Quote:
Originally Posted by quatrotritikali  The U.S. is NOT in breach of any intl. obligations in this matter. Anyone visiting the U.S. from abroad is protected by U.S. law...and also must abide by U.S. laws. However, foreign citizens are not protected by any intl. laws or UN or World Courts. The World Court/UN Court laws are reserved for those people charged with international crimes, such as genocide, mass murders, certain other war acts, etc. These "criminals" are then charged and brought up before the World Court to answer for their crimes against humanity.... |
You have zero clue about what you are talking about. The court has nothing to do with crimes against humanity. Its a court system put in place at the founding of the UN, to solve legal disputes between countries, legal disputes based on treaties and agreements made in the UN. You are thinking about the International Criminal Court.
The US has signed the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (in fact was one of its main backers), and it's in this that states that the US (and other countries) are required to inform the persons embassy about the persons arrest and charges. There is no if's or buts and the US has not pulled out of this part.
The only thing the US is not part off, as it pulled out of that part in 2005, is the part that states that the International Court of Justice has compulsory jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Convention. This has been a US tactic since the Reagan years, pulling out of any and all treaties that had methods to force the US to abide by said treaties. Basicly the US, from Reagan and now under Bush is trying to have its cake without gaining weight. But like it or not, the US and in this case Texas is in breach of the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations when they did not notify the Mexican Embassy of the arrests.
On top of that the US Supreme Court has ruled that evidence in a case, can not be thrown out due to not living up to this convention and that the US can only see rulings from the International Court of Justice as non binding, which is just fine. No one is disputing the rulings per say. At best they are disputing the death penalty, but that's another issue frankly which is long standing with most of the world and the US (Iran, Saudi Arabia and so). What the court has ruled is that the US is in breach of its obligations and that this breach could have had a negative impact on the out come of the trial and this should be put into consideration. And frankly they are right. Who knows what kind of lawyer they could have gotten if the Mexican embassy was notified about their arrests? We all know that the US court system is based on how good your lawyer is and how much money you have, not always about truth and justice. But that's not saying that they did not get a fair trial, just that protocol on the issue was not followed.
Quote:
|
Correct...the UN has no jurisdiction over Texas or any other state. The International Court was not used in this case. The American Justice System was used to try and convict these two men. Crimes they knew were illegal. Crimes carried out on U.S. soil and against U.S. citizens. If this had been Singapore...I doubt there would be any serious talk of the upcoming executions. Singapore is tough on crime and they don't play these games.
|
And its not been about the crimes. I have no doubt that these scumbags are guilty as hell (even with the so called Texan justice system), but it does not remove the fact that the US and Texas are in breach of a treaty they backed for 40 years as a cornerstone of international law.
Quote:
|
The illegal Mexicans had plenty of opportunity of reaching the Mexican Embassy before they were apprehended for their crimes. They should have sought protection before their arrests, not after the fact.
|
Again you have zero clue about what you are talking about. Your feelings are getting in the way of cold hard facts. And frankly the xenophobia of the US is clearly showing in this case.. and it has gotten worse and worse the last decade under Bush.