Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
First, I would never find myself in Iran. It's just not on my list of vacation hot spots. Second, just about everything is a capital offense in Iran. Third, there is no U.S. embassy in Iran and there hasn't been since November 4, 1979. That was the day Iran declared war on the U.S. by violating the sovereignty of our diplomatic compound.
Now, that being said... this dirtbag got a fair trial. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
You both can't be on the side that's against everyone else !
i think the argument is...what if say, you're a contractor over there and you get kidnapped and they chop off your head off and try to equate not following the world court order by making up a bogus offense to hold against you and the u.s. was not allowed to intervene to ensure justice on your behalf.
sometimes it only seems like people disagree when really it's just a matter of clarity...
Damn it Glori, you're taking all the fun out my my mini-rant! LOL
sorry, man!
i think the argument is...what if say, you're a contractor over there and you get kidnapped and they chop off your head off and try to equate not following the world court order, and they charge you by making up a bogus offense to hold against you and the u.s. was not allowed to intervene to ensure justice on your behalf.
You might feel differently if you found yourself in Iran guilty of a capital crime and were not allowed to consult the American Embassy.
Since when do we need permission to intervene ?
You might feel differently if you found yourself in Iran guilty of a capital crime and were not allowed to consult the American Embassy.
as if!
No one is relinquishing to the world court. The world court was simply stating that the Mexican government should be satisfied that their citizen got what he was entitled to under the law. How is that a bad thing...especially when it comes to an irreversible death penalty?
where does it say he was not allowed proper counsel? his objecting as a matter of procedure was then denied by another matter of procedure.
Wrong, the World Court told us NOT to carry out the Sentence and to turn him over to Mexico, where he would not be executed and probably would have been set free. You may want to check your facts.
Sir, please, can you provide some sort of evidence to this? "Turning them over to Mexico" is nowhere on the resolution or press release from the ICJ, or anywhere else. The order is only to review the sentences in accordance with a treaty the US signed (with the inmates being provided access to the services of their national consulate). You're either mistaken, or making a complete fabrication.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/139/14637.pdf?PHPSESSID=39cdd63a2169a8c75c02f57dcf6db222
JURIST - Paper Chase: Texas governor: state not bound by ICJ ruling on execution of Mexican citizens
The International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that the United States had violated the rights of the prisoners, in part because officials and prosecutors failed to notify their home country, from which the men could have received legal and other assistance. Those judges ordered the United States to provide "review and reconsideration" of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican prisoners.
The world court again last month ordered the United States to do everything within its authority to stop Medellin's execution until his case could be further reviewed.
Based in The Hague, Netherlands, the International Court of Justice resolves disputes between nations over treaty obligations. The United States is a signatory to the 1963 Vienna Convention, which lays out rights of people detained in other nations. The appeal the Supreme Court ruled on in March turned on what role each branch of government plays to give force to international treaty obligations.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a 6-3 majority that the international court's judgments cannot be forced upon individual states. The president also cannot "establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law," he said, and the treaty itself does not specifically require states to remedy any treaty violations.
The chief justice added that the international court "is not domestic law," thereby restricting the president's power over states. "The executive's narrow and strictly limited authority to settle international claims disputes pursuant to an executive agreement cannot stretch so far as to support the current presidential memorandum" that would force Texas to conduct a new state trial, he wrote.
So Bush requested Texas to turn him over to Mexico along with the other prisoners just because?
And he received a fair trial at which he nor his counsel EVER asked for the Mexican Consulate to be involved. They waited till he was sentenced and then cried crocodile tears about how they were somehow cheated. A Lawyer trick that just didn't pan out.
But no problem, we can give them his body, perhaps they will pay to bury him?
Uh, I haven't heard of Bush actually requesting that. If he did, then yeah, it was just because, the ICJ has said nothing about turning anyone over to anyone.
It makes little difference. It's like saying an appeal to higher court is a lawyer trick that doesn't pan out. If a legal team finds an alternative, they're bound to go for it. This case really doesn't matter, the guy would've almost certainly been found guilty again, either way, and died, and nobody would've cared, cuz he was a crazy criminal. But there are many more cases involved as well, and the point is that the foreign legal council has to be stressed, simply because that's what the Vienna Convention, of which the US is a signatory (it freely joined and ratified it, and makes the government therefore constitutionally obligated to abide by), stipulates.
Doesn't really matter anymore. The guy's dead, everyone is probably better off. Again, it's a matter of precedent.
Well, except, I would like my country to care if I got a fair trial in another country.
Why in hell should our country allow the world court to tell us what to do with a person who came to our country and broke our laws and killed our people? In another country if you did that you would be dead the next day.
