Post by: K Frame on July 16, 2008, 08:12:10 AM
"THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The World Court ordered the United States on Wednesday to do all it could to halt the imminent executions of five Mexicans until the court makes a final judgment in a dispute over suspects' rights.
ADVERTISEMENT
The row, which has strained relations between the neighbors, centers on the fact that the United States failed to inform 51 of its citizens sentenced to die in U.S. jails of their right to consular assistance.
One of the five Mexicans on death row, Jose Medellin, is due to die on August 5 in Texas.
In 2004, the World Court ruled in favor of Mexico, finding the United States had violated international law, and ordered it to review the 51 cases to see whether the lack of consular assistance had prejudiced the outcome of their trials.
A year later, U.S. President George W. Bush ordered Texas to review Medellin's case but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March that Bush had no authority to do so, leading Texas to schedule Medellin's execution for August.
"The court indicates that the United States of America shall take all measures necessary to ensure that five Mexican nationals are not executed pending its final judgment," Judge Rosalyn Higgins said.
Mexico has asked the World Court or International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an interpretation of its 2004 ruling, given U.S. assertions that its federal states have a large degree of legal autonomy and it cannot compel them to review the cases.
LOOMING EXECUTION
Representing Mexico at the court, the United Nations' highest legal body, Jorge Lomonaco Tonda said: "The Mexican government is satisfied with the ruling of the court ... we have full confidence that the ruling will be applied."
A gang member, Medellin was denied the right to meet a consular official from Mexico after his arrest for the June 1993 rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston. The killings were linked to a gang initiation.
Under the Vienna Convention, foreign nationals have a right to talk to consular officers after their arrests.
John Bellinger, a legal adviser to the U.S. State Department, said the U.S. government had acknowledged it was obliged to review the cases and was talking to the state of Texas to try to get it to comply with the ICJ ruling.
But he added: "This court's orders do not have direct technical effect in the United States."
If Texas executed Medellin it would violate the international legal obligations of the United States yet still be legal under Texan state laws, he said.
Texas has said Medellin was never told he could talk to Mexican officials. But it has added that the claim cannot be made now because he never raised it at trial or sentencing.
Even if his treaty rights had been violated, it would not have made any difference in the outcome of the case, Texas said.
Thirty-eight U.S. states still have the death penalty, of which Texas has carried out the most executions.
Last year 42 people were put to death in the United States, but the number was artificially low because of a de facto moratorium issued by the Supreme Court, while it examined arguments that the cocktail of three drugs used in most U.S. executions inflicted unnecessary pain.
The ICJ is responsible for handling disputes between U.N. member states. Its rulings -- which often take years -- are binding and not subject to appeal."
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 16, 2008, 08:14:33 AM
now let's see them enforce their ruling...
I'd rather watch them pound sand.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 16, 2008, 08:26:48 AM
Post by: agricola on July 16, 2008, 08:29:35 AM
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on July 16, 2008, 08:58:12 AM
Quote
Mexico has 51 of its citizens in the US, who have committed crimes for which they have been sentenced to death, and they are pissed off at you?
No kidding.
They should be embarrassed by that fact.
Post by: Ezekiel on July 16, 2008, 09:24:32 AM
Let them do their little dance, then we kill them.
Post by: K Frame on July 16, 2008, 09:34:38 AM
Canada said stop, World Court said stop, the state (Ohio?) said Juice 'Em.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 16, 2008, 10:14:35 AM
On the other hand, I don't want to see the US govt and media get all in a tizzy the next time some juvenile delinquent gets caned.
Post by: K Frame on July 16, 2008, 10:29:52 AM
From 1999:
IN THE HEADLINES: Canadian executed despite late pleas
HOUSTON - A Canadian man who survived nine dates with death in 22 years on death row in Texas was executed Thursday despite international pleas to halt the proceeding.
The man, Joseph Stanley Faulder, 61, who was sentenced to death for the 1975 murder of a wealthy elderly woman, was the first Canadian to be executed in the United States since 1952.
Canadian officials, as well as human rights groups and international legal authorities, had sought to halt the execution for several reasons, among them that Faulder was never notified of his right to contact the Canadian Consulate.
A final appeal was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court about 75 minutes before the execution.
Post by: K Frame on July 16, 2008, 10:32:12 AM
From the World Socialist Web Site...
"According to the human rights group Amnesty International, 73 foreign nationals from 24 countries currently sit on death row in the United States. Of these, only three were informed of their rights. Paraguayan citizen Angel Francisco Breard was executed in 1998 in violation of an International Court of Justice order that his death sentence be suspended. If the execution of Stanley Faulder proceeds, he will be the first Canadian executed in the US since 1952."
The World Court was involved in the 1998 case and the United States essentially said "Pound sand."
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 16, 2008, 10:36:44 AM
We will, and should, cave. (Pissing off the world, by executing five people, ain't worth it.)
Let them do their little dance, then we kill them.
By 'we', I assume you mean the Federal Government. Yes, fed.gov will cave.Let them do their little dance, then we kill them.
Texas? Not so very likely. They will probably keep their appointment to shuffle loose of the mortal coil.
Post by: slugcatcher on July 16, 2008, 10:58:34 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 16, 2008, 11:16:45 AM
Post by: taurusowner on July 16, 2008, 12:09:24 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 12:14:07 PM
This idea that the World Court might think there are laws that apply for the purpose of restraining the United States is just radical socialist activism.
FWIW-In reality, I don't agree with the ruling because the U.S. provides process. If this were a country that had no effective procedures for assessing guilt, however, I'd think they and the rest of the world would be right to exert pressures against carrying out such punishment.
I just think it's a bit silly to hyperventilate over someone using international law to criticize a US practice, when international law has been the justification for invading whole countries on our end.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 16, 2008, 12:17:31 PM
Pissing off the world, by executing five people, ain't worth it.
Oh, but it is. I'm not so sure that executing some murderers would really "piss off the world." But even if it did, Americans should continue to demonstrate, by various means, that we won't be pushed around by silly globalist institutions.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 16, 2008, 12:18:37 PM
World Court and other international judgments are only valid when levied against an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein.
Well, yeah. That's because "international law" is a sham.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 16, 2008, 12:20:14 PM
Pissing off the world, by executing five people, ain't worth it.
Oh, but it is. I'm not so sure that executing some murderers would really "piss off the world." But even if it did, Americans should continue to demonstrate, by various means, that we won't be pushed around by silly globalist institutions.
To paraphrase Machiavelli, when you're dealing with people who will never, ever love you, it is sometimes safer to be feared.
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 12:22:03 PM
World Court and other international judgments are only valid when levied against an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein.
Well, yeah. That's because "international law" is a sham.
It's a sham because the major world powers ignore it, yes. But it's actually a pretty good idea, and deeply rooted in Western civilization.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 16, 2008, 12:24:58 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 12:26:57 PM
So long as no one mistakes it for an actual legal system.
That category would include the founding fathers and the early U.S. Congress and Courts.
It is an actual legal system-being completely unaware of how it operates or what it is doesn't mean it is fake.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 16, 2008, 12:28:51 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 12:30:10 PM
International Law is just a series of treaties and agreements. It only has validity if the treaty members make it so. It certainly is nothing like law of a sovereign nation within its own borders.
Well, that is one view, but that certainly was not the view of the people who founded this country, nor has it ever been the custom among nations that operate within the European legal traditions.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 16, 2008, 12:30:11 PM
International Law is just a series of treaties and agreements. It only has validity if the treaty members make it so. It certainly is nothing like law of a sovereign nation within its own borders.
That's kinda what I meant, yeah.
Post by: K Frame on July 16, 2008, 01:20:34 PM
Uhm...
Beg your pardon?
You are way far off base.
The founders and framers were VERY particular about establishing a set of laws for the new United States that were independent of those found in Europe. That they were based on English Common Law isn't a surprise, these men had been, by and large, raised under the English legal system. But they created a body of law that was uniquely American, starting with the Constitution flowing down to the US code.
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 01:23:29 PM
"Well, that is one view, but that certainly was not the view of the people who founded this country,"
Uhm...
Beg your pardon?
You are way far off base.
Uhm...
Beg your pardon?
You are way far off base.
No, I am not-the Founding Fathers were internationalists. They believed that there was a law of nations and of men beyond what any one sovereign created, and that governments should be bound by it.
European custom and law is cited frequently in the early judicial opinions of our country. Some areas of law were left almost entirely to international law (like the Admiralty courts-virtually 100 percent international law at the outset of the country), and the founding fathers were careful to observe and craft international law arguments in all of their foreign policy undertakings.
Edit: Another interesting note...Congress is a word that comes from one of the major international law projects of the Europeans. It is not a coincidence that the term was used for our legislative branch.
Post by: K Frame on July 16, 2008, 01:30:09 PM
A good corelary today is attorneys arguing cases in state courts citing cases that were tried and decided in court systems in other states. The laws are similar, but not exactly the same, the legal systems are similar, but not exactly the same. That a previous legal decision is cited is not meant to establish it as the end all of the law, it's done to provide support for an attorney's argument and guidance to the judge(s) who is hearing the case.
The arguments being put forth in the early days of the United States were done so not to establish the United States as a full participant in, and subject to, the laws of other nations.
A perfect example of this is the Amistad case, in which US courts rejected the claims of Empire of Spain and ruled based on extant US law, not international law and not admiralty law.
It should also be noted that one of the attorneys arguing for the position of the slaves was former President John Quincy Adams, son of second President John Adams, whose role in crafting early US law was monumental. Neither Adams viewed themselves or the United States to be subject to European law except as agreed to by treaty.
Legal entreaties between nations, especially in the case of the United States, have always been primarily established through treaty.
And yes, the choosing of a NAME for an elected body makes it perfectly clear that the founders and framers meant and expected the United States to be fully held by the laws of other nations.
Right.
Perhaps, given that the upper house is called the Senate, that means that the US Senate is supposed to operate solely under the laws of the Roman Republic?
The term Congress was chosen because it was FAR more palatable to these men than was the term Parliament.
Post by: Ned Hamford on July 16, 2008, 01:45:07 PM
To me it seems like the usual 'by any means neccessary' crowd going to bat against the death penalty. Who cares the pretense, as long as our goal is furthered.
Nuts to that.
Post by: K Frame on July 16, 2008, 01:48:11 PM
I guess that's really another good reason for getting them out of the gene pool.
Post by: K Frame on July 16, 2008, 01:50:04 PM
Holy crap, Shooting Student is finally starting to make a LITTLE sense...
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 02:06:46 PM
Quote
European law was cited as it was applicable to purely AMERICAN circumstances. Hammurabian Law and the Torah are also frequently cited in early American court cases.
That is not true-European law and custom was cited as the basis for which title to lands previously owned by natives became subject to the soveriegnty of the government, for example.
It was also the primary grounds for the laws governing commerce on the seas-not an insignificant part of the economy.
Treaties were conducted within the framework of a fairly long history of European international law, not on their own as contracts without any legal framework or requirements. Other countries could (and did) violate international law without violating a treaty, and whether the U.S. was bound by international law was a question considered separate from treaties. This was especially true in regards to disputes with natives.
Taking another read through Amistad....you might want to see how many times they cite foreign laws in the arguments (English especially), and the powers appropriate to "relations between nations". I have not done a complete count, but it looks like most of the authority cited in this case is foreign, not American.
This case is actually a pretty stereotypical international law case-lots of arguments about which law applies, who gets to decide what the rights involved are, the evidentiary standards to be observed...this reads like a World Court opinion.
Using more foreign laws to explain why the U.S. action here is in accord with international law:
Quote
These questions are answered in the negative by all the most approved writers on the laws of nations. 1 Burg. Confl. 741; Story, Confl. 92. By the law of France, the slaves of their colonies, immediately on their arrival in France, become free. In the case of [40 U.S. 518, 554] Forbes v. Cochrane, 2 Barn. & Cres. 463, this question is elaborately discussed and settled by the English court of king's bench.
A big issue here was whether or not the Amistad captives were slaves under Spanish law; since they weren't, the US wasn't required to recognize their status as slaves.
From Story's opinion, the Court ruled on Spanish law, not only US:
Quote
It is plain, beyond controversy, if we examine the evidence, that these negroes never were the lawful slaves of Ruiz or Montez, or of any other Spanish subjects. They are natives of Africa, and were kidnapped there, and were unlawfully transported to Cuba, in violation of the laws and treaties of Spain,
Amistad was a ruling on what Foreign laws and treaties required, and based on that ruling, the U.S. wasn't required to act as Spain demanded.
Edit: You can read the Amistad opinion here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=40&page=518
Again, to make clear-Amistad did not reject English and Spanish law. They affirmed it-the ruling was that because these slaves would not be property under Spanish law (due to an international treaty on abolishing the slave trade), they therefore could not be considered property under the treaty between the U.S. and Spain.
The Court is quite explicit in pointing out that if the Spanish law had been different, these folks would've been returned to Spanish jurisdiction, even though the U.S. law presumes them to be free.
Post by: roo_ster on July 16, 2008, 06:36:01 PM
World Court and other international judgments are only valid when levied against an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein. As far as I'm concerned, it's totally inappropriate to consider international law for any purpose other than justifying an invasion of someone the US wants to invade.
This idea that the World Court might think there are laws that apply for the purpose of restraining the United States is just radical socialist activism.
FWIW-In reality, I don't agree with the ruling because the U.S. provides process. If this were a country that had no effective procedures for assessing guilt, however, I'd think they and the rest of the world would be right to exert pressures against carrying out such punishment.
I just think it's a bit silly to hyperventilate over someone using international law to criticize a US practice, when international law has been the justification for invading whole countries on our end.
This idea that the World Court might think there are laws that apply for the purpose of restraining the United States is just radical socialist activism.
FWIW-In reality, I don't agree with the ruling because the U.S. provides process. If this were a country that had no effective procedures for assessing guilt, however, I'd think they and the rest of the world would be right to exert pressures against carrying out such punishment.
I just think it's a bit silly to hyperventilate over someone using international law to criticize a US practice, when international law has been the justification for invading whole countries on our end.
International law was not the justification, it was just a fig leaf for weak sisters who required it. The justification was the threat to US interests, broadly defined.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 16, 2008, 06:40:27 PM
World Court and other international judgments are only valid when levied against an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein.
Well, yeah. That's because "international law" is a sham.
It's a sham because the major world powers ignore it, yes. But it's actually a pretty good idea, and deeply rooted in Western civilization.
How is it a good idea? Elaborate, please.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 16, 2008, 07:06:47 PM
International law was not the justification, it was just a fig leaf for weak sisters who required it. The justification was the threat to US interests...
Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 07:44:55 PM
World Court and other international judgments are only valid when levied against an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein.
Well, yeah. That's because "international law" is a sham.
It's a sham because the major world powers ignore it, yes. But it's actually a pretty good idea, and deeply rooted in Western civilization.
How is it a good idea? Elaborate, please.
Sure-it's a good idea because it provides some predictability and substantive restraint on actions between different nations, which helps to prevent and limit abuses by governments against their own and other citizens. It also provides for a mechanism of settling disputes that doesn't necessitate a shooting war or costly economic contests.
There's also the benefit of being able to establish regimes for dealing with actors and activities that cross between states. Transnational pirates yesterday, terrorists today, and for economic activity that occurs outside the jurisdiction of a state.
Instead of just threatening force whenever there's any conflict whatsoever and having the strongest state win, you've got some means to deal with those sorts of problems.
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 07:49:00 PM
International law was not the justification, it was just a fig leaf for weak sisters who required it. The justification was the threat to US interests...
Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.
This is an example of how things can go badly wrong when only domestic interests are attended to by a government-the property and security rights of individuals who are not constitutents of the country pursuing the interest get ignored in favor of whatever interest is asserted by the acting state.
International law principles would provide restraint, so that the interests of the Iraqis must be considered when the US acts towards...Iraq.
Of course international law doesn't favor the desires and momentary interests of any one state, but that's true of any legal system...it's good because of the long-run stability and fairness it provides by limiting the power of any one agent's desires.
Post by: roo_ster on July 17, 2008, 02:25:56 AM
It provides no more predictability than a strongly-worded memo tossed at an angry mob.
Quote
...domestic interests are attended to by a government-the property and security rights of individuals who are not constitutents of the country pursuing the interest get ignored in favor of whatever interest is asserted by the acting state.
You write as if that is a bad thing. The nation's government ought to place its citizens' interests first and foremost. The COTUS was written for Americans, not Saudis and their catamites.
Quote
International law principles would provide restraint, so that the interests of the Iraqis must be considered when the US acts towards...Iraq.
Ahh, now we get to the meat of the issue. Some folks don't like it when America acts in its own interests and would prefer that it be shackled by any means at hand.
Here is a fundamental difference in understanding. I and many other Americans think America is a force for good in the world. Others don't. But, then, most of the rest of the world is ruled by vile tyrants and the USA is an impediment.
[Beware the perils of posting before caffeine levels in the bloodstream are at minimum operating concentration.]
Post by: LAK on July 17, 2008, 02:56:56 AM
Quote
Leave it to another socialist Euro-bureaucracy like the World Court to rip on the US(who has done more for human rights than any nation in history) while dozens of other nations like China, Iran, and Venezuela all routinely violate human rights and kill at a whim.
And leave it to the ideological euro-socialists that have been in the driving seat in 'D.C. for the last several decades to hold our position within and funding the international criminal cartel otherwise known as "the United Nations".If people would quit voting for these fakes we could leave their global cronies behind.
-----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on July 17, 2008, 06:50:03 AM
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 06:57:10 AM
I oppose the death penalty. I also don't recognize the authority of the World Court. They can piss directly off, thanks very much.
I see this opposition to the death penalty a lot from our more libertarianish posters. What's up with that?
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on July 17, 2008, 07:00:19 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on July 17, 2008, 07:02:47 AM
Post by: yesitsloaded on July 17, 2008, 07:03:35 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on July 17, 2008, 07:04:27 AM
Post by: yesitsloaded on July 17, 2008, 07:05:49 AM
Post by: longeyes on July 17, 2008, 07:06:53 AM
The World Court can start by worrying more about illegal migration, among other things.
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 07:07:08 AM
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=13605.0
Post by: De Selby on July 17, 2008, 11:44:49 AM
International law restrains none who do not voluntarily restrain themsleves. It it pretty much worthless for any other case.
It provides no more predictability than a strongly-worded memo tossed at an angry mob.
It provides no more predictability than a strongly-worded memo tossed at an angry mob.
Yeah, but that is because the major world powers ignored it. If they did not ignore international law, then it would provide predictability-much more so than a memo.
Quote
Here is a fundamental difference in understanding. I and many other Americans think America is a force for good in the world. Others don't. But, then, most of the rest of the world is ruled by vile tyrants and the USA is an impediment.
[Beware the perils of posting before caffeine levels in the bloodstream are at minimum operating concentration.]
[Beware the perils of posting before caffeine levels in the bloodstream are at minimum operating concentration.]
I think that whenever someone who is not accountable to you is "acting for your benefit", you will get robbed, so this is a terrible idea.
It's business-you work for the boss, not for a bunch of people who don't pay your bills or have any connection to you.
Post by: Bigjake on July 17, 2008, 01:13:51 PM
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0880801484/bookstorenow18-20
And I'll join with the rest of you guys, The "World Court" can sod off. I am subject to U.S. Law, none other.
Post by: seeker_two on July 17, 2008, 01:22:06 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 17, 2008, 01:59:31 PM
SS, Go read this and come back when your facts are in order.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0880801484/bookstorenow18-20
And I'll join with the rest of you guys, The "World Court" can sod off. I am subject to U.S. Law, none other.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0880801484/bookstorenow18-20
And I'll join with the rest of you guys, The "World Court" can sod off. I am subject to U.S. Law, none other.
This theory works fine for normal situations-but would you allow a Nazi to raise that same defense?
"Hey, I was only subject to german law...I can't be tried for crimes that weren't against the law of my country, can I?"
Sometimes the laws permit behavior that is contrary to everything civilized-with international law, you have a process for dealing with those situations, rather than just arbitrarily shooting anyone who doesn't conform to some other country's code of conduct.
Post by: RaspberrySurprise on July 17, 2008, 11:04:09 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 17, 2008, 11:15:37 PM
Last I checked murder is and was illegal in Germany.
The state makes the laws-the Nazis clearly made provisions for their genocide.
Of course outside of extreme circumstances applying the admittedly vague "humanitarian" type laws in international law is totally inappropriate.
But certainly there are cases where you can see that a theory of law provides you with a method for dealing with people like the Nazis, who legalized behavior that is exceeds all bounds of decency and humanity. You can try them for crimes, and have institutions similar to the World Court (like the ICJ) make heads and tails of the charges.
Post by: ilbob on July 18, 2008, 05:20:48 AM
now let's see them enforce their ruling...
"THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The World Court ordered the United States on Wednesday to do all it could to halt the imminent executions of five Mexicans until the court makes a final judgment in a dispute over suspects' rights.
And the US has complied by doing all it could do to halt the executions. The US was unable to halt them. Thats the end of it.
"THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The World Court ordered the United States on Wednesday to do all it could to halt the imminent executions of five Mexicans until the court makes a final judgment in a dispute over suspects' rights.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 18, 2008, 05:41:39 AM
Last I checked murder is and was illegal in Germany.
The state makes the laws-the Nazis clearly made provisions for their genocide.
Of course outside of extreme circumstances applying the admittedly vague "humanitarian" type laws in international law is totally inappropriate.
But certainly there are cases where you can see that a theory of law provides you with a method for dealing with people like the Nazis, who legalized behavior that is exceeds all bounds of decency and humanity. You can try them for crimes, and have institutions similar to the World Court (like the ICJ) make heads and tails of the charges.
THREAD GODWIN'D
Post by: ilbob on July 18, 2008, 06:24:52 AM
Post by: Werewolf on July 18, 2008, 07:24:10 AM
OK. Does anyone here believe that the Nuremburg tribunals had even a remote basis in any law? Bottom line is that the law is whatever those who enforce it want it to be.
Quote from: Mao Tse Tung
All power emanates from the barrel of a gun...
Or something like that anyway...
Post by: Laurent du Var on July 18, 2008, 08:42:53 AM
We are in America the world court can go to hell ! ugah,ugah,ugah,...
>>> Under the Vienna Convention, foreign nationals have a right to talk to consular officers after their arrests.<<<<
Read it and get it.
Have a right to talk to consular officers is all there is to it.
No we tell you how to judge criminals who comitted crimes in your country.
At all. Nowhere, ever any interference.
Everybody should be glad to be able to talk to a fellow citizen (member of the embassy) in a foreign country who could maybe help.
Post by: doc2rn on July 18, 2008, 09:16:50 AM
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 18, 2008, 11:00:52 AM
I won't speak for anyone else, but it's things like this that disturb me the most and make me skeptical of the motives of internationalists.
Quote
Writing for the majority in a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct."
Never before had the Supreme Court's majority cited a foreign legal precedent in such a big case. Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, which was signed by four other justices, has ignited a debate among analysts over whether it was a signal that the justices will adopt foreign courts' views of individual liberties.
In theory, that could mean the conservative court someday might be influenced by other countries' opposition to the death penalty, their emphasis on foreign prisoners' rights and even their acceptance of same-sex marriages. (Last month, a court in Canada lifted a ban on such unions.)
But it is far from clear that the U.S. high court routinely will turn to foreign law, and the practice has its critics notably Justice Antonin Scalia. When the court interprets the Constitution, he has written, U.S. attitudes about what is decent and right not foreign ones are what should matter.
Never before had the Supreme Court's majority cited a foreign legal precedent in such a big case. Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, which was signed by four other justices, has ignited a debate among analysts over whether it was a signal that the justices will adopt foreign courts' views of individual liberties.
In theory, that could mean the conservative court someday might be influenced by other countries' opposition to the death penalty, their emphasis on foreign prisoners' rights and even their acceptance of same-sex marriages. (Last month, a court in Canada lifted a ban on such unions.)
But it is far from clear that the U.S. high court routinely will turn to foreign law, and the practice has its critics notably Justice Antonin Scalia. When the court interprets the Constitution, he has written, U.S. attitudes about what is decent and right not foreign ones are what should matter.
Of course people detained should be allowed to contact their consulate, if for no other reason than their embassy can likely explain the ins and outs of our legal system. However, it's my view that anything that subordinates the sovereignty of the US to a "higher power" must be very carefully considered, whether it is SCOTUS citing European cases or asking us to voluntarily emasculate our economy via cap and trade schemes.
Post by: seeker_two on July 18, 2008, 11:01:46 AM
.....unless I kill Gérard Depardieu before he makes another film.....I expect to be treated as an international hero, then.....
Post by: MechAg94 on July 18, 2008, 11:40:39 AM
And yes, I think it should go both ways. I wouldn't expect special treatment in other countries because I am from the US. Texas maybe, but not the US.
Post by: RevDisk on July 18, 2008, 12:04:26 PM
We will, and should, cave. (Pissing off the world, by executing five people, ain't worth it.)
Let them do their little dance, then we kill them.
Let them do their little dance, then we kill them.
No, we should not cave. Sovereignty is more important than the feelings of other countries.
On the flip side, it could be used as an excuse to give Americans worse punishments in foreign countries. Of course, it's known to happen already.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2008, 12:09:06 PM
OK. Does anyone here believe that the Nuremburg tribunals had even a remote basis in any law? Bottom line is that the law is whatever those who enforce it want it to be.
No, that's clearly not what happened at Nuremburg-they did rely on conventions and customs of European international law that had been built up for a good 500 years before the end of World War II.
International law in modern form was going strong by the 1700's-nothing new there.
Post by: RevDisk on July 18, 2008, 12:25:38 PM
Laurent,
I won't speak for anyone else, but it's things like this that disturb me the most and make me skeptical of the motives of internationalists.
Of course people detained should be allowed to contact their consulate, if for no other reason than their embassy can likely explain the ins and outs of our legal system. However, it's my view that anything that subordinates the sovereignty of the US to a "higher power" must be very carefully considered, whether it is SCOTUS citing European cases or asking us to voluntarily emasculate our economy via cap and trade schemes.
I won't speak for anyone else, but it's things like this that disturb me the most and make me skeptical of the motives of internationalists.
Of course people detained should be allowed to contact their consulate, if for no other reason than their embassy can likely explain the ins and outs of our legal system. However, it's my view that anything that subordinates the sovereignty of the US to a "higher power" must be very carefully considered, whether it is SCOTUS citing European cases or asking us to voluntarily emasculate our economy via cap and trade schemes.
Then this is going to absolutely horrorify you. Our legal system is based on English common law. *GASP*
Legally speaking, nothing in the US supercedes the Constitution. When covering non-Constitutional law or going for some historical depth, there's nothing wrong with making comparison to foreign laws. We have four sources of "the Law". Constitutional law, administrative law, statutory law, and the common law (which includes case law). Minus some stuff specifically banned, common law is entirely based off the English system. Of course, you have Justice Scalia arguing that American courts should never look for guidance to post-Revolution cases from legal systems outside of the United States, but even he doesn't deny the origins of our Law.
Using foreign laws as reference material isn't innately a bad thing. Trying to enforce foreign laws in the US that do not have corresponding US laws, very bad idea.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2008, 12:35:19 PM
Using foreign laws as reference material isn't innately a bad thing. Trying to enforce foreign laws in the US that do not have corresponding US laws, very bad idea.
For criminal law, for sure. For business relationships, sometimes it's necessary to carry out a contract and to litigate a dispute properly-choice of law rules and all that.
But yep, I think you have the attitude of those jurists who refer to international law pegged-it is good for analogy and example, not because it is the law.
Take a look through early opinions of the Supreme Court-it was very common to see them cite foreign laws and cases. They were more than happy to look at how other countries had dealt with the same legal issues we had here in America.
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 18, 2008, 12:41:52 PM
Laurent,
I won't speak for anyone else, but it's things like this that disturb me the most and make me skeptical of the motives of internationalists.
Of course people detained should be allowed to contact their consulate, if for no other reason than their embassy can likely explain the ins and outs of our legal system. However, it's my view that anything that subordinates the sovereignty of the US to a "higher power" must be very carefully considered, whether it is SCOTUS citing European cases or asking us to voluntarily emasculate our economy via cap and trade schemes.
I won't speak for anyone else, but it's things like this that disturb me the most and make me skeptical of the motives of internationalists.
Of course people detained should be allowed to contact their consulate, if for no other reason than their embassy can likely explain the ins and outs of our legal system. However, it's my view that anything that subordinates the sovereignty of the US to a "higher power" must be very carefully considered, whether it is SCOTUS citing European cases or asking us to voluntarily emasculate our economy via cap and trade schemes.
Then this is going to absolutely horrorify you. Our legal system is based on English common law. *GASP*
Legally speaking, nothing in the US supercedes the Constitution. When covering non-Constitutional law or going for some historical depth, there's nothing wrong with making comparison to foreign laws. We have four sources of "the Law". Constitutional law, administrative law, statutory law, and the common law (which includes case law). Minus some stuff specifically banned, common law is entirely based off the English system. Of course, you have Justice Scalia arguing that American courts should never look for guidance to post-Revolution cases from legal systems outside of the United States, but even he doesn't deny the origins of our Law.
Using foreign laws as reference material isn't innately a bad thing. Trying to enforce foreign laws in the US that do not have corresponding US laws, very bad idea.
I'm well aware of the foundations of the Constitution being English Common Law. The Framer's had to start with something, and it would be natural to begin with what they already knew. Likewise, citation of foreign precedent would make sense in early decisions. Our paths have diverged since that point, however.
I'm with Justice Scalia on this one. I don't see any particular reason for us to emulate their legal system. We have our own.
Post by: RevDisk on July 18, 2008, 12:59:34 PM
I'm well aware of the foundations of the Constitution being English Common Law. The Framer's had to start with something, and it would be natural to begin with what they already knew. Likewise, citation of foreign precedent would make sense in early decisions. Our paths have diverged since that point, however.
I'm with Justice Scalia on this one. I don't see any particular reason for us to emulate their legal system. We have our own.
I'm with Justice Scalia on this one. I don't see any particular reason for us to emulate their legal system. We have our own.
Do you think there's any room for reference, or is any citation of foreign laws considered emulation?
Post by: Bigjake on July 18, 2008, 03:25:41 PM
The point is these internationalist weasels at the "World Court" seem to think they can just rule on something in OUR country and that we should bow to that decision. That's where the problem lies.
A foreigner commits a crime here and wants to talk to their consulate? Great! let them, I don't see that as anything much different than to talking to your lawyer. But that damned sure doesn't buy you a get-out-of-jail-free ticket.
We have the finest Justice system on the planet. We don't need the "World Court"
PS- Is it just me, or does anyone else automatically sneer at the term "World" used in any context? It's becoming the same as "UN" to me.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2008, 04:37:36 PM
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you, Laurent.
The point is these internationalist weasels at the "World Court" seem to think they can just rule on something in OUR country and that we should bow to that decision. That's where the problem lies.
A foreigner commits a crime here and wants to talk to their consulate? Great! let them, I don't see that as anything much different than to talking to your lawyer. But that damned sure doesn't buy you a get-out-of-jail-free ticket.
We have the finest Justice system on the planet. We don't need the "World Court"
PS- Is it just me, or does anyone else automatically sneer at the term "World" used in any context? It's becoming the same as "UN" to me.
The point is these internationalist weasels at the "World Court" seem to think they can just rule on something in OUR country and that we should bow to that decision. That's where the problem lies.
A foreigner commits a crime here and wants to talk to their consulate? Great! let them, I don't see that as anything much different than to talking to your lawyer. But that damned sure doesn't buy you a get-out-of-jail-free ticket.
We have the finest Justice system on the planet. We don't need the "World Court"
PS- Is it just me, or does anyone else automatically sneer at the term "World" used in any context? It's becoming the same as "UN" to me.
I think a lot of the anger stems from a fundamental lack of understanding of how the world court works, or what it rules on.
If you have no problem with what Laurent said, it would be nearly impossible to explain how you could be angry at the world court for its ruling, after having read the ruling.
here's the opinion: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/139/14639.pdf?PHPSESSID=9793c362481faa14098922546683cde7
Post by: Bigjake on July 18, 2008, 06:00:20 PM
Laurent may have a good idea, but it doesn't change the fact that the dirty bastards slated to ride the lightning were found guilty of their crimes in the most perfect justice system on the planet. No amount of "They didn't get access to their respective consulates!!!!" is going to make them less guilty. End of story.
The "World Court", once again, can go pound sand.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2008, 06:25:01 PM
No, the point is, is that a non US court took it upon itself to mess with the perfectly legal findings of the US court system.
Laurent may have a good idea, but it doesn't change the fact that the dirty bastards slated to ride the lightning were found guilty of their crimes in the most perfect justice system on the planet. No amount of "They didn't get access to their respective consulates!!!!" is going to make them less guilty. End of story.
The "World Court", once again, can go pound sand.
Laurent may have a good idea, but it doesn't change the fact that the dirty bastards slated to ride the lightning were found guilty of their crimes in the most perfect justice system on the planet. No amount of "They didn't get access to their respective consulates!!!!" is going to make them less guilty. End of story.
The "World Court", once again, can go pound sand.
Uh, yeah, but if one country can deny people access to consular visits, so can other countries-and you therefore have no such rights when you travel abroad. That's important for those of us who are American and travel abroad-you know, to not be tossed in the can without even being able to let the folks back home know what's happening.
It's also a treaty obligation of the US-which, if you read the opinion, you'll see is its main issue, not a problem with the US courts and their process, which the opinion doesn't consider or review. It didn't "reach into the US justice system"-what it did do was say that, as part of the US government's obligations under the treaty that it is a party to, the US government is required to make efforts to implement the treaty insofar as it requires that accused foreigners get access to consular services.
The 'world's most perfect justice system' and its operation has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the dispute here; Only the right which you agreed was sensible-that the accused should have the right to contact the consulate of their home nations.
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 19, 2008, 04:51:00 AM
I'm well aware of the foundations of the Constitution being English Common Law. The Framer's had to start with something, and it would be natural to begin with what they already knew. Likewise, citation of foreign precedent would make sense in early decisions. Our paths have diverged since that point, however.
I'm with Justice Scalia on this one. I don't see any particular reason for us to emulate their legal system. We have our own.
I'm with Justice Scalia on this one. I don't see any particular reason for us to emulate their legal system. We have our own.
Do you think there's any room for reference, or is any citation of foreign laws considered emulation?
I haven't done thorough research in the matter, nor am I an attorney, so I may be dead wrong.
Post by: ilbob on July 19, 2008, 05:56:05 AM
OK. Does anyone here believe that the Nuremburg tribunals had even a remote basis in any law? Bottom line is that the law is whatever those who enforce it want it to be.
No, that's clearly not what happened at Nuremburg-they did rely on conventions and customs of European international law that had been built up for a good 500 years before the end of World War II.
International law in modern form was going strong by the 1700's-nothing new there.
Post by: ilbob on July 19, 2008, 05:58:35 AM
Uh, yeah, but if one country can deny people access to consular visits, so can other countries-and you therefore have no such rights when you travel abroad. That's important for those of us who are American and travel abroad-you know, to not be tossed in the can without even being able to let the folks back home know what's happening.
Do you really believe that most countries actually abide by this?
Post by: MechAg94 on July 19, 2008, 06:45:57 AM
Post by: De Selby on July 19, 2008, 12:17:04 PM
OK. Does anyone here believe that the Nuremburg tribunals had even a remote basis in any law? Bottom line is that the law is whatever those who enforce it want it to be.
No, that's clearly not what happened at Nuremburg-they did rely on conventions and customs of European international law that had been built up for a good 500 years before the end of World War II.
International law in modern form was going strong by the 1700's-nothing new there.
Nope, and that's not why the Nazis were hung either-punishment for war crimes and crimes against humanity, those are the particular conventions we're talking about.
Post by: De Selby on July 19, 2008, 12:17:32 PM
Uh, yeah, but if one country can deny people access to consular visits, so can other countries-and you therefore have no such rights when you travel abroad. That's important for those of us who are American and travel abroad-you know, to not be tossed in the can without even being able to let the folks back home know what's happening.
Do you really believe that most countries actually abide by this?Yes.
Post by: RevDisk on July 19, 2008, 03:47:43 PM
Uh, yeah, but if one country can deny people access to consular visits, so can other countries-and you therefore have no such rights when you travel abroad. That's important for those of us who are American and travel abroad-you know, to not be tossed in the can without even being able to let the folks back home know what's happening.
Do you really believe that most countries actually abide by this?Some do, some don't. Always check the State Dept web site when visiting foreign countries. Usually accurate info.
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 19, 2008, 06:48:51 PM
Uh, yeah, but if one country can deny people access to consular visits, so can other countries-and you therefore have no such rights when you travel abroad. That's important for those of us who are American and travel abroad-you know, to not be tossed in the can without even being able to let the folks back home know what's happening.
Do you really believe that most countries actually abide by this?Yes.
Name them.
Post by: De Selby on July 19, 2008, 07:13:08 PM
Uh, yeah, but if one country can deny people access to consular visits, so can other countries-and you therefore have no such rights when you travel abroad. That's important for those of us who are American and travel abroad-you know, to not be tossed in the can without even being able to let the folks back home know what's happening.
Do you really believe that most countries actually abide by this?Yes.
Name them.
Sure.
Here's an overview of how it works:
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_639.html
And states that participate in this treaty...here are all 171:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:VBra1LXbtVwJ:untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/ChapterIII/treaty31.asp+Vienna+Convention+on+Consular+Relations+%2Bratification&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us
(Need to post google cache to get around the sign-in requirements-it's a long list)
Post by: Iain on July 20, 2008, 02:16:45 AM
Were they "denied" access to their consulate or did they simply not ask and the consulate wasn't informed? That is sort of a big difference.
Is not being informed of your rights the same thing as having them denied?
Dunno, suppose Miranda comes in there somewhere. It's an interesting thought.
i's should have been dotted and t's should have been crossed though. Hassle later could easily have been prevented.