US Supreme Court - is it Bound by the World Court?

[lawrocket 3]

The US Supreme Court granted cert in Medellin v. Dretke. That's one of the Texas cases where a foreign consul was not informed of the arrest of a foreign national who was subsequently convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. This violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty that the US advocated and ratified over 30 years ago.

Turns out that the World Court ordered the US to review the prosecution and sentencing of over 50 Mexican Nationals last year. During the time before this, all the courts were trying to figure out what do do if this situation happened.

While GWB had all along stated that the World Court has no authority to bind the conduct of criminal prosecutions in the US, last month Bush stated that he would have the stae courts give binding effect on their prosecutions, but would not recognize any further World Court decisions.

So this may make the case unripe before the US Supremes. In fact, Medellin's lawyer asked that the Supremes pull the case from their docket.

Now the Supreme Court doesn't know what to do. Dismiss the case? Say "come back next year." But others on the Court seem to think that they want to decide whether a treaty can bind the US SUpreme court's decisions, since the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land."

Personally, I think the majority of the Court, as it is made up today, is dying to rule that treaties cannot tell it to do its job, but are precluded from doing so.

So, does anyone here think that the World Court has any business ordering US courts to do things?

p.s. - fucking brilliant move by GWB in attempting to deal with this potentially huge Constitutional issue politically.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

So, does anyone here think that the World Court has any business ordering US courts to do things?

I think that If that's what the treaty says, and that's what was intended, then yes.

From the limited bit that I understand, not only are both cases "yes", but that language was put into the treaty at the insistence of the US.

GWB's comments are interesting. While insisting that the treaty doesn't bind US courts, he also insists that the treaty DOES bind foreign courts in their treatment of Americans.

He can't have it both ways. The US should proceed carefully. Americans should expect the exact same rights under the treaty as the US system gives Mexicans.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[lawrocket 3]

I understand your point, but does not this problem implicate a couple of things that I pointed out:

1) It conflicts with the Supremacy Clause (can't do that); and

2) It conflicts with Separation of Powers (IMHO, it does not)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,131]

>So, does anyone here think that the World Court has any business
>ordering US courts to do things?

I think that we will decide how much business the World Court has in our own affairs. I don't think they have an inherent right to supersede the US supreme court. If we think a worldwide rule of law is worthwhile, then we should support it, even if it will occasionally annoy us. If not, that's fine too - but then we don't have a leg to stand on when we call on it to take action against _other_ countries.

[AndyMan 7]

For once, I'll admit that I am completely ill-equipted to answer the fine points of how to prioritize that clause. Clearly, the writers intended to give treaties high importance.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

That said, my answer is purely pragmatic. Either accept the treaty as agreed to or withdraw and suffer the consequences.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[wmw999 2,600]

What he said, only in a higher-pitched voice.

Just because you support something doesn't mean you agree with every piece of it, or even feel bound by it. But supporting it is better than having nothing.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[narcimund 0]

Quote

He can't have it both ways.

Oddly, that's exactly what he CAN have. It's convenient being emperor.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[lawrocket 3]

Hot damn. It DOES say "and all treaties." Shit, that's what I get for not looking it up.

Touchee...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Hot damn. It DOES say "and all treaties." Shit, that's what I get for not looking it up.

Touchee...

well, that SHOULD end that.

but it won't.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Hot damn. It DOES say "and all treaties." Shit, that's what I get for not looking it up.

Touchee...

That's the argument we made a few weeks back over the Treaty with Tripoli, and it's statement that the USA is not founded on Christian principles.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/cornyn200503280734.asp

Mr. John Cornyn says it better than I could have.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rasmack 0]

Quote

...This violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty that the US advocated and ratified over 30 years ago.

Ratifying a treaty would normally mean to put into law that it should be adherred to, so the only potential problem is if the two courts have different opinions on whether or not a particular case constitues a violation. Should this be the case, it cannot be so that a US court can rule on a matter between nations. This would be clearly absurd as the supreme court af the other nation would have the same right to an opinion.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[78RATS 0]

I will say whoever drafted the part of that treaty that allows citizens of Mexico to come to America and commit capital murder(s), and then avoid the prospect of capital punishment by fleeing back to Mexico should stop smoking crack.

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[billvon 3,131]

> I will say whoever drafted the part of that treaty that allows citizens of
> Mexico to come to America and commit capital murder(s), and then avoid
>the prospect of capital punishment by fleeing back to Mexico should stop
>smoking crack.

Watch out! If you do that, next thing you know the Iraqis will want the civilian torturers from the US brought back to Iraq for prosecution. That's one of the problems of doing anything globally - set a standard, and next thing you know people hold you to it.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Well it would certainly send a message to the troops.

[78RATS 0]

Quote

civilian torturers from the US

not the frat pranks. What torture do you mean? and what is the penalty under IRAQ law (if there is such a thing)

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

civilian torturers from the US

not the frat pranks. What torture do you mean? and what is the penalty under IRAQ law (if there is such a thing)

probably the one about putting the prisoners in air conditioning, I hear you can really get dry skin from that.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

civilian torturers from the US

not the frat pranks. What torture do you mean? and what is the penalty under IRAQ law (if there is such a thing)

probably the one about putting the prisoners in air conditioning, I hear you can really get dry skin from that.

...or serving them tap water instead of bottled Evian...

[livendive 8]

Quote

What torture do you mean? and what is the penalty under IRAQ law (if there is such a thing)

However they define torture and whatever penalty they deem fit. It's their country, they get to set the laws.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lummy 4]

Quote

It's their country, they get to set the laws.

they can't even form a government, none the less a constitution. You want them to make laws too?

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[billvon 3,131]

>What torture do you mean?

Hypothermia, being chained to the floor, being raped with a broomstick, being held under water, stuff like that. All defended by the civilians who helped do them.

"At the hearing, Kennedy pointed out that Gonzales had attended meetings with Justice Department officials where methods of torture were discussed -- including "water boarding," where a suspect is strapped to a board, turned upside down, and immersed in a wet towel to simulate the feeling of drowning." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/07/MNG41AMQ8R1.DTL&type=printable


"the army report offered accounts of gruesome abuse that included the sexual assault of an Iraqi detainee with a chemical light stick or broomstick." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/02/1083436475631.html?oneclick=true

-------------------------------------

From The Globe:

Bill Tierney . . . had just returned from eight months working as an interrogator for US forces in Baghdad, and had come to talk, on the record, about torture.

''The Brits came up with an expression – wog,'' Tierney said. ''That stands for Wily Oriental Gentleman. There's a lot of wiliness in that part of the world.''. . .

After explaining his various psychological tactics to the audience, interrogator Bill Tierney (a private contractor working with the Army) said, ''I tried to be nuanced and culturally aware. But the suspects didn't break.''

Suddenly Tierney's temper rose. ''They did not break!'' he shouted. ''I'm here to win. I'm here so our civilization beats theirs! Now what are you willing to do to win?'' he asked, pointing to a woman in the front row. ''You are the interrogators, you are the ones who have to get the information from the Iraqis. What do you do? That word 'torture'. You immediately think, 'That's not me.' But are we litigating this war or fighting it?'' . . .

Asked about Abu Ghraib, Tierney said that for an interrogator, ''sadism is always right over the hill. You have to admit it. Don't fool yourself – there is a part of you that will say, 'This is fun.' ''

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/13/spy_world?mode=PF

----------------------------

Ironic side note - Tierney is in the news again:

The legal battle over the life of Terri Schiavo may have ended, but a thick, fervent crowd remains in the makeshift encampment outside the Woodside Hospice House here . . .

No, we're not going to go home," said Bill Tierney, a young daughter at his side. "Terri is not dead until she's dead" . . .

Mr. Tierney, a former military intelligence officer in Iraq who works as a translator and investigator for private companies, cried as he talked about watching the Schiavo spectacle on television and feeling the utter need to be at the hospice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/national/28cnd-schiavo.html?

Quite a compassionate guy.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

It's their country, they get to set the laws.

they can't even form a government, none the less a constitution. You want them to make laws too?

They have a President. In the absence of anything more substantial, I'd guess that anything he says is illegal becomes illegal until he says otherwise. He could also decide the method of determining guilt or innocence and the punishment he deems appropriate, e.g. loss of a hand for theft.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[78RATS 0]

I have no problem with the broomstick guy getting tried and punished under Iraqi law for raping someone on Iraqi soil.

The rest we can debate all day. look

What I'm really talking about is Mexico. Our borders are a joke. If you live in a border state, those people basically live here. IMHO, they should be subject to American law if they commit crimes on American soil.

Instead they escape justice for the price of a bus ticket.

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[billvon 3,131]

That's fine - as long as we reciprocate and allow US tourists/workers in Tijuana to be prosecuted there for crimes they commit there, even if it's not a crime in the US.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The US and mexico have an extridition treaty, if it is like Canada it specifically excludes capital murder cases. That is what your government agreed to. I believe you will find extradition treaties with all the civilized countries exclude capital cases. Our supreme court has ruled capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment making it unconstitutional for our government to enter an extradition treaty that does not exclude such cases.
I know it's frustrating that American laws are not enforced around the world (yet) but your elected officials are working on it.