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

[Kennedy 0]

Extradition treaties have no bearing on this situation.

Extradition is involved when a US law breaker flees the country, and we want to bring him back to face charges.

In this case, it is a foreign national, caught and convicted of crimes in the US, being sentenced according to US law.

It happens all the time, all over the world.

Just look at the American kid who had to get cracked with the cane in (fillin the asian country, I don't remember). He defaced a staute and was severly beaten for it.

Basically, if you commit a crime on foreign soil and they catch you, you're screwed.

ps - it's not like American citizens don't disappear in foreign countries. At least this Mexican was given a fair trial with appeals.

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

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Just look at the American kid who had to get cracked with the cane in (fillin the asian country, I don't remember). He defaced a staute and was severly beaten for it.

Singapore

Quote

Basically, if you commit a crime on foreign soil and they catch you, you're screwed.

Especially if you go there and spray paint a wall in ENGLISH. What a dumbass....

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Extradition treaties have no bearing on this situation.

Extradition is involved when a US law breaker flees the country, and we want to bring him back to face charges.

Yes it does.

Quote

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.

Extradition treaties also apply when foreigners break the law and flee to either their home or a third country. This is exactly the situation he was referencing.

[Kennedy 0]

You are, quite simply, wrong.

The only people given a free pass for any crime they commit is a diplomat.

Everyone else is subject to the laws of whatever land they are in.

That means if you commit a crime you suffer the local penalty. Maybe it's getting your back broken for grafitti. Maybe it's the death penalty for murder.

If you don't like it, don't visit.

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

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The situation in Singapore with the vandal is a prime example of The American Government interfering with the administration of justice in other sovereign states.
There are many countries where a foreigner will be treated more harshly than a national by the authorities. It is the job of our representatives to do their best to mitigate this type of injustice. In the case we are discussing however, the little bastard from the US got a milder sentence than his Singaporian buddie. Once the press got ahold of it Clinton succumbed to the pressure and squeezed singapore to further lighten the sentence. Corporal punishment is not in use in the American justice system. The application of corporal punishment by the Singaporians upon an American offender, however, was not extraodinary, nor did it lack evenhandedness.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Are you suggesting that if the government of Sudan announces that you have broken their laws that the US government will serve you up without question?
If you are arrested in a place, you are subject to their laws. If you leave a place and are subsequently accused of breaking their laws, it is a matter of extradition. This is true internally within the US for non federal crimes. I really don't understand why you wouldn't think it also applies internationally.

[Guest]

"Mexican Nationals" are committing capital crimes in a foreign country, but they say the US isn't honoring a treaty.

I think the treaty should only be binding for those who are here LEGALLY.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I think the treaty should only be binding for those who are here LEGALLY.

Do you also think the treaty shouldn't protect Americans who may be in foreign countries without the proper paperwork?

When I was traveling Europe in 91, it was required for me to submit my passport at the border and get it stamped as I moved from country to country. Most of the border guards didn't bother inspecting my passport, they just waved the car through without inspection. I didn't get many stamps, so technically I was illegal in most of the countries I visited.

I am also aware of a Canadian who has at times been illegal in the US, not because he tried to avoid DHS (formerly INS) in the slightest, but because of laziness and burocratic bungling on behalf of border officials.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050424-112055-5829r.htm

Quote

Justices argue international law

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer clashed last week over the role of international law and foreign judges at a rare group discussion in Washington.

At the forum, broadcast on C-SPAN television last week, Justice Breyer appeared the most sympathetic to justices citing international law and foreign court decisions, saying the high court is faced with "more and more cases" in which the laws of other countries are relevant.

"Where there is disagreement is how to use the law of other nations where we have some of those very open-ended interpretations of the word 'liberty' or 'cruel and unusual punishment,'" he said.

"It's appropriate in some instances to look to how other courts might have decided similar issues," although laws of other countries "do not bind us by any means."

Justice Scalia said "foreign law is totally irrelevant" on most issues, such as the original meaning of the Constitution or what Americans now see as fundamental rights.

"It doesn't show what the Constitution originally meant, and it doesn't show what is fundamentally important to Americans today," he said. "It shows what's fundamentally important to somebody else today."

Justice O'Connor, in her first public remarks on the issue, called the debate over the role of foreign law "much ado about nothing."

"There are areas where we look to foreign law to interpret treaties that other nations and we have joined," she said. "Of course we look to foreign law."

Although it may not help to consult foreign law in interpreting the meaning of the First Amendment, she said, it does not hurt to be aware of what other countries have done when weighing such evolving concepts as "cruel and unusual punishment."

In early March, the justices made international precedent an issue by striking down the death penalty for juveniles. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cited the "stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world? that executes juveniles.

Justice Breyer was among the majority in the ruling. Justices Scalia and O'Connor, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented.

The forum at the National Archives Building, which also was sponsored by the National Constitution Center and the Aspen Institute, was moderated by Tim Russert of NBC News.

The three justices agreed that televising oral arguments before the high court is a bad idea.

Justice Scalia said it would "misinform the public rather than inform" it. For every person who watches an oral argument on C-SPAN from gavel to gavel, "ten thousand will see 15-second takeouts on the network news, which I guarantee you will be uncharacteristic."

Justice O'Connor agreed. The same-day release of audiotapes of oral arguments, which the high court has done for major cases in recent years, on the other hand "has worked pretty well."

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