 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
HOUSTON (Reuters) - An unrepentant Texas said on Thursday it would ignore a World Court order demanding it stay the executions of two Mexicans, a decision likely to create more friction between the United States and its allies over capital punishment.
The International Court of Justice at The Hague (news - web sites) on Wednesday ordered the U.S. to stay the executions of three Mexicans and reserved the right to intervene in dozens of other cases.
Mexico brought the World Court case last month, arguing that 54 of its citizens on death row should get retrials. It accused U.S. police of violating an international treaty by failing to tell the men of their right to consular assistance after being arrested.
The World Court said it acted in three cases where the men were at risk of execution before the lengthy case is finished.
Two of those affected -- Cesar Robert Fierro Reyna and Roberto Moreno Ramos -- are in Texas and the third, Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, is in Oklahoma. None of the three has an execution date yet.
The State Department is reviewing the order and has not said whether Washington will order Texas and Oklahoma to stay the executions. The U.S. argued the order would interfere with its sovereign right to administer its criminal justice system.
"According to our reading of the law and the treaty, there is no authority for the federal government or this World Court to prohibit Texas from exercising the laws passed by our legislature," said Gene Acuna, a spokesman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The state is by far the nation's death penalty leader.
ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS
Perry believes that state and federal courts provide adequate safeguards and are the appropriate forums in which to hear "issues such as consular notification on a case-by-case basis," Acuna said. Orders from those courts are the only ones Texas will follow, he said.
Jennifer Miller, the chief of criminal appeals for the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office, said the state was reviewing the World Court order.
Torres has several avenues of appeal open to him, including the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) and the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites), she said.
"He is not in the process at this time where we will be seeking an execution date," Miller said. "He still has the opportunity to ask for a rehearing in that case."
Texas will wait until all of the appeals in the Fierro and Ramos cases are complete. But an inmate is often given a date and is even brought into the death house while last-minute appeals work their way through the courts.
A U.S. refusal to heed the World Court could worsen already-tense relations with Mexico on the issue.
Mexican President Vicente Fox (news - web sites) angrily canceled a planned meeting with President Bush (news - web sites) in Texas last year after the state ignored Mexican pleas for clemency for Javier Medina.
Texas, the only U.S. state to have once been an independent country, has long resisted external interference in its affairs and has a history of ignoring pleas for clemency.
On Tuesday, Texas executed John "Jackie" Elliott, a dual British-American citizen whose cause was taken up by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, members of parliament and high-ranking British clerics.
He was the 296th inmate executed in Texas since 1982, four years after national death penalty ban was lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The United States is the only Western democracy to carry out the death penalty. (Additional reporting by Ben Fenwick in Oklahoma City)
**************
Interesting.
I really don't think that the federal government, much less the World Court, can interfere with the Texas justice system and jury decisions, provided no Constitutional rights are violated.
Anyone heard anything else about this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
Unfortunately this is true, but Imran raised a good point that a treaty to create a World Court doesn't necessarily mean a treaty to abide by its decisions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Hey, whether or not Texas violated someone's rights or not, it's a State's Rights issue. Texas can and should do what it thinks best and no so called world court should ever have any authority over an American court. Not even traffic court.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Any action by the Federal government that would require any state court to bow to international interest would have to be unconstitutional, if not, the constitution means nothing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheStinger
What if you sign a treaty saying just that.
Maritime courts have authority over Texas I think.
Texas courts will use the decisons of other common law systems to influence their decisions. |
Texas may yield volutarily to maritime law but none has authority over the state. Even if it says so in black and white somewhere, it is a jackbboot law and should not be obeyed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
Any action by the Federal government that would require any state court to bow to international interest would have to be unconstitutional, if not, the constitution means nothing. |
Doesn't this occur anytime the Federal government signs a treaty with another country?
Is there a treaty signed by the US government which explicitly requires that the government of Mexico be informed when their citizens are arrested or under trial? Which treaty specifies this?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-02-2003 07:38
.
|