|
The hopes of hundreds-of-millions of people worldwide were probably
dashed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling March 24 that rebuffs
Bush and World Court powers in a Texas death case.
Since the U.S. is NOT a member of the ICC, chances are good that Bush
and his criminal cabal can't be summoned to the world body to answer
charges of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. It further means our WAR
CRIMINALS could escape ANY punishment for their illegal, immoral, and
failed-but-sorrowfully-bloody IRAQ WAR.
So these evil outlaws will probably escape both impeachment by your
gutless U.S. Congress, and deserved trials before any global
committees of concerned and ouraged human beings. It's no secret why
the Bushies "declined" U.S. membership in such bodies as the ICC; they
knew and know they have committed criminal acts.
Is there NO way Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Rove, Feith,
Wolfowitz, Bremer, and Franks can receive condign punishment?
--------------------------
"Justices Rebuff Bush and World Court"
"Powers Limited in Texas Death Case"
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 26, 2008; A01
The Supreme Court yesterday issued a broad ruling limiting
presidential power and the reach of international treaties, saying
neither President Bush nor the World Court has the authority to order
a Texas court to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign
national.
The justices held 6 to 3 that judgments of the International Court of
Justice, as the court is formally known, are not binding on U.S.
courts and that Bush's 2005 executive order that courts in Texas
comply anyway does not change that.
The decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a
rebuke to the government in a case that involved the powers of all
three branches of government, the intricacies of treaties and the
international debate over the death penalty.
It placed the president on the side of Ernesto Medellin, a brutal
murderer, and the rulings of the World Court, and against the
authority of his home state's courts.
Texas's high court had rejected the World Court's judgment that it
"review and reconsider" Medellin's conviction because he is a Mexican
national and was not advised after his arrest that he could meet with
a consular from his country, as the Vienna Convention requires.
Even though the administration disagreed with the World Court's
decision -- and has withdrawn from the international pact that gave it
force -- Bush nonetheless issued a memorandum ordering the Texas
courts to rehear Medellin's case.
But Roberts wrote that neither the Optional Protocol of the Vienna
Convention nor the operative part of the United Nations Charter
creates binding law in the absence of implementing legislation from
Congress.
And he wrote that the government had not made the case that Bush had
the power to issue a directive that "reaches deep into the heart of
the state's police powers and compels state courts to reopen final
criminal judgments and set aside neutrally applicable state laws."
Joining Roberts were the justices who are most consistently
conservative: Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Justice John Paul Stevens concurred, but for different reasons than
Roberts gave. Stevens agreed that Texas could not be forced to
reconsider the case but urged it to do so nonetheless, especially
because its failure to advise Medellin of his rights "ensnared the
United States in the current controversy."
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in dissent that the court had misread
the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which says properly ratified
treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land" and that the treaties
at issue did not need to be implemented by congressional legislation.
"As a result, the nation may well break its word even though the
president seeks to live up to that word and Congress has done nothing
to suggest the contrary," Breyer wrote. He was joined by Justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter.
Roberts said to accept Medellin's argument would make World Court
decisions not only binding domestic law but also "unassailable."
Bush's intentions -- to ensure reciprocal observance of the Vienna
Convention with foreign governments, protect international relations
and show a commitment to international law -- are "plainly
compelling," Roberts wrote. "Such considerations, however, do not
allow us to set aside first principles."
Frederick L. Kirgis, a professor of international law at Washington
and Lee University, said he was surprised that the court was not more
deferential to the president.
"It is a matter of diplomacy, after all, and the president is the
chief diplomat, and he has acted," Kirgis said, adding that the
reaction of other governments, especially Mexico's, is "certain to be
negative."
The Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry said it regretted the court's
decision and its lawyers are reviewing the implications for "other
Mexican nationals facing death sentences, in order to determine
immediate legal actions to preserve their rights."
The case involved Medellin and 50 other Mexican nationals who have
been convicted in U.S. courts.
Medellin, 33, has lived in the United States since he was 3; he speaks
and writes English but is still a Mexican national. He was part of a
gang that attacked Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, as
they walked home from a friend's house. They were raped and murdered,
one strangled with her shoestring.
Medellin signed a waiver of his Miranda right to remain silent and
confessed within hours of his arrest. But he was not told of his right
to talk to the consulate of his country. Medellin did not raise that
right during his trial but did in one of his death penalty appeals.
The administration first argued against Mexico, and then in 2005 Bush
issued his memorandum to the attorney general saying that the United
States will "discharge its international obligations . . . by having
state courts give effect to the decision" of the World Court.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Bush was disappointed
with the decision and is reviewing it to see how it might influence
international relations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501185.html
|
| |
| |
On Mar 26, 7:29=A0am, Chemical Ali <kink...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The hopes of hundreds-of-millions of people worldwide were probably
dashed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling March 24 that rebuffs
Bush and World Court powers in a Texas death case.
Since the U.S. is NOT a member of the ICC, chances are good that Bush
and his criminal cabal can't be summoned to the world body to answer
charges of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. =A0It further means our WAR
CRIMINALS could escape ANY punishment for their illegal, immoral, and
failed-but-sorrowfully-bloody IRAQ WAR.
So these evil outlaws will probably escape both impeachment by your
gutless U.S. Congress, and deserved trials before any global
committees of concerned and ouraged human beings. =A0It's no secret why
the Bushies "declined" U.S. membership in such bodies as the ICC; they
knew and know they have committed criminal acts.
Is there NO way Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Rove, Feith,
Wolfowitz, Bremer, and Franks can receive condign punishment?
--------------------------
"Justices Rebuff Bush and World Court"
"Powers Limited in Texas Death Case"
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 26, 2008; A01
The Supreme Court yesterday issued a broad ruling limiting
presidential power and the reach of international treaties, saying
neither President Bush nor the World Court has the authority to order
a Texas court to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign
national.
The justices held 6 to 3 that judgments of the International Court of
Justice, as the court is formally known, are not binding on U.S.
courts and that Bush's 2005 executive order that courts in Texas
comply anyway does not change that.
The decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a
rebuke to the government in a case that involved the powers of all
three branches of government, the intricacies of treaties and the
international debate over the death penalty.
It placed the president on the side of Ernesto Medellin, a brutal
murderer, and the rulings of the World Court, and against the
authority of his home state's courts.
Texas's high court had rejected the World Court's judgment that it
"review and reconsider" Medellin's conviction because he is a Mexican
national and was not advised after his arrest that he could meet with
a consular from his country, as the Vienna Convention requires.
Even though the administration disagreed with the World Court's
decision -- and has withdrawn from the international pact that gave it
force -- Bush nonetheless issued a memorandum ordering the Texas
courts to rehear Medellin's case.
But Roberts wrote that neither the Optional Protocol of the Vienna
Convention nor the operative part of the United Nations Charter
creates binding law in the absence of implementing legislation from
Congress.
And he wrote that the government had not made the case that Bush had
the power to issue a directive that "reaches deep into the heart of
the state's police powers and compels state courts to reopen final
criminal judgments and set aside neutrally applicable state laws."
Joining Roberts were the justices who are most consistently
conservative: Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Justice John Paul Stevens concurred, but for different reasons than
Roberts gave. Stevens agreed that Texas could not be forced to
reconsider the case but urged it to do so nonetheless, especially
because its failure to advise Medellin of his rights "ensnared the
United States in the current controversy."
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in dissent that the court had misread
the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which says properly ratified
treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land" and that the treaties
at issue did not need to be implemented by congressional legislation.
"As a result, the nation may well break its word even though the
president seeks to live up to that word and Congress has done nothing
to suggest the contrary," Breyer wrote. He was joined by Justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter.
Roberts said to accept Medellin's argument would make World Court
decisions not only binding domestic law but also "unassailable."
Bush's intentions -- to ensure reciprocal observance of the Vienna
Convention with foreign governments, protect international relations
and show a commitment to international law -- are "plainly
compelling," Roberts wrote. "Such considerations, however, do not
allow us to set aside first principles."
Frederick L. Kirgis, a professor of international law at Washington
and Lee University, said he was surprised that the court was not more
deferential to the president.
"It is a matter of diplomacy, after all, and the president is the
chief diplomat, and he has acted," Kirgis said, adding that the
reaction of other governments, especially Mexico's, is "certain to be
negative."
The Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry said it regretted the court's
decision and its lawyers are reviewing the implications for "other
Mexican nationals facing death sentences, in order to determine
immediate legal actions to preserve their rights."
The case involved Medellin and 50 other Mexican nationals who have
been convicted in U.S. courts.
Medellin, 33, has lived in the United States since he was 3; he speaks
and writes English but is still a Mexican national. He was part of a
gang that attacked Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, as
they walked home from a friend's house. They were raped and murdered,
one strangled with her shoestring.
Medellin signed a waiver of his Miranda right to remain silent and
confessed within hours of his arrest. But he was not told of his right
to talk to the consulate of his country. Medellin did not raise that
right during his trial but did in one of his death penalty appeals.
The administration first argued against Mexico, and then in 2005 Bush
issued his memorandum to the attorney general saying that the United
States will "discharge its international obligations . . . by having
state courts give effect to the decision" of the World Court.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Bush was disappointed
with the decision and is reviewing it to see how it might influence
international relations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR200...
Jeessssusssss. This is a case in which the states try accused
criminals for state crimes under state law, and inflict state
punishments when the accused are convicted. The feds have no right or
power to pre-empt state prosecutions or to bind the states in
international treaties with the United States, on matters of
violations of state laws. WTH is wrong with you people?
See the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine and the Tenth
Amendment for details.
|
| |
| |
On 26/03/2008 14:37, in article
1d2bf6cf-3a37-4ea5-a0aa-18faebfaa25f@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "jl"
<jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Mar 26, 7:29am, Chemical Ali <kink...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The hopes of hundreds-of-millions of people worldwide were probably
dashed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling March 24 that rebuffs
Bush and World Court powers in a Texas death case.
Since the U.S. is NOT a member of the ICC, chances are good that Bush
and his criminal cabal can't be summoned to the world body to answer
charges of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. It further means our WAR
CRIMINALS could escape ANY punishment for their illegal, immoral, and
failed-but-sorrowfully-bloody IRAQ WAR.
So these evil outlaws will probably escape both impeachment by your
gutless U.S. Congress, and deserved trials before any global
committees of concerned and ouraged human beings. It's no secret why
the Bushies "declined" U.S. membership in such bodies as the ICC; they
knew and know they have committed criminal acts.
Is there NO way Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Rove, Feith,
Wolfowitz, Bremer, and Franks can receive condign punishment?
--------------------------
"Justices Rebuff Bush and World Court"
"Powers Limited in Texas Death Case"
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 26, 2008; A01
The Supreme Court yesterday issued a broad ruling limiting
presidential power and the reach of international treaties, saying
neither President Bush nor the World Court has the authority to order
a Texas court to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign
national.
The justices held 6 to 3 that judgments of the International Court of
Justice, as the court is formally known, are not binding on U.S.
courts and that Bush's 2005 executive order that courts in Texas
comply anyway does not change that.
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR200...
Jeessssusssss. This is a case in which the states try accused
criminals for state crimes under state law, and inflict state
punishments when the accused are convicted. The feds have no right or
power to pre-empt state prosecutions or to bind the states in
international treaties with the United States, on matters of
violations of state laws. WTH is wrong with you people?
See the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine and the Tenth
Amendment for details.
That is not correct. While the States (and Indian tribes) are sovereign
entities for some purposes, the Federal Government can pre-empt them at will
in most areas -- or could, since the Civil War, until "states' rights" (a
code word for racism and nativist sentiment) came into vogue some decades
ago.
But the Feds, for reasons of their own, have never forced the states to
accept many kinds of treaties, most notably tax treaties. An example: the
US-UK tax treaty provides that civil service and military-type (but not
social security-type) pensions shall be taxed only by the country which paid
them. However California (and other states which tax such pensions) can and
do tax British civil-service pensions earned by UK nationals living there. A
more important example is the California taxation of multinational
corporations.
http://tinyurl.com/2jldx8
Of course once the Supreme Court has ruled, that's the Constitution,
whatever that document meant beforehand. And the Supreme Court increasingly
is extending the exclusivity of states' powers.
But there's more. The forcible kidnapping of Alvarez Machain and the Supreme
Court's holding that it didn't matter how he was brought within the
jurisdiction, he could be tried anyway (he was, in fact, acquitted) -- a
holding diametrically opposed to what the House of Lords ruled in a similar
case in England, R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrate's Court, Ex p. Bennett,
[1994] 1 A.C. 42. The same is true of torture: see A and others v Secretary
of State for the Home Department (No 2), [2005] UKHL 71. Both cases can be
found with Google. And here's a link to a law review article on the
extradition issue: http://tinyurl.com/2ozfgk
Now, the US Government has ignored its treaty obligations when it has suited
them: it walked out of the International Court over the Nicaragua case, for
example, and it has ignored the Geneva Conventions during Bush's War. It has
also failed to force its subsovereign entities to adhere to diplomatic,
consular, tax and other conventions. That may be correct domestic law, but
it is a violation of international law. There actually have been American
citizens who have successfully claimed asylum in Canada, Sweden, France and
Switzerland, among other places.
The US also has an unusual take on the principle of "ne bis in idem", which
you call "double jeopardy". Two sovereigns may prosecute a person for the
same crime, and he may be punished twice. Presumably he could be executed
twice as well? I guess not.
But it is pure arrogance, and the refusal of the Supreme Court to apply a
Miranda principle to it, that causes states to deny arrested persons the
assistance of consuls. The whole point of being a consul (and I have been
one) is to provide a translation or interpretation of foreign customs and
legal principles to one's nationals -- without, of course, practising law
(except in specifically defined ways, such as custodianship of the property
of decedents, diplomatic protection, demanding equal treatment, demanding
performance [ha!] of treaty obligations, visiting prisoners. In many cases
police do not want arrested persons to know their rights, and if they can
get away with keeping them ignorant they will do so. This is something out
of Kafka, and something we came to expect in Communist countries, fascist
dictatorships and other places where human rights are ignored.
The US is scarcely a country of "laws" in the eyes of the civil-law world.
The example of refusal to enforce punitive-damage judgments is just a
trivial example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/26punitive.html
The USA is the bully on the block. And with the dollar about to lose its
position as near-univeral reserve currency, and its usefulness as a store of
value (you can expect prodigious inflation in the USA, but then that will
solve the subprime mortgage and negative-equity crises, won't it -- at the
expense of those of fixed incomes; but they paid the price last time as
well, no?). It is American natural resources, and its technology and
intellectual property that has kept it ahead of the game until now. But that
was then and this is now.
|
| |
| |
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Rove, Feith, Wolfowitz, Bremer,
and Franks et al. will never pay for their crimes against humanity.
U.S. citizens as a whole cannot accept the thought much less the
"concept" of their "leaders" being grouped with the likes of Sudan's
President Omar El Bashir, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Stalin,
and Hitler.
|
| |
| |
Bush's War is as much his war as Hitler's war was Hitler's. And is similarly
(if not to the same degree) racist, imperialist and thieving. As Iraq
descends into bedlam http://tinyurl.com/2pbn5t that US military cannot
resolve, Bush and by extension America will be scorned and despised -- even
more so than they are at present.
On 26/03/2008 18:12, in article
d379e135-b1ff-4869-99bf-43a6fff01997@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "Chemical
Ali" <kinkysr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Rove, Feith, Wolfowitz, Bremer,
and Franks et al. will never pay for their crimes against humanity.
U.S. citizens as a whole cannot accept the thought much less the
"concept" of their "leaders" being grouped with the likes of Sudan's
President Omar El Bashir, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Stalin,
and Hitler.
|
| |
| |
Chemical Ali wrote:
The hopes
You mean "pipe-dreams".
of hundreds-of-millions of people worldwide were probably dashed by the
U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling March 24 that rebuffs Bush and World Court
powers in a Texas death case.
Get your head screwed on. There was NEVER any realistic prospect that any
such thing would ever happen. These were only the fantasies of lefty-loony
whack-jobs. The world "court" can go scratch.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
On Mar 27, 1:20=A0am, Papadillos <papadil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bush's War is as much his war as Hitler's war was Hitler's. And is similar=
ly
(if not to the same degree) racist, imperialist and thieving. As Iraq
descends into bedlamhttp://tinyurl.com/2pbn5tthat US military cannot
resolve, Bush and by extension America will be scorned and despised -- eve=
n
more so than they are at present.
Believe me, if Bush were impeached, convicted, and removed from
office; then convicted of war crimes and hanged, I'd be standing by
cheering it on.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 26, 11:11=A0am, Papadillos <papadil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26/03/2008 14:37, in article
1d2bf6cf-3a37-4ea5-a0aa-18faebfaa...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "jl"
<jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
That is not correct. While the States (and Indian tribes) are sovereign
entities for some purposes, the Federal Government can pre-empt them at wi=
ll
in most areas -- or could, since the Civil War, until "states' rights" (a
code word for racism and nativist sentiment) came into vogue some decades
ago.
Oh, but yes, it is correct. I am NOT a tenth amendment states rights
kind of a guy but you don't understand the bureaucratic nightmare to
bind the states into an international treaty requiring them to contact
some foreign government every time they try an accused foreigner in
their courts.
Our Constitution is clear on this issue. There are areas that are
gray but this one is clearly marked.
We have federal criminal courts --- they are bound by this treaty.
But the state courts cannot be bound.
|
| |
| |
On 27/03/2008 13:34, in article
78011baf-1967-4816-8ffa-2e7c36f089e5@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "jl"
<jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Mar 26, 11:11am, Papadillos <papadil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Oh, but yes, it is correct. I am NOT a tenth amendment states rights
kind of a guy but you don't understand the bureaucratic nightmare to
bind the states into an international treaty requiring them to contact
some foreign government every time they try an accused foreigner in
their courts.
Our Constitution is clear on this issue. There are areas that are
gray but this one is clearly marked.
We have federal criminal courts --- they are bound by this treaty.
But the state courts cannot be bound.
It doesn't take much for a police desk officer -- or, more likely, a local
prosecutor, to pick up the phone and call the foreign consul responsible for
the territory in question.
The Supreme Court could have said that the Feds have primacy in foreign
affairs. But, States Rights-oriented, they chose not to. It's just another
example of the USA thumbing its nose at the rest of the world and wondering
why they are so scorned and despised.
The Constitution is NOT clear on the issue, or there would have been no case
for the Supreme Court to decide. Now they have decided, so you are correct.
But before they did it was unclear. If the US wants to ignore international
law, the Geneva Conventions, and the other laws of war, I suppose they are
sovereign and can do what they like. But they cannot complain when US
soldiers and diplomats are not protected and accorded rights -- and when
foreign governments do nothing about their torture by "private" groups.
States are responsible for their subsovereign entities. There is nothing to
prevent the State Department from reminding all prosecutors in the USA,
however many there are, of their obligations. But of course why should they
comply if there is no downside? That's the principle of Miranda.
During Prohibition there were several incursions into Canada to kidnap
smugglers. The last one I know about was a certain Anderson, a military
deserter, and Henry Kissinger ordered his release. That was, of course,
federal custody. But even there until Kissinger acted the inclination was to
ignore Canadian protests. Just as Mexican protests over Alvarez Machain were
ignored; and of course Mexico had less power and influence.
Washington Post, Aug. 31, 1971, p. A13:
"U.S. Returns Deserter to Canada
"Douglas, Canada, Aug. 30 -- U.S. Army deserter Ronald Anderson, who was
taken into custody by U.S. Customs agents on the Canadian side of the border
last Saturday, returned to Canada last night.
"Anderson, 31, was released from the military stockade at Ft. Lewis, Wash.,
on orders from the State Department after the Canadian government requested
his return yesterday.
"..."
|
| |
| |
The problem is that other countries will reciprocate and start building
secret prisons and denying access to US officials when US government
employees, journalists, soldiers, missionaries, business travelers, students
and tourists are accused of spying etc.
Watch international law go down the tube. "World Court"? You mean the ICJ?
The US is plaintiff more often than defendant. They sued Iran successfully,
but walked out of the Nicaragua case when it became obvious they would lose.
It's one thing to scorn the world when you're on the way up. But when you
are hitting the skids as the USA now is, it's not a good idea. The more so
if (and I don't know if that's the case) foreigners have been condemned to
death all the while not understanding the charges and assuming that, like in
their countries (i.e., the civil-law world) the judge has an independent
inquisitorial role. That's not true in common-law courts which are
adversarial and the prosecutor has limited obligation to tell the truth and
the judge almost no obligation to help the defendant when his public
defender is drunk, asleep and incompetent.
On 27/03/2008 11:03, in article 47EB7F14.452E087B@avenuecable.com, "Theodore
A. Kaldis" <kaldis@avenuecable.com> wrote:
Chemical Ali wrote:
You mean "pipe-dreams".
Get your head screwed on. There was NEVER any realistic prospect that any
such thing would ever happen. These were only the fantasies of lefty-loony
whack-jobs. The world "court" can go scratch.
|
| |
| |
|
