New problem for Americans abroad...

[Bullypulpit]

After accepting a judgement from the World Court on the application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Bush administration reversed its stance.

The World Court ruled that some 50 Mexicans on death-row should recieve new trials as they had not been provided consular access under the Convention, which the US is signatory to and has used successfully by the US in several cases over the years.

In reversing its acceptance of the World Court's decision and withdraw from the Convention, the Administration has, yet again, endangered US citizens overseas. Any US citizen arrested in a foreign country can be denied consular aid and access. This decision follows after the Administration's decision to deny prisoners captured in Afghanistan protection under the Geneva Conventions, thus endangering US troops who might be captured in the current, or any future, conflict.

For more on the issue goto:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/leavitt/20050314.html

 

[manu1959]

After accepting a judgement from the World Court on the application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Bush administration reversed its stance.

The World Court ruled that some 50 Mexicans on death-row should recieve new trials as they had not been provided consular access under the Convention, which the US is signatory to and has used successfully by the US in several cases over the years.

In reversing its acceptance of the World Court's decision and withdraw from the Convention, the Administration has, yet again, endangered US citizens overseas. Any US citizen arrested in a foreign country can be denied consular aid and access. This decision follows after the Administration's decision to deny prisoners captured in Afghanistan protection under the Geneva Conventions, thus endangering US troops who might be captured in the current, or any future, conflict.

For more on the issue goto:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/leavitt/20050314.html

yes that poor boy in thialand that spit gum on the sidewalk was well treated as were all the people that have been beheaded ..... you are so right .... release all the gitmo detainees ..... pull out of iraq and afganistan and appologize to everyone .... all will be forgiven and then we will have a group hug ..... say ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Bullypulpit]

yes that poor boy in thialand that spit gum on the sidewalk was well treated as were all the people that have been beheaded ..... you are so right .... release all the gitmo detainees ..... pull out of iraq and afganistan and appologize to everyone .... all will be forgiven and then we will have a group hug ..... say ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Unable to discuss the issue...he resorts to inanities and adolescent humor. How sad.

 

[freeandfun1]

yes that poor boy in thialand that spit gum on the sidewalk was well treated as were all the people that have been beheaded ..... you are so right .... release all the gitmo detainees ..... pull out of iraq and afganistan and appologize to everyone .... all will be forgiven and then we will have a group hug ..... say ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I think you are referring to the kid in Singapore that vandalized many cars, etc. and had to take a canning to the butt. He deserved it. As did the other two Singaporean males that were caned more severely than he was. He was given fewer swats because of US pressure. I say, when in Rome.... If you break local laws, you should be subject to local prosecution. Period. If you are not willing to take that risk, then don't travel to countries you are worried will treat American unfairly. Easy nuff.

Bully is once again trying to make something outta NOTHING.

 

[manu1959]

I think you are referring to the kid in Singapore that vandalized many cars, etc. and had to take a canning to the butt. He deserved it. As did the other two Singaporean males that were caned more severely than he was. He was given fewer swats because of US pressure. I say, when in Rome.... If you break local laws, you should be subject to local prosecution. Period. If you are not willing to take that risk, then don't travel to countries you are worried will treat American unfairly. Easy nuff.

Bully is once again trying to make something outta NOTHING.

the kid was the son of a Fed X higher up that did not know that he should have put his son on a plane out of there.....the german and french fathers got their kids out asap.....

 

[theim]

screw the World Court. Maybe the Europeans are perfectly happy to ive away their sovereignty, but the day that International Law actually has bearing in the US will be a dark day indeed.

 

[insein]

im lost i thought this was a bully thread but it didnt have an abnormally large header centered over a pile of garbage.

 

[CSM]

What everyone seems to forget is that US law is based on the US constitution. The fact that several Supreme Court Justices cite international and foriegn countries' law as a basis for their decisions should make US citizens sit up and take notice. Not only are our citizen's individual rights slowly being eroded but slowly and surely our nation's soveriegnty is being eroded as well.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I think what pisses y'all off is that, unlike the administration, some members of the SCOTUS recognize that America does not exist in a vaccum, and must make efforts to fall into step with the rest of the world on legal issues, and not just when it is convenient for the US and its interests to do so. Isolationism is a bad policy at any time, but especially now, given the international nature of the threats we face together with the rest of the world.

It is also important to note that the US designed the protocol in 1963, and successfully applied it in suing Iran over the taking of US hostages in 1979. I would suggest y'all follow the link I posted and actually read the article there.

 

[Bullypulpit]

im lost i thought this was a bully thread but it didnt have an abnormally large header centered over a pile of garbage.

Yet again, you fall back on the lowest common denominator...Insults and excreta...in a vain attempt to disguise your inability to converse, rationally, on the subject.

 

[CSM]

I think what pisses y'all off is that, unlike the administration, some members of the SCOTUS recognize that America does not exist in a vaccum, and must make efforts to fall into step with the rest of the world on legal issues, and not just when it is convenient for the US and its interests to do so. Isolationism is a bad policy at any time, but especially now, given the international nature of the threats we face together with the rest of the world.

It is also important to note that the US designed the protocol in 1963, and successfully applied it in suing Iran over the taking of US hostages in 1979. I would suggest y'all follow the link I posted and actually read the article there.

I did read it. I always follow your links, Bully. Recognizing the US does not exist in a vacuum is NOT the Supreme Court's charter...the Supreme Court is supposed to adjudicate Federal law based on the Constitution of the United States. Some liberal commentator stating otherwise doesn't change the fact.

 

[theim]

Well Bully got something right for a change. You are of course 100% correct when you say that efforts by some judges to make American law "fall in step" with the rest of the world pisses me off. This is because American law is just that, American law. And nobody fought and died during the American Revolution, WWII, etc. so that Americans in the future could kowtow to the wimsies of some buearocratic (god damn I can never spell that word) paper-pusher sitting in Brussels.

 

[Merlin1047]

I think what pisses y'all off is that, unlike the administration, some members of the SCOTUS recognize that America does not exist in a vaccum, and must make efforts to fall into step with the rest of the world on legal issues, and not just when it is convenient for the US and its interests to do so. Isolationism is a bad policy at any time, but especially now, given the international nature of the threats we face together with the rest of the world.

Nah. It doesn't bother me because I can recognize when you're trolling.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I think what pisses y'all off is that, unlike the administration, some members of the SCOTUS recognize that America does not exist in a vaccum, and must make efforts to fall into step with the rest of the world on legal issues, and not just when it is convenient for the US and its interests to do so. Isolationism is a bad policy at any time, but especially now, given the international nature of the threats we face together with the rest of the world.

It is also important to note that the US designed the protocol in 1963, and successfully applied it in suing Iran over the taking of US hostages in 1979. I would suggest y'all follow the link I posted and actually read the article there.

care to explain to me why our legal system should conform to those like france, saudi arabia, or china because I fail to see how thats being isolationist when we already do international commerce with them.

 

[freeandfun1]

the kid was the son of a Fed X higher up that did not know that he should have put his son on a plane out of there.....the german and french fathers got their kids out asap.....

I was there (in Singapore) when the kid got canned. Again, the Singaporean kids had to take the punishment and therefore, he should too (and did). I say good for the father for making the kid face the consequences of his actions.

 

[Annie]

very unusual anymore for the Trib:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...y?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true

World Court and domestic law

March 15, 2005

In 1969, the United States ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights, which requires that foreign nationals who are arrested have the right to consult with consular officials from their country. Fair enough: Foreigners in the U.S. have that right, and so do Americans abroad.

A protocol to that convention provided a means of enforcement: It allowed the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, to hear complaints against countries that did not comply with the convention.

The convention was ratified by 166 countries--but only 30 percent ratified the protocol, and for good reason. Most countries are not willing to let an international court dictate or interfere in their domestic legal affairs. The U.S. was one of the few nations that signed the protocol. It tried to use those rules in 1979 to win the release of the 52 American hostages in Iran.

On March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed the United Nations that the U.S. is withdrawing from the protocol. That was a decision long overdue.

Last year, the World Court ordered the U.S. to review the cases of 51 Mexican nationals on Death Row in six states who allegedly did not get the chance to speak with consular officials at the time of their arrests.

The order for a review does not seek to set those men free but directs the U.S. courts to revisit their cases to determine if the lack of access to consular officials made any material difference in their trials. Because the U.S. was a signatory to the protocol, on Feb. 28 Bush ordered the six states in question to conduct the reviews.

About two weeks later came Rice's announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from the protocol. The World Court decision regarding the Mexican nationals no doubt prompted the U.S. to review the implications of the protocol and what role international courts should have on the domestic judiciary. In effect, the administration has said, we will live by our obligation, but we are no longer comfortable with that obligation.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 28 in the case of Jose Medellin, one of the 51 Mexicans on Death Row. He is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce the World Court decision concerning his lack of access to consular officials.

Most legal scholars seriously doubt the Supreme Court will subordinate the U.S. legal system to orders of the World Court, particularly now that the protocol has been rescinded.

But since the U.S. is still a party to the Vienna Convention, the principle of consular consultation is likely to be recognized and incorporated into domestic law. Domestic law enforcement officials will have to follow the principle of consular consultation, but disputes will be settled in American courts rather than international courts.

Texas, which holds 15 of the 51 Mexicans on Death Row, has contested the president's right to order states to review these cases and the authority of international tribunals to tell states what to do.

There are some grounds for questioning whether the president overstepped his authority in this case, but not the applicability of the principles of the Vienna Convention. The U.S. Constitution says that the judges in every state are bound by treaties made by the United States.

The Bush administration has made a careful and proper distinction here. It has not voided the Vienna Convention--foreign nationals here and Americans abroad still have the right to see their consuls. It has, though, clarified another important principle: Any violations of the Vienna Convention in the U.S. ought to be settled by American, rather than international, courts.

 

[no1tovote4]

After accepting a judgement from the World Court on the application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Bush administration reversed its stance.

The World Court ruled that some 50 Mexicans on death-row should recieve new trials as they had not been provided consular access under the Convention, which the US is signatory to and has used successfully by the US in several cases over the years.

In reversing its acceptance of the World Court's decision and withdraw from the Convention, the Administration has, yet again, endangered US citizens overseas. Any US citizen arrested in a foreign country can be denied consular aid and access. This decision follows after the Administration's decision to deny prisoners captured in Afghanistan protection under the Geneva Conventions, thus endangering US troops who might be captured in the current, or any future, conflict.

For more on the issue goto:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/leavitt/20050314.html

I would be more worried about this if other countries actually followed this on a regular basis without pressure being necessary, but they do not. Even without the agreement we can apply the same pressure necessary to get this done for our citizens and also continue providing this access for foreign prisoners.

Often Americans are arrested and treated to trials with no consular access in other countries. However, just because the world court ruled this way does not mean that it happened that way. Did the US deny these people Consular access or was it an unfair verdict from a court that has no power made because of political ideation rather than any actual evidence?

 

[Yurt]

"provides respected and significant confirmation" of the Court's own findings, and noted also that the decision would put an end to the U.S.'s international isolation on this issue.

Bully, how are we isolated? If so, how many countries are we isolated from? India? Japan? Russia? Etc.. Further, what is your definition of isolation?

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration had taken a position very different than that of the Supreme Court --thus putting the two on a possible collision course. Rather than listening to international opinion, it ignores it. Rather than taking foreign and international law as relevant, it dismisses them.

I do not think the Bush administration "dismisses" international opinion. There are allies we listen too and non allies we don't. Can you imagine why?

As I will explain, this attitude of the Executive Branch puts U.S. citizens at great risk - for if our country refuses to heed international or foreign law, other countries will not feel compelled to adhere to it when it is our citizens they have in custody.

Would like to see examples of this. For as you know, many countries already do not adhere to it, however, according to you we are "isolated?"

 

[OCA]

Unable to discuss the issue...he resorts to inanities and adolescent humor. How sad.

Kettle meet pot.