IS THE WORLD COURT now our masters? INCREDIBLE

[rainstorm]

Mar 31, 7:17 PM (ET)

By ANTHONY DEUTSCH

(AP) American delegation, from left to right: U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands Clifford Sobel, legal...
Full Image








THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) - The world court ruled Wednesday that the United States violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row to receive diplomatic help, and ordered Washington to review their cases.

The ruling by the International Court of Justice could mean a reprieve or another chance of appeal for the inmates, including one scheduled to die May 18 in Oklahoma. It also could have implications for other foreign citizens in U.S. prisons who were not told they could receive help from their governments.

The order raised questions from the eight states holding the inmates, but no assurances that the states will try to address the court's concerns.

Some states were seeking advice Wednesday from the U.S. State Department, but several officials said they doubted the ruling would affect their execution plans. Officials in Oklahoma and Texas, where three of the Mexican inmates are on death row, said no immediate action was being taken in those cases.


(AP) U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands Clifford Sobel, far right, and Sandra Fuentes, Mexican...
Full Image


"I don't see the world court as being the same as the U.S. Supreme Court, where we'd immediately have to jump and say we'll do it," said Nevada Deputy Attorney General Dave Neidert.

U.S. officials will study the decision carefully, said State Department spokesman Adam Ereli, adding that the United States has tried to comply with the requirement that consular access be granted to Mexican and other citizens detained on U.S. soil.

It was the second time the highest U.N. court has ruled the United States broke the 1963 Vienna Convention, which protects foreigners accused of serious crimes. In 2001, Arizona ignored a court order to stay the execution of a German citizen.

Although the court dealt specifically with the cases of 52 Mexicans, it cautioned the principle should apply to all foreigners imprisoned for serious crimes. There are 121 foreign citizens on U.S. death row, 55 of whom are Mexican, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

It would be wrong to assume the court's conclusions "in the present judgment do not apply to other foreign nationals finding themselves in similar situations in the United States," said the ruling by a 15-member panel.


(AP) Arturo Dager, a legal adviser of Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, during a news conference in...
Full Image


The court backed virtually all of Mexico's main arguments, presented in December.

"The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans, presiding judge Shi Jiuyong said.

Shi said the review, in all but three cases, could be carried out under the normal appeals process in the United States.

Arturo Dager, a legal adviser with Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, said the court's findings were "a triumph of international law."

"Mexico was not vindicated. The rule of international law was vindicated. Of course we are confident the United States will fully comply with the ruling," added Mexican Ambassador Juan Gomez Robledo.


(AP) The 15 judges of the International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, stand in The...
Full Image


David Sergi, who represents Texas prisoner Roberto Ramos, said the ruling "will give us a chance to litigate a lot of issues that were not addressed at trial." He said it could lead to a retrial or at least a sentencing review for his client.

For the three defendants who have exhausted all appeals, the United States should make an exception and review their cases one last time, the court said.

If the United States doesn't abide by the ruling, Mexico intends to take further legal steps, according to a Mexican diplomat. Countries that fail to comply with court rulings can be referred to the U.N. Security Council for "appropriate action," according to the court's statute.

Even if Washington accepts the decision, it's unclear if federal authorities have the power to enforce it or compel individual states to abide by it.

In hearings in December, lawyers for Mexico argued that any U.S. citizen accused of a serious crime abroad would want the same right, and the only fair solution for the men allegedly denied diplomatic help was to start their legal processes all over again.

The United States had argued the case was a sovereignty issue, and that the 15-judge tribunal should be wary of allowing itself to be used as a criminal appeals court, which is not its mandate.

Besides Ramos, the court ordered a special review for fellow Texas inmate Cesar Fierro, and Osbaldo Aguilera Torres, in Oklahoma. Torres is set to be executed on May 18.

Fierro was convicted of shooting a taxi driver to death, Ramos was convicted of killing his wife and two children with a hammer, and Torres was convicted of killing two people during a burglary.

Mark Henrickson, who handled Torres' appeals, said he hopes Oklahoma will comply with the ruling and that his client will be given a new trial.

"The U.S. frequently asks that nations abide by international law and I think we need to abide by international law," Henrickson said.

But Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry plans no action in the case until after a May 7 clemency hearing before the state's Pardon and Parole Board.

Other Mexicans are on death row in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Oregon.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to be drawn into the international debate over foreigners on death row. In November, the court declined to hear an appeal from Torres, although two of its more liberal members - Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice John Paul Stevens - had misgivings.

Mexico does not have the death penalty. In 2002, Mexican President Vicente Fox canceled a visit to President Bush's ranch in Texas to protest the state's execution of convicted police killer Javier Suarez Medina, a Mexican national. The Supreme Court had refused to hear his appeal.

It is the third time the United States was brought before the court over death penalties imposed against foreign nationals.

Germany lodged a suit in 1999, seeking a ruling on the execution of two German brothers, convicted for murder after a botched robbery. Karl LaGrand was executed before the court could intervene. His brother, Walter, was executed later despite the decision.

Paraguay filed suit against the United States in 1998 to stop the execution of its citizen, Angel Francisco Breard, on Virginia's death row for murder and attempted rape in 1992. It withdrew the case, also based on the Vienna Convention, after Breard was executed. "


as far as i am concerned, the world court can take their ruling and stick it where the sun dont shine. it long past time that we withdrew from the un.
is the anti american "world court" our law, or is the consitution our supreme law?

[mf_dolphin]

If memory serves me correctly the US has also taken cases to the World Court. You have to take both sides of the sword. All the court ruled is that these cases should be reviewed under US law and by US courts. What's the big deal?

[rainstorm]

If memory serves me correctly the US has also taken cases to the World Court. You have to take both sides of the sword. All the court ruled is that these cases should be reviewed under US law and by US courts. What's the big deal?

the big deal is that this country fought for.its independence with its blood.
it is a mistake for us to have ever gone to the world court. the united states consitution is the supreme law of the land, not this piece of blank world court. the un is an anti-american, anti-semitic organization. the big deal is that we are better than them, by a long shot. what if the world court ruled bush is a war criminal? should we allow them to hang him?
ITS A VERY BIG DEAL TO ME!!

[rainstorm]

time to make it clear the constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a group of anti-american socialsits in a world court.

Second .. The Bricker Amendment.

The Bricker Amendment was introduced into the Senate in 1952. Some Americans actually think that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That may not be so. There have been federal court rulings which state that treaties duly ratified by the Senate can have a force under law that is superior to that of our Constitution. Some argue that this application is severely limited, others say that today's activist courts could expand this doctrine to the point that our Constitution takes second place in the "law of the land" list to treaties. Some examples? How about the Kyoto treaty? To what extent would our economic liberties be violated if Kyoto became the supreme law of the land?

OK ... back to the Bricker Amendment. Here it is, in its entirety:

Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Does anyone see a real problem with this? How could anyone really object to an amendment that cements our Constitution in place as the supreme law of the land? Well ... the Bricker Amendment was defeated in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 42-50. Republicans for ... Democrats against.
http://www.boortz.com

[rainstorm]

are our freedoms worth anything if a group of foreigners(we know how much of the world hates us) can dictate law over and above our constitution?

[blizzard]

are our freedoms worth anything if a group of foreigners(we know how much of the world hates us) can dictate law over and above our constitution?

How many times have we dictated law over another countrie's laws. I'm not trying to flame you, just trying to find out, cause I don't know. I'm sure its a few though.

[mf_dolphin]

The World Court made a rulling based on Iternational law. If some country tried a US citizen without them being allowed to contact a US Embassy we would and have cried loud and long about it. Thsi ruling has little or no real impact on these cases in actuality other than possibly another review. No big deal to me...