Skip to comments.Bush Sides With Mexican Killers Against U.S.
Posted on 06/12/2007 6:01:28 PM PDT by Mike Bates
The State Department's top legal adviser told international lawyers on June 6 that President Bush is so committed to the primacy of international law that he has taken his home state of Texas to court on behalf of a group of Mexican killers. The Mexicans had been sentenced to death for murdering U.S. citizens, including young children.
John B. Bellinger III, legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, cited the case, Mexico v. United States of America, in trying to convince the attorneys that the administration is doing what it can to enforce international law in U.S. courts.
In the case, Bush has come down on the same side as the U.N.'s International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled 14-1 on behalf of Mexico against the U.S. The ICJ was headed at the time by a judge from communist China, who also ruled against the U.S.
Bellinger's audience was gathered at The Hague, a city in the Netherlands which is home to over 100 international organizations, including the U.N.'s International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
Sworn in as the Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State on April 8, 2005, Bellinger is described by the State Department as "the principal adviser on all domestic and international law matters to the Department of State, the Foreign Service, and the diplomatic and consular posts abroad."
The Bellinger speech, designed to convince the pro-U.N. globalists in attendance that Bush is really on their side, should have been big news. Not only did he praise Bush for coming down on the side of foreign killers of Americans, in a major court case with international implications, but he demonstrated how far the administration is prepared to go to impress the "international community."
In a major disclosure, Bellinger said. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
President Bush is passionate about this amnesty legislation more than anything he’s ever supported. It’s obvious that the Mexican oligarchy is prepared to reward him handsomely upon the passing of this bill. Notice how focused Bush is when speaking about his shamnesty bill; he doesn’t stammer, stutter or hem and haw. Clinton may have sold the masses on NAFTA, but Bush will NEVER sell the country on this shamnesty bill and the death of our country that goes with it! Not to mention the death of the Republican Party!
El President de Mexico Jorge Bush!
“..this illegal immigration crappola will be President Bushs undoing.”
He is already undone. How much more damage can this man cause the nation? I am aghast how a POTUS could be the undoing of the country. I had always expected some flaming liberal to betray this country.
Beat me to it.
....LOL.....funny how when Bush was elected he was a Texan, and now he is something else.....he is a Texan thru and thru....you have to keep him now......haha....none of our rotten senators from Calif are native but we have to claim the morons.....
He is doing it and the only agenda here is Bush’s. And it’s not your welfare, and it’s not protecting US sovereignty.
State’s rights? Same place as your’s....in the toilet.
“This President is on drugs.”
And so are the congressmen who support him on this immigration bill.
Base? We don need no steenking base!
The Bushes and the Clintons share the same passions...so to speak.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Impeach the ($(*$&(. Why wait for the Demo’s to call for it.
"To put it simply," Bellinger said, "our critics sometimes paint the United States as a country willing to duck or shrug off international obligations when they prove constraining or inconvenient. That picture is wrong. The United States does believe that international law matters. We help develop it, rely on it, abide by it, and--contrary to some impressions--it has an important role in our nation's Constitution and domestic law."
"Our Constitution does not prescribe isolationism. To the contrary, it promotes our active participation in the development and enforcement of international law."
Where the f does this gd communist get off saying that our Constitution has anything at all to do with international law?? This is vulgar and perverse. State was supposed to be reformed by Condi - remember? - but she couldn't have been a bigger disappointment, just as Bush is turning out to be a huge (and worsennig) disappointment.Has everyone in this administration gone nuts?
He's back on the crack pipe. That's the only thing that can explain it.
Sorry, Mr. Jeeves, I’ve been listening and wishing and hoping all through the Bush president, hearing what a masterful hand of poker he plays, how he’s so completely underestimated, and just you see, right around the corner, he’s gonna, he’s gonna, he’s gonna... but he never does.
It’s always just the same old loose wagon train of ill gotten liberal baggage, shoddy organization and a deaf hear to the folks who are really pulling for him.
You know, he’s got a year or so of uncontested Heroism at his disposal, if he wanted to take it. Let the RATS have congress, let the judges give law school degrees to Guantanamo combatants, all George would have to do would be to ride down to the border, on a white house, literally, and daily supervise the wall — and shoot back if he’s fired upon — and his fame and heroism would last a thousand years.
But he’s a dweeb. He’s the character that played him in 2001 on Saturday Night Live. He’s on ecstasy and all his liberal friends love him and life is just one posh titillation after another and as for the rest of us, shucks, we can go suck ethanol.
And he lets 2 Border Patrol guards, 2 men who loyally did their duty defending America, rot in a dangerous prison for the next 12-13 years. He put those men in hell, which is a deeper and more sinister act than whooping it up with the boys back at the ranch on X.
If I remember correctly, Mexico claims that 51 Mexican nationals were denied their right to speak to the Mexican consulate when they were arrested. Bush wants the states to review each of their trials, convictions, etc.
Here is Bush's statement from February of 2005 regarding this.
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 28, 2005
Memorandum for the Attorney General
SUBJECT: Compliance with the Decision of the International Court of Justice in Avena
The United States is a party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (the "Convention") and the Convention's Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol), which gives the International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction to decide disputes concerning the "interpretation and application" of the Convention.
I have determined, pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, that the United States will discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Avena), 2004 ICJ 128 (Mar. 31), by having State courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.
GEORGE W. BUSH
"Compliance serves to protect the interests of United States citizens abroad, promotes the effective conduct of foreign relations, and underscores the United States commitment in the international community to the rule of law....Consular assistance is a vital safeguard for Americans abroad, and the government has determined that, unless the United States fulfills its international obligation to achieve compliance with the ICJ Avena decision, its ability to secure such assistance could be adversely affected."
Having been an American that lived abroad for over 5 years, seems pretty important.
Will never forget on election night in 2006 when Tony Snow came out and said something about now the President can work on an immigration bill with the Dems and I was furious. Dont think I have calmed down since then.Did he give up seats on purpose, just to get more RATS on his side to help him with his pet immigration project? Did he old on to Rummy until after the election and then fire him... when it's clear that firing him first would have saved some seat. It's clear Bush doesn't care about Party or Sovereignty, and definitely not popularity. I think it's possible that he's a selfish defeatists. He looks at the trends, doens't think there's any way to buck them, so then runs out in front, the leader of the invasion of America in the 21st Jorge W Bush. It might be just what he wants, taking the longer picture, which presidents do. How will I look in 50 year? I'm the one that brought us all together.
I hate to defend Bush on this, but this is what happens when America signs treaties we follow but other nations don’t.
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.