International Law -vs- National Soverignty? This issue is of particular import to Texas. World Court: U.S. Must Stay 3 Executions By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The United States must temporarily stay the execution of three Mexican citizens on death row in Texas and Oklahoma, the World Court ruled Wednesday. In a unanimous decision, the 15-judge panel said that the delay was needed while the U.N. court investigates in full whether the men — and 48 other Mexicans on death row in U.S. prisons — were given their right to legal help from the Mexican government. The World Court, officially known as the International Court of Justice, is the U.N.'s court for resolving disputes between nations. It has no power to enforce its decisions, and the United States has disregarded them in the past. It is the third World Court case in five years against the United States dealing with the death penalty. In a nearly identical high-profile case in 2001 it found that the United States had violated international law by not informing a German citizen of his right to consular assistance. Walter LaGrand was executed in Arizona despite an order to postpone his punishment until it had heard Germany's case. Reading the ruling Wednesday, 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. U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands Clifford Sobel said the Justice Department (news - web sites) was "studying the decision" and would comment as soon as possible. "It's important to note that this is not a ruling on the merits of the case," he said. It would be "premature" to say whether the United States will abide by the decision, Sobel said. Sandra Babcock, a lawyer for Mexico, said she expects America to comply because "these types of orders are binding on the United States." By ignoring the decision, she said, the United States would send the impression that it "didn't care about the rule of law." "Americans traveling abroad are more vulnerable than ever at this point in time, and if the United States disregards the order of the world's highest court on an issue that directly affects Americans abroad (consular assistance), I think that sets a very dangerous precedent." Court spokeswoman Laurence Blairon said the court could in theory complain to the U.N. security council — which can impose sanctions — if the ruling is not obeyed. Mexico's Ambassador to the Netherlands Santiago Onate said the decision was "a confirmation of international law." The men whose executions have temporarily been barred are Cesar Fierro, Roberto Ramos and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera. Fiero and Ramos have exhausted their U.S. appeals and their dates of execution are to be scheduled soon. Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Miller said the ruling will have no effect on Aguilera. She said that Aguilera is not close to execution because his federal appeals are not final. Fierro and Ramos are imprisoned in Texas, and Aguilera is in Oklahoma. Of the three convicted men, Fierro's case is the best-known. He was 22 years old when he was convicted of the Feb. 27, 1979 shooting death of an El Paso taxi driver, Nicolas Castanon. Despite a ruling in a Texas appeals court that his confession was probably coerced, he was not granted a retrial. Ramos, 48, was sentenced to death for the Feb. 7, 1992 killing of his wife Leticia and his two youngest children, Abigail, 7, and Jonathan, 3, with a hammer. Aguilera was convicted for the July 12, 1993, slayings of Francisco Morales and Maria Yanez during a burglary in Oklahoma City. Mexico, which opposes the death penalty, filed its suit against the United States last month. While it asked the court to stay the execution of all 51 Mexicans on death row, the court said a stay was needed for only the three most urgent cases for now. The court was expected to set a date Thursday for hearings to consider whether the prisoners' rights were indeed violated under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Rights. When the suit was filed last month, the United States argued that granting Mexico's request for a stay of all executions would be an unwarranted intrusion on the U.S. criminal justice system and U.S. sovereignty. Elihu Lauterpacht, a lawyer for the United States, labeled the Mexican case a publicity stunt, and said that an order to stay executions in state prisons might be unenforceable for the U.S. federal government. The Mexicans on death row in the United States are imprisoned in California, Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon.
i think you know how i feel about this...i'm not a supporter of the death penalty at all...but for a world court to attempt to take authority over a US court scares the crappers out of me. did i have any say in the formation of this world court? do these world court judges/magistrates have any accountability to american citizens in the least? the answer to both of those is obviously no...and that's not self-government.
Ah, yes. The court that has no elected officials serving on it, and representatives from countries that have no form of democratic government at all. Well, I guess since we asked if we could abdicate our sovereignty in favor of an unelected group of bureacrats with an anti-American bias to rule instead... But wait - we didn't ask for that, did we? Sorry, I'll go with whatever the Supreme Court says.
Wear the other shoe... If Fierro was a US citizen and was scheduled to be put to death in Mexico even after a Mexican ruling that his confession might have been coerced and contact with US officials had been denied throughout the process, would you have a little more sympathy for the World Court's ruling? As the US Ambassador said, it's not a ruling on the merits of the case, but on the process. A technicality if you will, but I think it's wise to delay justice to ensure that both countries are satisfied with the process. These are certainly not the last Mexican nationals who will be in this situation. The last passage is puzzling, as I'm not sure how this qualifies as a publicity stunt for Mexico.
Excellent post, rimrocker. This court ruling will have no effect on the cases in question; hopefully what comes out of this is a realization that foreign nationals arrested in the U.S. must be advised of their right to consular assistance, much like our right to an attorney's presence at questioning. If I ended up in a [country X] jail, I'd sure as hell want the same thing.
the world court is ordering a stay of an american criminal proceeding. ain't no wearing the other shoe about it. it comes down to a question of sovereignty on an issue like that. the us may choose..and probably should choose..to make it mandatory that consular representation is available...but US judges and juries are factfinders in US courts...if the prosecution can't prove that up, then they lose. but to have a court from outside of the us attempt to stay us court proceedings is an entirely different matter.
Well, I don't know much about the history of the World Court. But, as I understand it, it is a part of the UN, a body that was created primarily under the direction of our own elected government. And then, through implicit and explicit promises, we gave that body some measure of authority over us through acts of the presidency and the Congress. It seems to me that is self-government and that you -- or voters like you -- did have a say in the formation of this world court embodied in their elected representatives.
wait..hold up..we never ceded power to the UN..we agreed to participate in its discussions and pay dues and all that...but we didn't cede power to the UN to control any of the three branches of government. these guys are in no way accountable...in no way is this self-government...not even by a stretch of the imagination. the constitution is the supreme law of the land...that's precedent for well over 200 years now. in fact..there's constitutional law authority that says that congress may not entirely delegate its lawmaking power. it has never come up within the context of the judicial branch before, but you see how it is even more vital in that realm.
MadMax is right on. How the hell is the World Court accountable to American voters? It's undemocratic and if you think the World Court isn't going to start playing politics and doing some power- grabbing then you're crazy.
Mexico doesn't have a death penalty and that's really why it's asking for a stay of execution for 51 people. It's definitely a publicity stunt. With all the corrupt police and governments around the world I'd think a World Court would have more important things to do than to become involved with the US.
Whhhhhrrrrrrrrrrrrr Black helicopters on the horizon... The World Court "order" is more like a suggestion. Sovreignty is not affected here. Mexico is saying, "Hey, let's look at this process." The World Court is saying "Hey , let's look at this process." My guess is the only reason we're here is because Mexico couldn't find satisfaction through normal diplomatic channels and this is the last resort, though probably an ineffectual one. Seems like we're in a position to be magnanimous and listen to what Mexico has to say. We probably don't do anything with these guys, but maybe the process can be better in the future. From the story: "The World Court, officially known as the International Court of Justice, is the U.N.'s court for resolving disputes between nations. It has no power to enforce its decisions, and the United States has disregarded them in the past. It is the third World Court case in five years against the United States dealing with the death penalty. In a nearly identical high-profile case in 2001 it found that the United States had violated international law by not informing a German citizen of his right to consular assistance. Walter LaGrand was executed in Arizona despite an order to postpone his punishment until it had heard Germany's case. "
Talk about paranoia. "Look out, it's the World Court!!! They're going to dismantle our Constitution with their suggestions." Somewhere, deep in the wilderness of Michigan, is our last hope to stop the sinister One World Govt. that the World Court seeks to create. "Who are these freedom fighters," you ask. Well, they are none other than the Michigan Militia (que "Born in the USA"). That's right, when those pinko commies of the World Court come knocking on your door with their "suggestions," have no fear for the Michigan Militia is here!!!
This is BS. Out of the 3 there is ONE case where the confession is an issue. So we're going to stay ALL of them? WTF???!!!! Ramos didn't have an issue with his confession or anything else...he killed his wife and 2 small kids WITH A HAMMER!!!!! For a case like that...I'd yank the switch myself if they'd let me.
Who said anything about ceding power? That'd be just plain stupid. The United Nations is a sort of bully pulpit. They aren't empowered to do a lot, but they can do a lot of talking and make countries look bad. This is what we built the UN to do. That is what the World Court is doing right now: saying, "You agreed to abide by these rules and, in our opinion, you did not abide by the rules in these cases." They can't stop us, but they can remind us of the promises we've made. In this case, the US did promise that foreign nationals would be informed that they would be allowed to have consular assistance. We didn't abide by that promise and the World Court is calling us out for it.
RIght...but the Iraqis have obviously been greatly consulted on the US policies regarding them, right? Or the Afhgans..or whatever...I was going to point out ( sarcastically) that the only international opinions that matter to the US are those which they agree with, but I was pre-empted by someone saying it in earnest...
So when you and others were citing the human rights violations of the Taliban, etc. as a reason why we should..er..intervene, where was that sovereignty? Comes and goes, this sovereignty thing, I suppose...
There is a HUGE difference between convicted criminals on death row and a nation that has terrorist training camps operating all over the place. Sorry you can't see it.
excuse me...are you aware of the world's criminal court? are you aware of the concerns about american infantrymen being prosecuted by that body at the expense of due process? world courts are jokes...
