Texas Court Ruling Rebuffs Bush and World Court

NY Times ^ | 11/16/06 | ADAM LIPTAK

[kiriath_jearim]

Texas can proceed with the execution of a death row inmate notwithstanding a ruling by an international tribunal and a memorandum from President Bush directing state courts to comply with the tribunal’s decision, Texas’ highest court for criminal matters ruled yesterday.

“We hold that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary,” Judge Michael Keasler wrote for the court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

The case, which has been considered by the United States Supreme Court, appears quite likely to return there.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that 51 Mexicans on death row in the United States were entitled to “review and reconsideration” of their claims that their rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations had been violated.

The convention requires that arrested foreigners be told of their right to speak with consular officials. If asked, local officials must contact the appropriate consulate. Both actions, the convention says, must be taken “without delay.”

The international court added that American courts performing the required review and reconsideration could not rely on a doctrine known as procedural default to decline to hear arguments not raised at trial. That is at odds with recent death penalty jurisprudence in the United States and with state and federal laws that limit what kinds of arguments may be made if they are not raised early on.

When the question of whether the international tribunal’s ruling must be followed reached the United States Supreme Court last year, President Bush issued a memorandum to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales directing state courts to abide by the decision of the tribunal.

[EagleUSA]

Even the radical Bush-bots cannot sweep this pro-illegal Mexican move under the rug. He clearly is not hiding his PERSONAL agenda any more.

[libertylovinactivist]

As a Texan, I'm obviously quite pleased with the Court's decision. But I'm really concerned about American judges who lean heavily on foreign court rulings.

[July 4th]

State sovereignty in the state of Texas. Nice.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

“The president has made an admirable attempt to resolve a complicated issue involving the United States’ international obligations,” Presiding Judge Sharon Keller wrote in a concurrence. “But this unprecedented, unnecessary and intrusive exercise of power over the Texas court system cannot be supported by foreign policy authority conferred on him by the United States Constitution.”

Admirable???????????

I don't think so! The last sentence says it all. He's a globalist who bears contempt for our sovereignty......the writing to support that is on the ceiling, walls, and floors.

[siunevada]

"He clearly is not hiding his PERSONAL agenda any more."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050228-18.html

Since it has been posted on the White House web site for more than 18 months, it seems to have been out in the open for quite a while.

[GoLightly]

The situation has international implications. When an American is sentenced to death in a foreign court you might see things differently.

[Lancey Howard]

Excellent!

[raybbr]

I don't think so! The last sentence says it all. He's a globalist who bears contempt for our sovereignty......the writing to support that is on the ceiling, walls, and floors.

I seriously doubt Bush would have written the letter if the killer's last name was Kowalski, O'Brian, Smythe, Wang, etc.

His chest doesn't swell with pride for those cultures as it does for the "new American" culture.

THE "NEW AMERICAN"..........<

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

You can read the speech here.

Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[raybbr]

In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that 51 Mexicans on death row in the United States were entitled to “review and reconsideration” of their claims that their rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations had been violated.

Did you support Bush's contention the prisoners in Gitmo be tried outside the Geneva convention?

[isrul]

They will justify it.

[EagleUSA]

When an American is sentenced to death in a foreign court you might see things differently.

---

Not when the American is in a country illegally and commits a major felony. That American should pay as well. Every country has laws. If you break them, you pay -- that is the way I see it.

[GoLightly]

Did you support Bush's contention the prisoners in Gitmo be tried outside the Geneva convention?

If you mean, do I consider them to be something other than prisoners of war, yes. Bush never claimed they weren't covered by the "Geneva convention", because they are. He worked with the countries claiming them as their citizens. Look up the provisions in the Geneva Convention for "enemy combatant".

[GoLightly]

Not when the American is in a country illegally and commits a major felony.

Right, like spying on that country.

[Killborn]

You are correct. As much as I am pleased with justice being delivered, the very real implications of this statement on US citizens abroad and our troops stationed in foreign lands need to be examined. In hindsight, we may wish that those in Texas were spared.

Of course as usual, the "BORDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" crowd is trying to turn the President into a "NWO-globalist socialist" boogeyman.

Talk about scare-tactics. At least ours had a basis in truth.

[jimtorr]

“But this unprecedented, unnecessary and intrusive exercise of power over the Texas court system cannot be supported by foreign policy authority conferred on him by the United States Constitution.”

Actually, I think the power of the POTUS is supported by the US Constitution in this.

The police and the courts in Texas clearly have not fufilled their obligation to contact the appropriate consulate in these cases.

When the same thing happens in other countries to US citizens, everyone here screams bloody murder, with crys of "acts of war" and calls for the Marines.

[incredulous joe]

What the,....?

Is this the same guy that I voted for twice??

Way to go Texas - standing up for state and national sovereignty!

[GoLightly]

Talk about scare-tactics. At least ours had a basis in truth.

Yep.

[Killborn]

"When the same thing happens in other countries to US citizens..."

And that's the rub isn't it? Too many FReepers have an inability to put the shoe on the other foot. Many people regularly advocate and support ideas and policies that if we were on the receiving end off, we wouldn't tolerate it.

[Killborn]

On a related point, is it really a "scare" if it's true? If it's really a "negative" ad if it's true?

[Centurion2000]

The situation has international implications. When an American is sentenced to death in a foreign court you might see things differently.

That's when Bush is supposed to start mentioning how that foreign country's capital might look better if no stone lay piled on another.

[Centurion2000]

And that's the rub isn't it? Too many FReepers have an inability to put the shoe on the other foot. Many people regularly advocate and support ideas and policies that if we were on the receiving end off, we wouldn't tolerate it.

So who gives a damn about reciprocal treatments? If the other countries want to impose rules like that, let them build up their military power to resist the US.

Countries don't have morals, they only have interests.

[GoLightly]

On a related point, is it really a "scare" if it's true? If it's really a "negative" ad if it's true?

Could be yes, on both counts. Some could claim my stated position in this thread are a "scare" tactic & that I've "gone negative".

[Plains Drifter]

Well said,Amen!!!!

[itsahoot]

Even the radical Bush-bots cannot sweep this pro-illegal Mexican move under the rug.

Oh no? See post 15

[indylindy]

Seems like we need to ask why things happen that do not make sense and quit believing that the unbelievable is really not believable.

[tubebender]

LONG LIVE TEXAS and the FReepers that live there until I can con them out of their property and livelihood so I can move there and not have to eat Armadillo...

[Killborn]

Might doesn't make right. Right makes might. You'd be singing another tune if a hostile country is more powerful than America.

[Dark Wing]

ping

[GoLightly]

Guess we need no allies & should shred every single treaty we've ever signed.

[Killborn]

Heh. Interesting.

Welp, we are under attack. Par for the course on FR. :)

[Killborn]

Apparently. Don't you know the US is the greatest and the rest of the world can go to hell? Doing anything less than being a isolationist protectionist country is to sell out to foreign intetrests. :)

[sgtbono2002]

Depends on whether or not he is guilty.

[Centurion2000]

You'd be singing another tune if a hostile country is more powerful than America.

IF .... there's the problem. Now, let's talk reality.

[GoLightly]

A American Muslim is serving in Afghanistan & while there, converts to Christianity... It's still a capital crime there. Want us to turn him over to their authorities for breaking one of their laws or do we wait until they arrest him, before we turn our back on him?

[GoLightly]

Long live fortress America!

[Killborn]

Sure. Reality dictates that different nations have legal agreements to each other regarding extraditions, punishments, and the trial of foreing nationals. America is one such nation. Mexico is another. When a citizen of one country commits a crime in another country, the courts of that country contact the embassy of the criminal's country and make arrangements as to crime and punishment.

Texas didn't contact the embassy and the President is right to intervene. I want to see them dead as much as the next guy, but not at the price of the security and safety of millions of Americans abroad, including my father.

[sgtbono2002]

Not a very good example. But I suppose it gets your point across.

No real American would go along with this.
The Person in question committed murder.

If an American commits murder in a foreign country that has the death penalty,and he is found guilty why should we complain.

[Killborn]

Day tuk r jerbs!

[ARealMothersSonForever]

In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled

As soon as the Hague sends soldiers to Texas for enforcing their farcical rulings, I will care. Meanwhile, swift justice is denied for the victims. We must move forward and carry out the sentences.

[Centurion2000]

Sure. Reality dictates that different nations have legal agreements to each other regarding extraditions, punishments, and the trial of foreing nationals. America is one such nation. Mexico is another.

Mexico doesn't extradite anyone to the US if it's a possible death penalty.

[GoLightly]

If an American commits murder in a foreign country that has the death penalty,and he is found guilty why should we complain.

If he was refused services of our Consulate, damn straight we should complain! Our failure to comply with a lawfully enacted treaty with a foreign county got us into this mess.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Texas didn't contact the embassy

The defendants did not request consular service. Are we Texans required to check with every consular and embassy in the world? No. These convicts are Jonesing the system, pure and simple.

[Dog Gone]

It's really not in question that we didn't observe our treaty obligations. The question is what to do about it in light of the World Court ruling.

It's a close call. I think the President was right to respect the treaty obligations by calling for new hearings.

However, I respect the court's decision that it didn't make a damn bit of difference. These folks were guilty.

So it all worked out in the end.

[GoLightly]

We are signatories to some of the provisions of The Hague. Children caught in cross national custody disputes are one of those areas.

[Killborn]

The first sentence, I was speaking generally. Regardless, we still have legal agreements between the two states.

[Mamzelle]

re: I'm really concerned about American judges who lean heavily on foreign court rulings.)))

I'm really concerned about an American president who leans on judges to please a foreign tribunal.

[John Lenin]

I am done with this Aztlan stooge Jorge Bush. He will destroy the Republican party before he is done.

I'm starting to think that is his plan, and to make sure Hitlery gets elected.

[GoLightly]

It's a close call. I think the President was right to respect the treaty obligations by calling for new hearings.

Bingo! Now for your well reasoned argument, you will be dubbed a Bushbot by some.

The question is what to do about it in light of the World Court ruling.

If the World Court overstepped its authority, ruling beyond the provisions in our treaty... what's diplospeak for "pound sand?".