Posted on 11/26/2007 9:41:35 AM PST by K-oneTexas
Does President Bush Seek U.N. Jurisdiction Over the U.S.A.? Jim Kouri, CPP In several speeches he gave across the country, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton revealed that President George W. Bush and his administration are buckling under pressure from this nation's Internationalists in the current controversy over Mexico and the International Court of Justice. The Mexican government is attempting to save an illegal alien convicted of participating in the savage rape and murder two teenage girls from being executed in Texas for his crimes. Death penalty opponents in both the U.S. and Mexico are trying to place this nation under the control of a world court, according to critics of the Bush White House. "[President George Bush's position is] a bad mistake, but one of many mistakes, I'm sad to say, the administration has made recently," Bolton told syndicated radio talk show host Laura Ingraham. Bolton believes that President Bush is helping Mexico and the International Court block the death sentence for a Mexican rapist-murderer. He called Bush's actions "ridiculous." "Bolton is a true patriot. That's why the liberals in the Democrat Party and the phony conservatives in the GOP were so eager to remove him from his seat at the U.N. Bolton believes the U.N. is corrupt and he's opposed to placing the United States under the jurisdiction of any international entity," claims conservative political consultant Michael Baker. "When it comes to U.S. sovereignty, Americans would be better served listening to Ambassador Bolton rather than our 'closet Internationalist' President," he added. Baker points to phony conservatives such as Ohio's Senator George Voinovich who shed tears during Senate confirmation hearings for Bolton to serve at the United Nations. "Voinovich feared Bolton's anti-U.N. positions would hamper U.S. involvement in the New World Order," claims Baker. In early October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the impending execution of Jose Medellin, who confessed to police in 1993 to raping and murdering two Houston, Texas, teenagers – Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena. The girls were sodomized and strangled with their own shoe laces, according to court records and police reports. According to Houston Police detectives' reports, Medellin boasted that he kept one victim's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of his heinous crime. Medellin and four other attackers were convicted of capital murder and are awaiting execution on death row. The intervention in the case by the Bush administration comes after the International Court of Justice in the Hague found Medellin – who entered the United States illegally – was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance. "Bush's support of the World Court decision jeopardizes the cases of about 50 Mexican Nationals sitting on death row," said former NYPD Det. Sidney Francis. "Once again, President Bush is stabbing law enforcement officers – and the people they serve – in their backs," said Francis. Det. Francis points to the erosion of the enormous support of law enforcement officials and organizations enjoyed by President Bush in the 2004 election. "President Bush was endorsed by the nation's largest police organizations including the 350,000-member Fraternal Order of Police, the Police Benevolent Association and other law enforcement and security organizations and unions," said Michael Baker. "Now his popularity among cops has hit bottom because of his refusal to protect the U.S. from illegal aliens who cross our borders at will," he said. Ambassador Bolton told talk host Laura Ingraham that the U.S. has no obligation to the world court in this case. "It is ridiculous," he said. "The Vienna Convention on consular relations does not create rights personal to the individual. It's a state-to-state agreement." Lawmakers in Washington, D.C., who signed the treaty, did not believe they were creating a way for criminals on death row to "get around our judicial system," Bolton explained to Ingraham. "They haven't had enough due process? They've had the full panoply of constitutional protection, and now they're trying to create something else." The Bush Administration became involved in the Medellin case in 2003 when President Vicente Fox's government sued the U.S. over the consular issue in the U.N.'s world court. The court ruled in Mexico's favor in late 2004 and ordered the U.S. to reconsider the Mexican inmates' murder convictions and death sentences. In February 2005, Bush announced that while he disagreed with the decision, the U.S. would comply. He ordered courts in Texas and elsewhere to review the cases. The Supreme Court, which had agreed to hear Medellin's case, dismissed it in order to allow the case to play out in Texas. Then in November 2006, the all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals balked at the president's order, saying Bush had overstepped his authority. The Texas court ruled that the judicial branch – not the White House – should decide how to resolve the Mexican cases. It also said Medellin wasn't entitled to a new hearing because he failed to complain at his original trial about any violation of his consular rights and had therefore waived them. Then Medellin's defense attorney appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court, which announced last May it would hear the case. His lawyer, Donald Donovan of New York, argued that Bush was correct when he took action to comply with the world court's decision. Recently, for his achievements in both international arbitration and international human rights, Donovan was awarded the Premio Nacional de Jurisprudencia by the Mexican Bar Association, the first non-Mexican so honored. What the U.S. government wants in the Medellin murder case is "bizarrely grotesque," according to a statement by the chief counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. The warning from ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull notes that the case, being pursued by President Bush through the Department of Justice, could result in U.S. laws being subjugated to U.N. resolutions and rules to the point that local police officers will have to spend more time studying international law than catching criminals.
Looks suspiciously like a thread yesterday. Maybe this will get more than token response. Otherwise the answer is no.
Or we could get somebody to dismantle the federal Department of Education over a few years.
This is just so much legalistic mumbo-jumbo. FWIW, it boils down to this - Medellin commits the crime and later confesses to it. He’s convicted and sentenced to death. His lawyer comes up with this legal hocus-pocus to try to deflect the obvious . . . . . that his client is guilty and deserves to die.
However, just for fun, let’s pretend that he HAD been able to contact the Mexican Consul. Would the two teenagers he sodomized and murdered be alive? Would it change the fact that he confessed to committing the crimes and killing two innocent girls? The answer is “no”.
About the only part of this story that is correct is that the Texas Court of Appeals claimed that Bush had overstepped his authority no standing in the case (which, as President, he didn’t - it’s a State’s Rights issue).
Bush’s globalist viewpoints have done a disservice both to him AND to his admninistration. I have been a big Bush supporter, but Jorge’s policies on immigration and his determined position on helping to establish the NAU have put me off.
Bennett does have a nationally syndicated talk show, and Ron Paul may need some gainful employment in 2009.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.