World Court asks U.S. to stay 5 executions

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The U.N.'s highest court on Wednesday ordered the United States to stay the executions of five Mexicans on Texas death row pending review of their cases.

Mexico had appealed to the World Court to block the executions. At hastily convened hearings last month, Mexico argued that the United States is defying a 2004 International Court of Justice order to review the cases of 51 Mexicans sentenced to death by state courts.

That order was based on the Hague-based court's finding that the condemned prisoners had been denied the right to help from their consulate following their arrest.

... Informally known as the World Court, the tribunal is the U.N.'s judicial arm for resolving disputes among nations. Its decisions are binding and final, but it has no enforcement powers.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25703119/

---

Note that the original headline used the word 'ordered,' which has now been replaced by the AP with 'asks.'

Text of court ruling here:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/139/14637.pdf?PHPSESSID=04c6f853ef887085fce7aeab78a8d699

THE HAGUE, 16 July 2008. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, today gave its decision on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Mexico in the case concerning the Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America).

In its Order, the Court

“I. By seven votes to five, Finds that the submission by the United States of America seeking the dismissal of the Application filed by the United Mexican States can not be upheld;

II. Indicates the following provisional measures:

(a) By seven votes to five,

The United States of America shall take all measures necessary to ensure that Messrs. José Ernesto Medellín Rojas, César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Rubén Ramírez Cárdenas, Humberto Leal García, and Roberto Moreno Ramos are not executed pending judgment on the Request for interpretation submitted by the United Mexican States, unless and until these five Mexican nationals receive review and reconsideration consistent with paragraphs 138 to 141 of the Court’s Judgment delivered on 31 March 2004 in the case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America);

(b) By eleven votes to one,

The Government of the United States of America shall inform the Court of the measures taken in implementation of this Order;

[Seen the light]

1. Oh my

This could lead to some shit hitting the fan.

[tidy_bowl]

14. When the World Court orders.....

.....Iran other barbarian nations to stop hanging gays, then I will listen to them. Not before.

[happyslug]

21. I didn't know Iran hanged an American for being gay?

When was it? I can't find it on the net. Remember the International Court of Justice (Also referred to the "World Court") has jurisdiction ONLY in disputes between Nations, thus anything internal to a country is outside the Court's Jurisdiction. The case of the Mexicans came under the Court's Jurisdiction do to the fact the persons sentenced to be executed in the US are Mexican Citizens AND their were NOT told of their right under International Law that they could contact their embassy. Thus the only time the execution of a Homosexual (or anyone else for that matter) in Iran comes under the jurisdiction of the World Court is if the Homosexual is the subject of another country AND THAT COUNTRY IS OBJECTING TO THE EXECUTION. I do not see any of the other countries around Iran objecting to one of their citizens being executed for being a Homosexual, for all of them make it a death sentence in their country (Including Iraq, a country the US is occupying). Western Europe has drop Homosexual activity from being a crime, but in much of the world it still is, and subject to the death sentence in most of those countries.

Thus my point, why bring up the Execution of Homosexuals in Iran? The issue as to these Mexican Citizens is that Mexico has outlawed the Death Penalty, and has objected to its Citizens being executed by another country where the Death penalty is still used. Furthermore, International Law is quite clear, the Mexican Citizens should have been told of their right to see the Mexican Counsel even before Trial, and were NOT told of this right, a right set forth by treaty.

You may not like that Iran execute homosexuals, but as far as the World Court is concerned that is an internal matter if Iran executes its own citizens. It is still outside the World Court Jurisdiction if the Citizen of another country is executed and the Citizen's country does NOT object. Mexico has objected to the execution of its Citizens, thus the World Court has Jurisdiction, no COUNTRY has objected to the World Court, to any of the execution of Iran on any grounds let alone grounds that makes the issue the subject to the Jurisdiction of the World Court.

[michreject]

23. Does Malaysia hang foreign national

for violating their laws?

Answer, yes.

[hack89]

61. The US Supreme Court has ruled twice on the issue

Texas is in the right unless Congress passes enabling legislation making the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations domestic law.

The World Court cannot trump the Constitution.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Medellin_v._Texas

[JMackT]

2. Why?

What did they do?

[newfie11]

6. gang rape and murder two 15 year olds

[tburnsten]

50. Well then hopefully

we will let the world court know how much place it has in our court system. None. Mexican government can object all it wants, but in some cases the death penalty is absolutely called for, and this is one of them.

[Waya]

3. Junior ignores our own Supreme Court.......

...when they are at odds with what he wants regarding Prisoners of any kind. What makes you think he will listen to the World Court?

[Possumpoint]

5. Opps!

I think you're confused. The last time the world court stepped in and told Texas not to execute a Mexican GWB tried to pressure Texas to comply. Texas told both to mind their own business and fried the murderer.

You know, I hate the thought of even looking like I'm defending GWB.

[damntexdem]

32. Yeah, but! Dubya generally declares that he has the power to do whatever he wants.

But in this case, he meekly accepts what a court says about the limits of his power.

Most interesting.

[hack89]

62. Bush supported the World Court twice in front of the Supreme Court

Bush lost both times. Since the Supreme Court trumps the World Court, Texas is in the right.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Medellin_v._Texas

[indepat]

4. Wonder where the World Court was back when junior was governor of the great state of Texas

:shrug:

[JMackT]

7. We all know what black bush would say

"sanction me. Sanction me with your army...Oh, Wait a minute you dont have an army. I guess that means you need to Shut The Fuck Up"


ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqXnsSJ_53w

[aspergris]

11. lol

classic clip!

[seriousstan]

8. Fuck them, kill them. Here are the victims..........

http://www.murdervictims.com/voices/jeneliz.html

The gang members ran and grabbed Elizabeth and pulled her down the incline, off of the tracks. Testimony showed that Jenny had gotten free and could have run away but returned to Elizabeth when she cried out for Jenny to help her.

For the next hour or so, these beautiful, innocent young girls were subjected to the most brutal gang rapes that most of the investigating officers had ever encountered. The confessions of the gang members that were used at trial indicated that there was never less than 2 men on each of the girls at any one time and that the girls were repeatedly raped orally, anally and vaginally for the entire hour. One of the gang members later said during the brag session that by the time he got to one of the girls, "she was loose and sloppy." One of the boys boasted of having 'virgin blood' on him.

The 14-year-old juvenile later testified that he had gone back and forth between his brother and Peter Cantu since they were the only ones there that he really knew and kept urging them to leave. He said he was told repeatedly by Peter Cantu to "get some". He raped Jennifer and was later sentenced to 40 years for aggravated sexual assault, which was the maximum sentence for a juvenile.

When the rapes finally ended, the horror was not over. The gang members took Jenny and Elizabeth from the clearing into a wooded area, leaving the juvenile behind, saying he was "too little to watch". Jenny was strangled with the belt of Sean O'Brien, with two murderers pulling, one on each side, until the belt broke. Part of the belt was left at the murder scene, the rest was found in O'Brien's home. After the belt broke, the killers used her own shoelaces to finish their job. Medellin later complained that "the bitch wouldn't die" and that it would have been "easier with a gun". Elizabeth was also strangled with her shoelaces, after crying and begging the gang members not to kill them; bargaining, offering to give them her phone number so they could get together again.

The medical examiner testified that Elizabeth's two front teeth were knocked out of her brutalized mouth before she died and that two of Jennifer's ribs were broken after she had died. Testimony showed that the girls' bodies were kicked and their necks were stomped on after the strangulations in order to "make sure that they were really dead."

[Jim Lane]

9. OK, they're beasts -- but we're not, so we follow the rule of law

If the law is that a Mexican accused of a crime has a right to the consulate's assistance in preparing a defense, and these defendants were denied that right, then the process leading to their convictions was arguably improper. That calls into question the validity of the convictions, which are the predicate for the scheduled executions.

The court is acting to preserve its jurisdiction. It hasn't yet reviewed the case, so it wants the execution stayed so that the review will be meaningful.

In response to considerations like this, what we usually hear (and, frankly, usually from right-wingers) is something like, "Why should we show such consideration to these guys? They didn't show any consideration to Elizabeth and Jennifer." The answer is that we don't set our standards according to the broken moral compasses of Jose Medellin and his ilk. We're better people than they are.

[Igel]

25. "Jurisdiction" is the key here.

The Mexicans were sentenced by Texan courts, acting in accordance with Texan law.

They should have been notified, but the enforcement mechanism's a problem: By ratifying the treaty, Congress stipulated defendants should be notified, and, IIRC, did make it incumbent upon the federal judiciary to ensure notification. But Congress didn't enact laws binding on the state that require notification.

* intervened last time and asked Texas to review the case: "Would notification have made any difference?" was how the request was interpreted, and the Texan court came back with "no" as the answer.

SCOTUS did about the same: Did Texas follow US civil rights law? They didn't violate the law, so they followed it.

Few countries are structured in as decentralized manner as the US, and those that do have legal decentralization are still usually more centralized than here (at least on paper). Usually the state courts are extensions of the government in the capital, whatever the details. You get this kind of incomprehension in a fair number of newspaper articles--a state court does X and it's taken as the US government doing X. They assume that the president has more power than he does, and that what are nation-level issues in their country are nation-level issues here.

Mexico understands this well when it comes to states enforcing immigration law: It's not their jurisdiction. The government is happy when states pass laws favorable to Mexicans in the US, and understand how jurisdictional levels work here. But when it comes to states punishing murderers, Mexico gets a bit fuzzy and plays to anti-American sentiment: Los gringos nos matan, hay que luchar contra la falta de justicia por nuestros.

[JeanGrey]

48. Texas has already told the Word Court No. They will

continue on.

[Zodiak]

12. Rape and murder is brutal and wrong

But I am still not swayed emotionally to want to kill the convicted because of a description of the crime.

[aspergris]

13. If the rule of law wasn't followed

That gives me pause about the execution (consular notification or whatever).

But *if* it was followed, there are few more deserving candidates of the DP than these two

And I am not swayed emotionally either.

That's purely on a rational, not emotional basis for me

[Zodiak]

17. Read around a bit

You will find far more brutal cases than this one. All rape/murders are brutal, and all of the people committing them are scumbags.

If the rule of law is not followed, it is not because of the nature of the crime. It is because Texas, much like the rest of the U.S., does not give a tinker's damn about international law if it gets in the way of revenge killing.

[aspergris]

19. I wasn't referring to international law

In regards to rule of law. I was referring to US law in re: consular notification etc.

Also, like I said (or implied) I disagree with your premise that if one is for the DP here, one is necessariliy emotional. That was in the prior post, and now you use the term 'revenge killing'

I don't see the DP as revenge any more than I see imprisonment as "revenge"

It's an assumption I don't follow.

I have some serious problems with the DP as it is PRACTICED, but less problem with it as a concept of justice

[Zodiak]

34. No, that is not my premise

My premise is that the posting of a description of the crime to justify saying "fuck it, kill them" is an emotional appeal, and not very convincing.

But yes, I do see the death penalty as revenge. It does not deter crime, nor does it save time or money. It's only purpose is to satisfy people's desire for blood when incarceration would do just as well. It also gets politicians elected...anything to get people to feel like they are being made safe. It is final, uncorrectable, and ultimately unjustifiable in a country that declared in its seminal document that a person's right to "life" is inalienable, and not subject to the whims of the government.

Texas elects politicians who kill criminals, and the system is designed to kill as many as possible in as short a time as possible to reflect that desire. I know...I'm from there. If they slow down the execution, it might make 'em look soft on Mexico or criminals and we cannot have that.

[aspergris]

35. premises

"My premise is that the posting of a description of the crime to justify saying "fuck it, kill them" is an emotional appeal, and not very convincing."

Oh ok. That I agree with. The crime was heinous and if anybody deserves the DP, these guys do.

But I agree that if there were serious problematic issues with due process/procedure that that matters - even though the defendants are scum

Iow, scum have rights too.


"But yes, I do see the death penalty as revenge. It does not deter crime, nor does it save time or money."

Even if we accept both those statements as true, it doesn't follow that the DP is revenge.

Iow, there is no logic imo that for the DP NOT to be revenge it must either save time/money or be a deterrent

fwiw, of course the DP is a SPECIFIC deterrent. Whether or not it is a general deterrent is arguable. But even given that we accept (for the sake of argument) that it ISN'T a general deterrent, doesn't mean it's revenge.

By specific deterrent I mean that somebody put to death is deterred from committing future crimes.

" It's only purpose is to satisfy people's desire for blood when incarceration would do just as well."

I disagree. Again, you are making your argument by begging a question. By assuming that those who support the DP are seeking revenge, are emotional, etc.

One can support the DP and see it as JUSTICE not REVENGE.

You implicitly reject that, so like so many discussions/arguments, we are arguing from different premises. You are assuming (imo w/o evidence) that all those who support the DP are doing so for "revenge" etc.

" It also gets politicians elected...anything to get people to feel like they are being made safe. It is final, uncorrectable, and ultimately unjustifiable in a country that declared in its seminal document that a person's right to "life" is inalienable, and not subject to the whims of the government."


True. Although as repeatedly pointed out in Seperation of Church/State issues, it is not the DOIndependence that defines the govt. power/authority and personal rights. It is the constitution.

The former also mentions "The Creator". The latter doesn't.

And govt. has to ACT in accordance with the latter, which specifically limits its power and recognizes rights, NOT the former, which was a justification for our breaking away from england and FORMING a govt. and not a description of the govt. itself

"Texas elects politicians who kill criminals, and the system is designed to kill as many as possible in as short a time as possible to reflect that desire. I know...I'm from there. If they slow down the execution, it might make 'em look soft on Mexico or criminals and we cannot have that."

That's great, but I don't think it supports the premise that the DP is only for revenge, that those who support it can't be supporting it for reasons of justice not revenge, etc.

Like I said, I have "issues" with the DP, mostly in execution (no pun intended) not as to justification as much. But I don't for a second support it as REVENGE

[Indenturedebtor]

20. If we can kill them legally we should imo... slowly. n/t

[World Traveller]

41. Murder was at 34th and W. T C Jester

I live in Houston and remember this story well. The rape and murder of these 2 poor young girls was big local news for a long time.

What I didn't pay much attention to was where it occurred, because I lived and worked in another part of city in 1990's.

I followed link to article and read it, and I realized from 2003-2007 I used to pass near murder site every day, I know exactly where the railraod tracks are near 34th and W. T C Jester, I used to pass by there every day on my way to office which was about 4 blocks away. Spooky feeling.

I truly don't know how I come down on issue of death penalty in this case. Generally I do not support death penalty. On the other hand, these were horrible murders and deprived one of the sets of parents of their only child. So I think I will have to abstain.

[Zavulon]

43. After reading that,

I have no problem with these animals being put down slowly and painfully. Jesus fucking Christ.

[Wabbajack_]

46. Death is too good a punishment

[wvbygod]

52. No, do not kill them. Exploite their weakness for life

These sick bastards should be reminded every day for the rest of their lives
of the suffering they caused. They should live for a long time and be as miserable
and isolated as possible.

[Anexio]

69. Thank you for finding that and posting it

I have no room in my heart for animals like that.

If we had a real justice system the murderers would have been dead one hour after conviction.

[bdamomma]

10. well well the shit is hitting the fan now isn't it?

[mopinko]

15. .

[happyslug]

16. Duplicate topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3397690

[WriteDown]

18. These are the guys Mexico went to bat for?

Seriously? I remember these murders when they first happened. I've heard few things as horrible. These guys are toast. I won't lose sleep over it.

[happyslug]

22. I just had a Scary thought, what if Mexico wants to cut oil exports to the US?

This could be the excuse needed. Noted I did NOT say it would be the reason, just the excuse. Given that Mexican oil production has been dropping, this is a ready excuse to cut exports to the US WITHOUT having to admit that oil production is down. Mexico oppose the Death Sentence, if the World Court refuses this emergency request, or Texas refuses to follow it, Mexico has the right to "Punish" the US by cutting out oil exports. If this occurs it will be to cover up the drop in Oil production more then any other reason, but sometime you have to use the best excuse you have.

[crimsonblue]

28. considering we export 1.3 mill barrels to Mexico a day

I doubt it'd have much effect.

[happyslug]

37. The US only export 375,000 barrels a day to Mexico, and imports 1.3 million barrels a day

The US imports 1,364,000 (i.e 1.3 Million) Barrels a day from Mexico (April 2008 figure) out of 13 million barrels we import a day.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_m.htm

US exports 375,000 barrels a day to Mexico (April 2008 Figure):
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_expc_a_EP00_EEX_mbblpd_m.htm

Yes, Mexico will be hurting, but it will hurt the US more, about Three times as much (we import 3 barrels for every barrel of refined oil we export.

US Exports to Mexico has been going up since the mid-1990s, but Imports of Mexican Oil has held steady since the mid-1990s (In 1970 the US imported NO Mexican oil, but then it went up till about the mid 1990s, the stagnated).

What the US imports from Mexico is one out of every 13 barrels we import, or just under 8% of total imports (or abut 4% of total oil used, the US still pumps about 50% of the oil we use today). This puts Mexico behind Canada (2.5 Million barrels exported to the US) and Saudi Arabia (1.4 million barrels exported to the US), but ahead of Nigeria, (1.2 Million Barrels a day )Venezuela. (1.18 Millions barrels per day).

My point is that 8% of total imports is important, It is possible Mexico can survive losing the 375,000 barrels of refined oil its imports from the US, but can the US find another source for the 1.3 Million Barrels of oil we import from Mexico a day?

Furthermore I am talking in terms of an EXCUSE not a REASON. The reports indicate a drop in Mexican production this year, which can lead to a drop in exports. The fact they have less oil to refine in their own refineries may just mean they direct what oil that is produced into their own refineries. This they can blame the US for any shortage do to the US refusing to export the refined oil to Mexico, while Mexico is using its own oil itself.

I know it is a conspiracy hat I am wearing, but the timing fits, use the excuse of these felons to cut exports and keep the oil inside Mexico for its own use and call any refusal of the US to export refined oil into Mexico as a retaliation for Mexico "principal" stand on these Felons. It is still a great way to cover up the drop in oil production, cut off the US and blame that Cut off for the Drop in Oil Production. Blame the US NOT Mexico's own failure to plan for its oil fields to peal and production to drop (and gives Mexico an Excuse to get out of the Fair Trade Act so it can keep its own oil inside Mexico instead of having to Export it to the US, keeping the price DOWN in Mexico while putting additional pressure of US oil prices.).

[damntexdem]

33. Notification is the issue that Mexico went to bat for.

The defendants just happened to be those where there was no notification.

[crim son]

24. I oppose the death penalty on principle but I'm all for sending those bastards

back to Mexico under the condition that they stay in prison for the rest of their lives. Prison in the U.S. is bad. Prison in Mexico is far worse.

[tburnsten]

53. They'd get out pretty quickly

Mexican prison may be worse, but it's also far less secure and far more corrupt. I think if we don't execute them, and in the meantime before we execute them, we should be putting to work with HARD physical labor. I think if someone is going to go to prison they should be doing backbreaking labor, highly supervised labor, maybe a rock quarry or something with hand tools only. It's better than letting them hang out in their cells with tv and commissary doing nothing, on the taxpayers dime. Why reward the scum with freedom from work for the rest of their life?

[Dover]

26. World Court "has no enforcement power". This is the loophole Bushco thrives on

at home and abroad. It's a "make me" stance.

[crimsonblue]

27. would direct violation of this ruling

be considered a crime against humanity?

[slackmaster]

29. No

Not a crime at all. The WC has no real power.

[cobalt1999]

30. That means as much as if I ruled the same thing from my living room.

In other words, it's meaningless.

[damntexdem]

31. "Asks"? No, "orders"!

On the one side, Mexico alleges that the U.S. is not complying with its international obligations.

On the other side, the U.S. says that it has gone to "extraordinary lengths" to comply but that a court in the U.S. has found that the president lacks to power to do so.

So the upshot is that the U.S. is effectively stating that it LACKS THE ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH ITS INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS. Well, with the Bushistas in power, I'm not surprised when the U.S. lacks the ability to do anything. But given the extreme Bushista claims of total presidential power, it's interesting that on this one issue, an international issue at that, they claim that the president is stymied, just lacks the power to act.

And let's see now -- what is the world's attitude toward countries that lack the ability to comply with their international obligations?

[Xithras]

36. In this case, it's actually true. The President has no direct authority here.

This was a state case, not a federal one. The division of power between the three branches of government means that Bush can no more "order" a court to do something than he can "order" Congress to do something. He can ask, but they always have the option of saying no or refusing the request. It appears, in this case, that Texas has declined to act.

The authority of a President to act in judicial matters is limited to the issuing of a pardon in a federal conviction. The President has no ability to order a retrial of a federal inmate, and has absolutely no authority whatsoever in a state convision. The requests of the executive branch, in this case, are just as unenforceable as the requests of the UN World Court.

[tidy_bowl]

38. Congress.....

....has the sole authority that can act on this under our constitution, not the President. If you feel that the World Court orders are valid for Texas then write your congressman for a bill directing Texas to comply with the ruling or... do nothing. This is completely solvable through our system now, use it.....or not.

The ball's in your court.

[Endangered Specie]

39. Frankily, they can go straight to hell

(both the criminals, and the WC) maybe they should stick to telling North Korea to stop running concentration camps that would make Hitler envious first!



btw if the words "WORLD COURT" don't scare you than what does?

[ohio2007]

40. Iran executes six 'wicked' people in public ( the world court not in session that day)

Iran executes six 'wicked' people in public

Tehran: Iran has executed six people in public in the northeastern city of Sabzevar, state radio said on Monday, the second report of a public execution in the Islamic Republic in less than a week.

Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi in January ordered a halt to public executions in Iran unless they had his approval, "based on social necessities."

The radio described the convicts as "wicked" people but did not say what crimes they had been convicted of nor when they were put to death.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.gulfnews.com/Region/Iran/10229000.html


btw;
wonder how the first annual gay pride parade went over in Sabzevar.

[depakid]

44. And they're just the sort of nations that America emulates

whith the wholehearted approval of many on this thread.

Is it any wonder that America has become a rogue nation in so many other areas as well?

[tidy_bowl]

45. A rogue in wanting to protect its children? wow. nt

[depakid]

54. Capital punishment doesn't protect (or deter) anyone

Though statements like yours are no doubt no doubt common in Iran, that are both fond of the death penalty and have little respect for international law or prevailing western mores.

[milou]

74. For every murderer/rapist executed...

I can show at least one person that's deterred.

[tidy_bowl]

75. Exactly. That is obvious for a normal person to see. nt.

[JeanGrey]

49. Apparently it doesn't scare Texas.

[mitchum]

42. Fuck all that noise; put down those beasts

their actions were beyond the pale

[JeanGrey]

47. And Texas has said "thanks but no".

[Bill McBlueState]

51. The US has a long way to go

before it can catch up to the civilized world. You know, the one where they've outlawed the death penalty and where they cooperate with other countries.

From the looks of this thread, a lot of DUers have the "ugly American" routine down pretty well.

[tidy_bowl]

76. Rather be an Ugly American than a dead one. nt

[noonwitch]

55. I don't like the death penalty, but I also don't like demands from the UN/EU/World Court

I'm glad my state doesn't have the death penalty.

[tburnsten]

56. Same here

I am not one of the people who are totally against the death penalty in all scenarios, but I am appaled at the incidents where people are executed with incredibly faulty evidence or a total lack of discretion on the part of the court. There have been many cases where the death penalty was wrongfully applied, but I do support its use in certain limited applications. Like these individuals who brutally raped and murdered two children, they deserve far worse than the quick and almost painless (when done according to procedure) execution that our states use.

I really dislike "orders" coming from any international body. They have no right or ability to try and impose any of their rulings on the U.S., and like Dave Chappel said, if they don't like it, they can sanction us with their army.

[depakid]

57. They're simply requesting that Americans abide by an international treaty that they signed

Obviously, that's WAY to much to ask- because Americans are exceptional. Laws- including natural and economic laws- don't apply to them.

Much the same way as anyone with an "R" behind their names believes that state and federal laws (or longstanding Congressional procedures) don't apply to their behavior.

[tburnsten]

58. Well the Federal Government can sign all the treaties it wants

and it will have only limited impact on what states do. The federal government can't really just order a state court to change its ruling or do anything different, and besides, the Texas court looked at whether access to their consulate would have helped the defendants at all, and they found that it would have made either no or a negligible difference. Not a whole lot they can do about it, other than ask nicely. I think our fed. government has been increasing its power a little too much over the last ten-ish years, and I am glad that they are at least not ordering state courts around yet. Will make it easier for our next president to back the fed government down a little bit, back into the supporting role it should rightfully have.

[depakid]

59. You might want to read the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

We fought a war over that about 150 years ago- though these days, it's becoming less apparent which side really won....

[hack89]

60. Is there an enacting statute that applies?

Otherwise Texas is in the right. From your link:

While the Supremacy Clause specifically says that "all Treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land", the Supreme Court of the United States, in Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. ___ (2008), has said that treaties are not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be “self-executing” and is ratified on that basis.<1>

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is not self-executing nor is there an enacting statute.

This case has been to the Supreme Court twice - here is good synopsis. It is not as straight forward as you suggest. The legal question is whether the President can take any treaty that is not self-executing and make it binding under federal law. The Supreme Court said no.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Medellin_v._Texas

[depakid]

64. Congress is working on that right now as a result of Texas' willful failure

to follow the spirit of the law or honor the request of their former governor who's in the whitehouse.

Attorneys for the Mexican government have argued that the United States is not living up to its international obligations. U.S. attorneys have countered that the Bush administration has gone to great lengths to comply with the World Court's ruling.

Since losing before the U.S. Supreme Court, Medellin's attorneys have been desperately lobbying Congress to pass a law requiring the federal courts to hold hearings for all of the Mexican nationals on death row. A bill was introduced Monday, but it is unclear whether it will work its way through the legislative process in time to save Medellin.

"Texas should stay the execution of Medellin, not only out of respect for the International Court of Justice, but also out of respect for the U.S. Congress," Gregory J. Kuykendall, an Arizona lawyer who has worked on Medellin's case, said in an interview Wednesday. "The U.S. would expect no less of Mexico or any other signatory of the Vienna Conventions."

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=17610#more

As so often happens- Texas is every bit as much a rogue state to the nation as America is to the international community.

[hack89]

65. Texas did nothing wrong

you are just not willing to accept that the US Supreme Court and the Constitution trumps international law. Texas has no legal or moral obligation to obey a non-binding treaty.

[depakid]

66. The lower courts and the dissenters disagree- and no one in the case

disputes that that the provision constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States.

Stevens notes this in this concurrence, which as usual- is instructive and aimed at somewhat broader matters than the specific case at hand:

...the President made a commendable attempt to induce the States to discharge the Nation’s obligation. I agree with the Texas judges and the majority of this Court that the President’s memorandum is not binding law. Nonetheless, the fact that the President cannot legislate unilaterally does not absolve the United States from its promise to take action necessary to comply with the ICJ’s judgment.

Under the express terms of the Supremacy Clause, the United States’ obligation to “undertak to comply” with the ICJ’s decision falls on each of the States as well as the Federal Government.

One consequence of our form of government is that sometimes States must shoulder the primary responsibility for protecting the honor and integrity of the Nation. Texas’ duty in this respect is all the greater since it was Texas that—by failing to provide consular notice in accordance with the Vienna Convention—ensnared the United States in the current controversy.

Having already put the Nation in breach of one treaty, it is now up to Texas to prevent the breach of another.

The cost to Texas of complying with Avena would be minimal, particularly given the remote likelihood that the violation of the Vienna Convention actually prejudiced José Ernesto Medellín. It is a cost that the State of Oklahoma unhesitatingly assumed.

On the other hand, the costs of refusing to respect the ICJ’s judgment are significant. The entire Court and the President agree that breach will jeopardize the United States’ “plainly compelling” interests in “ensuring the reciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention, protecting relations with foreign governments, and demonstrating commitment to the role of international law.”

When the honor of the Nation is balanced against the modest cost of compliance, Texas would do well to recognize that more is at stake than whether judgments of the ICJ, and the principled admonitions of the President of the United States, trump state procedural rules in the absence of implementing legislation.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/06-984.pdf

Still think Texas is "innocent?"

[hack89]

67. Totally irrelevant

A majority of the Supreme Court has ruled - end of discussion. Texas is in compliance with the law of the land.

[depakid]

70. Hardly irrelevant

Unless you're an apologist for American arrogance and exceptionalism (not to mention the far right members of the court).

Even then- as Stevens noted- Texas has a duty, both to the nation and the international community- a duty that in this- as in so many other instances- it gladly shirks.

[hack89]

71. Where do you get the notion that anything is more important

than the Constitution of the United States?

I disagree with Bush on this one - does it bother you that I have a problem with an Imperial Presidency? Bush has usurped enough power. Why are you on his side?

[tidy_bowl]

80. Hold on there Bucko........

....that is why we fought a war of independence, to free ourselves from an overseas tyranny and you would give us right back to one. I suggest you get a copy of our constitution and actually read it.

[tidy_bowl]

79. Again you ignore our constitution...

...since there is a remedy provide (Congress) to enact laws to force states like Texas to comply with international law. Why do still you insist our constitution is so malleable? It is not and that has been made clear by the Supreme Court or do you suggest they should be ignored as well? Why don't we just do away with these inconvenient institutions like Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency becasue they all 'get in the way' of your precious International Law? We could have the UN rule us instead.

:sarcasm:

[tidy_bowl]

78. Whether or not the bill works its way in time....

....is completely immaterial as that is our constitutional remedy for this sort of thing. How quickly some wish to ignore our constitution just because it doesn't conform to their world view. We have a constitution for a reason or did you forget that piece of history?

[Hosnon]

63. The Constitution explicitly states how it may be

changed. By implication, that process is the only process.

Two-thirds of the Senate and the President do not have the authority to amend it. Thus, any Treay is unconstitutional to the extent that it amends the Constitution.

However, while the U.S. will not be in violation of the Supremacy Clause for disobeying this order, it will be in violation of international law (for what that is worth).

[Flagg]

68. It's sad to see so many liberals and otherwise progressive people embrace the death penalty

with so much passion and vehemence on this thread.

[hack89]

72. We didn't realize it was a litmus test.

care to tell what other things we should also believe in to be a "true" liberal?

[tidy_bowl]

82. Would you be so magnamious.....

....had it been your daughters?

[tidy_bowl]

81. Hear..hear. nt

[tidy_bowl]

77. Ummmm, you're conveinantly wanting to ignore our ....

.... constitution, you know the part about state's rights. What other parts of the constitution do you wish to just ignore as well because it doesn't conform to some world order?

[GeniusLib]

73. I don't see the issue here

These animals were not denied any due process that an American committing the same acts would have gotten.

If you come to this country and break the law you will suffer the consequences as we see fit.