World Court orders US to stay three executions

Jeslek

Banned
lol, this is good: http://www.msnbc.com/news/869043.asp?0dm=C15NN

THE HAGUE, Feb 5 — The United States must temporarily stay the executions of three Mexican citizens on death rows in Texas and Oklahoma, the World Court ruled Wednesday.

THE RULING — which the court cannot enforce and the United States could ignore — said the delay was needed while the court investigated whether the men and 48 other Mexicans on death row in the United States were given their right to legal help from the Mexican government.

The 15-judge World Court, officially called the International Court of Justice, is the United Nation’s body for resolving disputes between nations.

The United States has disregarded rulings in the past.

Reading Wednesday’s unanimous decision, Presiding Judge Gilbert Guillaume said the court supported Mexico’s argument that executing the men would cause “irreparable” damage to their rights if the court later finds in Mexico’s favor.

“The United States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that (the men) are not executed pending final judgment in these proceedings,” he said.

After Mexico filed the suit last month, the United States said a ruling in Mexico’s favor would be an unwarranted intrusion on the U.S. criminal justice system and would infringe on U.S. sovereignty.

STUDYING THE DECISION

The U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, Clifford Sobel, said the U.S. Justice Department was “studying the decision” and would comment on it as soon as possible.

“It’s important to note that this is not a ruling on the merits of the case,” he said Wednesday, adding that it would be “premature” to say whether the United States would abide by the decision.

If the United States does not, the World Court could complain to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions, court spokeswoman Laurence Blairon said. (WTF? lol --Jerrek)

Elihu Lauterpacht, a lawyer for the United States, has labeled the Mexican case a publicity stunt, and said that staying executions in state prisons might be unenforceable for the U.S. federal government.

Mexico’s ambassador to the Netherlands, Santiago Onate, called the decision “a confirmation of international law.”

The men affected by the ruling are Cesar Fierro and Roberto Ramos, in prison in Texas, and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, in prison in Oklahoma. All men had exhausted their U.S. appeals and their execution dates were to be scheduled.

Mexico had asked the court to stay the execution of all 51 Mexicans on death row, but the court concerned itself only with the three most urgent cases.

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

The court has yet to set a date to hear oral arguments in the case and consider whether the prisoners’ rights were indeed violated under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Rights.

The decision followed a high-profile World Court ruling that the United States had violated international law by not informing a German citizen of his right to consular assistance in 1999.

Walter LaGrand was executed in Arizona despite the U.N. court’s order to postpone his punishment until it had heard Germany’s case. He had been convicted along with his brother Karl LaGrand for murdering a bank manager during a 1982 robbery.

In 1999, the court criticized the U.S. government, saying it had an obligation to enforce the ruling. In Wednesday’s decision, the court ordered the United States to “inform the court of all measures taken in implementation of this order.”

The death penalty has long been a source of tension between the United States and countries that oppose capital punishment. Mexico’s case is the third the United States has faced in five years.

At least 97 foreigners currently await execution in the United States, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Since 1976, at least 15 have been executed; three were freed after appeals or retrials and eight had their death sentences overturned on appeal, according to Amnesty International.
OK so question... Err, even if the World Court orders the United States government to stay these executions, the State of Texas has no obligation to do so, and the federal government has no jurisdiction over state law right? What makes the World Court think they could order the US federal government around? I mean, they were convicted by the State of Texas, not the US federal government. ?(
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
:rofl: must be the big brother of the UNITED NATIONS. What are they gonna do? Tell us to STOP!:headbang:
 

Jeslek

Banned
I think they threatened to give John D. Negroponte (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.) the Dirty Look™, and if we still don't comply the Deep Scowl™.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
What would that be Professur? The attempted coup of American freedom? Derision of the American legal system as drawn by our Constitution? The world courts attempt to bypass the independence of a legal & just country?

or, could it be the beginning of another flavio & Jerek show?
 

PT

Off 'Motherfuckin' Topic Elite
It goes like this Jerrek

Federal Law

State Law, if it's more strict than Federal, otherwise Federal.

Local, again, if it's more strict than State or Federal.

You always have to follow the most strict, or be faced with charges at the level you broke the law at.
 

unclehobart

New Member
The UN is no longer relevant... but so long as we pretend that it works, we might as well play ball from time to time. Let them have their fun. Let them delay it and have an investigation. At least the US can show the world that the US isn't being hypocritical. These guys aren't going to be getting out on the streets. Its a small price to pay for accumulating brownie points against the other stuff going on in the greater geopolitical arena.
 

flavio

Banned
Certainly does seem like a bad time for the US to ignore a mandate from the World Court when we are ready to go to war over another country violating a UN mandate.
 

unclehobart

New Member
*marks this day in my desk calendar as the first time Flavio and I have ever seen eye to eye on anything*

... even though we agree on the underlying hipocrisy, I dare say that our methods of resolution would differ ...so at least I still have that personal comfort to cling to. :D
 

Jeslek

Banned
PuterTutor said:
It goes like this Jerrek

Federal Law

State Law, if it's more strict than Federal, otherwise Federal.

Local, again, if it's more strict than State or Federal.

You always have to follow the most strict, or be faced with charges at the level you broke the law at.
I know that, PT, but the U.S. Constitution makes a very clear division of power. The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." If you read the section concerning the power of the States, you will see that each state has its own judicial system. The federal government, thus, has no jurisdiction over state matters such as this. The convicted criminals can try, however, to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court which does have power to reverse any court ruling. However, no more appeals were granted (as far as I can see), and the decision was final.

In this case, they did not break federal law, but rather state law. They were charged in Texas, convicted in Texas, and sentenced in Texas. The U.S. government had no say, because it is not their jurisdiction.

This world "court" ruling then has no real power, because even in the rare case that the U.S. government would decide to act upon such a breach of sovereignty and follow the world court's recommendations, the three Mexicans are in a Texas prison, not a federal prison, which is outside of their jurisdiction. Who is going to order Texas to release them?

- Executive branch: The President can give those folks a pardon, but this is unlikely. The President does not have the authority to order a Governor around, but he can ask nicely.

- Legislative branch: No power. They can make laws regarding such issues in the future though.

- Judicial branch: The Supreme Court does have authority over individual states, but a case will need to be brought in front of the court and the judges will have to make a ruling.


So, while the World "Court" might be able to get the U.S. government to co-operate, the individual states are not required to (as outlined in the Constitution), nor has any treaties been signed that gives the World "Court" jurisduction over either U.S. federal criminal law or State criminal law.
 
Top