Does anyone really give a dam what the UN court has to say?
Yeah, in this case, you should. Or at least to not so quickly and easily dismiss it merely for being connected with the UN and the ICJ. The ruling has many implications that could come back to bite the US in the butt. These are complicated cases, involving many issues, but the basic treaty underlying most of them is one the US heavily promoted under Customary International Law (aspect of international law that are derived from custom) and from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and, primarily, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties stem from those earlier conventions, and is what it at issue here. The US has since pulled out of the VCLT, by mere fact that the US governement can live it to it's part of the agreement only just so far, as in it cannot force individual states within the US to conform to international treaty between countries. The US can only live up to its end of the bargain with respect to what the US itself does (FBI, Homeland Security, etc), but not to what an individual state may do (State's Rights).
The federal government didn't arrest, charge, convict nor execute Medellin, the State of Texas did. But the UN Court (correctly) interprets the VCLT to mean that the US federal government has final say in such matters, even over Texas. That's why the US pulled out of the VCLT, because it cannot be reconciled with the US Constitution. We have too few State's Right left as it is, and if the US had forced Texas to comply, that would have been the end of all State's Rights as wel know it.
So Bush played at trying to get Texas to cave, and Congress himmed and hawed and let the Bill die (they knew it wouldn't pass a Supreme Court test), which left the Supreme Court no choice but to rule as they did, for Texas.
At issue is the timing of a request from Medellin to consult with the Mexican consulate. He argued that he wasn't informed of his rights to contact his consulate, but he failed to file the habeas petition prior to the State's time limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that neither an International Court of Justice case, nor a memo issued by the President of the United States, constitutes directly enforceable federal law that preempts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions. Done.
I think the Supreme Court was right, and that Texas had every right to follow through with the execution. But I also think that Texas should have let Medellin contact the Mexican consulate as soon as he was arrested, instead of waiting until
after he had been convicted.
Basically, it says that if you are arrested in a foreign country, you have the right to demand to see your country's consulate for legal advice and representation. The US is all behind that one, let me tell ya. They demand it from other countries. And other countries demand it of the US. But they cannot demand it of an individual state here in the US. The ICJ wants to blur the lines between the US and the states, and make it so that it doesn't natter if you are arrested by the FBI or Sherrif Joe, the international treaty still applies.
It's not a matter of thumbing your nose at the UN and the ICJ, especially since they are wrong on this issue (as they are using it to try to impose power and judgment over the US, in my humble onion, of course), but the ruling itself can, and will, have implications for US citizens abroad. The precedent has been set.
But as so many people say, get the US out of the UN, it sounds good, but whether we are in it or out of it, the decisions of the UN has direct and indirect implications for us here at home and on the world stage. If we got out of the UN, tore the building down and kicked every one of them out of the country, it wouldn't change a thing. The decisions made by he UN would still impact us here, either directly, or because of us having to respond to one of their decisions.
Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer, is a saying that directly applies to US involvement in the United Nations. If you think about that for a minute or two, you'll see why US withdrawal from the UN wouldn't be in our best interests.
