sad deal. Another time a friend of mine's car was stolen outside a nightclub. He was of latino descent and spoke with a cop in Spanish. The cop told him if he could come up with 200 dollars he would help him find his Cadilliac. We all pitched in and gave him the 200 bucks and 5 minutes later he pulled up in my friends Cadilliac. If you ever decide to go sight seeing in Tijuana go during the day, and there is a Jack in the Box resteraunt in San Deigo just at the border with a dirt lot beside it. Park in the dirt lot and walk across.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

We need to place ourselves in this situation to understand why people should be allowed to contact their Embasseys. More often than not when an American in a foreign country commits a small crime he's slammed and needs to be able to reach out for help (often hindered by many countries). We stop allowing foreigners (even illegals) to contact their country reps. - they STOP us even more.

This is a bad decision...the fact is the accused only wanted embassy assistance...what harm could have it done? The accused was denied his choice of legal representation which is against the constitution I believe.

This decision only helps isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world even further.

Now as stated above...when an American finds themselves abroad and they get into trouble they could be denied U.S. Embassy help....A treaty amongst countries is just that...it's not state or provincial nor county...it's between the 2 countries involved.
Thats one of the purpose of Embassys...to help it's citizens away from home....

 

[arkjarhead]

The only thing is there are plenty of Americans that are denied the right to contact the embassy when they are arrested. Look at the kid in Singapore that got cained a while back. Yeah he was being retared when he got in trouble, but there wasn't anything the US could do. Plus that buddy of mine that got cuffed and stuffed in Mexico for 2 weeks didn't even get feed. The Mexicans said they didn't have to feed him. So we had to take him MREs, but they would only allow him to have a day's worth at a time. So we had to go everyday. Imagine had he been just a regular citizen. He would have been screwed.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

The only thing is there are plenty of Americans that are denied the right to contact the embassy when they are arrested. Look at the kid in Singapore that got cained a while back. Yeah he was being retared when he got in trouble, but there wasn't anything the US could do. Plus that buddy of mine that got cuffed and stuffed in Mexico for 2 weeks didn't even get feed. The Mexicans said they didn't have to feed him. So we had to take him MREs, but they would only allow him to have a day's worth at a time. So we had to go everyday. Imagine had he been just a regular citizen. He would have been screwed.

I remember that case...Does Singapore have a treaty with the U.S.?

Roberts ruled he had to be processed under Texas law..Texas is covered under the U.S. constitution , therefore I repeat, he was denied the right of legal counsel of his choice.

 

[greg334]

No OVM, it is a very good case.

Let’s straighten this up a bit..

1 – he raped and killed two girls, 15 and 16 years old.

2 – he was not told of his ‘international’ rights under the Vienna convention

3 – he was properly represented under our constitution and he has had his case reviewed by a lot of people to find ways to get him out of jail.

4 – he has had one appeal already at the Supreme Court, one more than you or I will ever get.

5 – the Mexican government sued the US in the Hague under the Vienna Convention, claiming that his international rights were violated because we did not inform him of his international rights. The Vienna Convention states that the US being a signatory of the convention requires that local authorities inform foreign nationals being held on criminal charges of the right to consult with their country’s diplomats.

6 – the Hague ruled in favor of the POS and Mexico which demanded that his case be reopened.

7 - the president obliged them and the Hague by creating a memo to “abide by the decision by instructing the states to reconsider the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals on death row.”

8 – the Texas court of appeals said no, they will not reopen the case, he was tried by the state of Texas and the President does not have the right to tell the state what to do.

9 – the administration took it upon themselves to flip off the people by bringing the case on this POS’s “behalf and urged the Supreme Court to overturn the Texas court’s decision.”

10 – The Supreme Court looked at the facts, and ruled that the president indeed overstepped his boundaries by creating law, the key point – “The President's statutory authorization to represent the United States before the U. N., the ICJ, and the U. N. Security Council speaks to his international responsibilities, not to any unilateral authority to create domestic law.”

11 – now there will be a sentencing hearing and if the state of Texas is smart they will get rid of this POS ASAP.

But OVM, you also miss another point, the 10th amendment really overshadows this. It limits the rights of the federal government to tell the states what to do. Representation is not the issue, having a country that is openly doing everything possible to erode our sovereignty and limiting that country is the real issue. We most of the time do very well opposed to even a lot of the EU countries. But why should we have Mexico dictate to us how to try people in our courts, does that not take our rights away to have a justice system that works for us, not the Mexican government?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I agree the guys a POS and should be strung up...

BUT if this thinking of states rights then that would contradict any treaty the U.S. has ever signed....

In Item #3 you said "he was properly represented" but in item #5 you go on to say" he wasn't informed of his right to consular representation."

In the Charles Ng case "serial killer", where Canada wouldn't return him for extradition because of Californias death penalty....The U.S. demanded that Canada follow the treaty....because there wasn't a death penalty clause in the treaty....After about 10 years Canada returned him.


Greg said..."But why should we have Mexico dictate to us how to try people in our courts, does that not take our rights away to have a justice system that works for us, not the Mexican government"

I don't see how it takes anything away...It's only a representation issue...he still could be tried in Texas and U.S. law would prevail...

Ok Greg...your in your beloved France and you break a law...and they appoint you a French lawyer....wouldn't want your embassy involved???

 

[greg334]

I agree the guys a POS and should be strung up...

BUT if this thinking of states rights then that would contradict any treaty the U.S. has ever signed....

OVM, the system here is setup differently than most of the rest of the world. Other places the treaties and agreements, and even some laws are binding across the entire country. But not here, there are three levels of government working at the same time.

The Federal government represents the states on the international level but the states are to have authority over their own state and the federal government is limited in it’s power can scope by the constitution on what the federal government can and can not do. Nothing trumps the 10th amendment, meaning that the constitution has to be changed in order for any treaty to actually govern a state to the degree that you are talking about. On the international scene, the federal government can and does sign treaties all the time, most are talking about the US as a whole, but we break down our government on the three basic levels, so say the UN wants to push for the tax on us directly to fund them, they can’t. The Feds can’t really agree to a direct tax from a foreign entity because of the way our system is setup. The states can push back and say no to protect their citizens and the UN won’t get the money.

In Item #3 you said "he was properly represented" but in item #5 you go on to say" he wasn't informed of his right to consular representation."

There is a big difference between legal criminal representation in our court system and consular representation by the consulate of a specific country. The latter is not always afforded to common citizens and there are clauses in the Vienna and other conventions that the only reason that you would need consular representation is either you are diplomat with portfolio or there is a record of human rights violations in the country you are being charged with. Neither is true in this and other cases that the court case was about. In fact the local authorities should not offer to contact anyone because they are forbidden to uphold the constitution by the fact that they can not detain, arrest or deport an invader, which he is. He forfeited those rights by illegal entry into this country.

In the Charles Ng case "serial killer", where Canada wouldn't return him for extradition because of Californias death penalty....The U.S. demanded that Canada follow the treaty....because there wasn't a death penalty clause in the treaty....After about 10 years Canada returned him.

Canada was wrong in that case. They had a treaty that was in place for extradition and they did not allow victims to get justice. The process was clear, the state requested the department of Justice to request extradition on the basis that he was indicted of a crime and he must stand trail in the state of California. The state didn’t make the request; the federal government did because they represent the states on the international scene. The same goes for other countries, our citizens have a right for our justice system to work as part of our rights. A country holding a person because they don’t want to see them convicted under our laws that may end up as a death penalty, well they are wrong.

Greg said..."But why should we have Mexico dictate to us how to try people in our courts, does that not take our rights away to have a justice system that works for us, not the Mexican government"

I don't see how it takes anything away...It's only a representation issue...he still could be tried in Texas and U.S. law would prevail...

Yes but you don’t get that once you open the door for this to proceed as the world court ruled, it opens the door for a lot of other things – like the UN with it’s unreasonable human rights committee and their resolutions. Once one gets in, they all get in. It is better to shut the door right form the start and not try to sort out which international laws we must follow and which ones to ignore.

Beside he has had his day in court, he has still a long and costly appeal process.

Ok Greg...your in your beloved France and you break a law...and they appoint you a French lawyer....wouldn't want your embassy involved???

Yes and no. I already had experiences with the state department which made things worst for me and others. They actually did little, the brits did the most for us and we were not even British, go figure. France’s legal system is messed up but it offers fairness, equal to the US’s legal system. Now if you said China, or Russia or Ghana, yes I would want them to monitor the trial and make sure that everything is done to a world standard. Also you got to understand that because I know I have an embassy almost everywhere and as a citizen I know that they can help, I am not in the same situation as this POS. He didn’t enter into this country legally, so he did not go through a legal process where that may have been explained to him.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Greg said.."Canada was wrong in that case. They had a treaty that was in place for extradition and they did not allow victims to get justice. The process was clear, the state requested the department of Justice to request extradition on the basis that he was indicted of a crime and he must stand trail in the state of California. The state didn’t make the request; the federal government did because they represent the states on the international scene. The same goes for other countries, our citizens have a right for our justice system to work as part of our rights. A country holding a person because they don’t want to see them convicted under our laws that may end up as a death penalty, well they are wrong."

Agreed...and most of the people I had contact with also agreed....ship him out...Its not our problem nor concern how other countrys sentence thier criminals...The warrant was legal and should have been sufficient to satisfy the courts. Canada spents millions of taxpayers money on a misplaced principle.

 

[arkjarhead]

I think we should pull out of the UN. "I ain't gonna say nothing about NATO I don't know NATO. Do you know Nato Jacobs he stay on the southside in Chicago" (Bernie Mac, Head of State).