If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What the World court decision means to traveling Americans
In 1963 the United States signed the 1963 Vienna Convention which eventually the US Senate approved in the form of consular agreements with various countries. One of the stipulations of that convention was that if an American citizen is arrested in a foreign country, American consular officials will be notified "without delay" of that arrest and access is granted to the arrested person so that he or she may be advised. The same procedure is supposed to be accorded to foreign nationals arrested in the United States. The danger is that if the United States eventually refuses to allow such access, then foreign powers may reciprocate in not respecting American citizen's rights under the treaty. Earl ***** World Court: U.S. Violated Mexicans' Rights By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The International Court of Justice on Wednesday ruled that the United States violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row and ordered their cases be reviewed. The United Nations ( news -web sites )' highest judiciary, also known as the world court, was considering a suit filed by Mexico claiming 52 convicted murderers weren't given their right to assistance from their government. "The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans, presiding judge Shi Jiuyong said. Shi said the review, in all but three cases, could be carried out under the normal appeals process in the United States. But for three men whose have already exhausted all other appeals, the court said the United States should make an exception and review their cases one last time. The court found that in the remaining case, the convict had received his rights and his case didn't need to be reviewed. At the heart of the Mexico-U.S. case is the 1963 Vienna Convention, which guarantees people accused of a serious crime while in a foreign country the right to contact their own government for help and that they be informed of that right by arresting authorities. The world court is charged with resolving disputes between nations and has jurisdiction over the treaty. It found that U.S. authorities hadn't properly informed the 51 men of their rights when they realized they were foreigners. Both the United States and Mexico were preparing reactions to the ruling. The United States had argued the case was a sovereignty issue, and the 15-judge tribunal should be wary of allowing itself to be used as a criminal appeals court, which is not its mandate. In hearings in December, lawyers for Mexico argued that any U.S. citizen accused of a serious crime abroad would want the same right, and the only fair solution for the men allegedly denied diplomatic help was to start their legal processes all over again. Juan Manuel Gomez said that Mexico "doesn't contest the United States' right as a sovereign country to impose the death penalty for the most grave crimes," but wants to make sure its citizens aren't abused by a foreign legal system they don't always understand. U.S. lawyer William Taft argued that the prisoners had received fair trials. He said even if the prisoners didn't get consular help, the way to remedy the wrong "must be left to the United States." In its written arguments, the United States said that Mexico's request would be a "radical intrusion" into the U.S. justice system, contradicting laws and customs in every city and state in the nation. "The court has never ordered any form of restitution nearly as far reaching as that sought by Mexico," the arguments said. In 2001, a similar case came before the court filed by Germany to stop the execution of two German brothers who also had not been informed of their right to consular assistance. One brother was executed before the court could act. The judges ordered a stay of execution for the second brother, Walter LaGrand, until it could deliberate, but he was executed anyway by the state authorities of Arizona. Under the court's statute, its judgments are "binding, final and without appeal." Its rulings have rarely been ignored, and if one side claims the other has failed to carry out the court's decision, it may take the issue to the U.N. Security Council. * When the court finally handed down the belated ruling in 2001, it chastised the U.S. government for not halting the LaGrand execution, and rejected arguments that Washington was powerless to intervene in criminal cases under the authority of the individual states. Mexican President Vicente Fox ( news -web sites ) canceled a visit to President Bush ( news -web sites )'s ranch in 2002 to protest the execution of a Mexican citizen not mentioned in the world court suit. The visit finally took place earlier this month. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What the World court decision means to traveling Americans
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:58:49 +0200, Earl Evleth
wrote: Mexican President Vicente Fox ( news -web sites ) canceled a visit to President Bush ( news -web sites )'s ranch in 2002 to protest the execution of a Mexican citizen not mentioned in the world court suit. The visit finally took place earlier this month. Too bad he didn't bring a large check to cover the expense of housing at least 25000 Mexican criminals.. 15000 or so in California alone. Too bad he didn't briing one or two of his citizens who murdered police officers in the US and fled to Mexico, not to be returned because they would be subject to the death penalty. Now, even LWOPP is unacceptable to the Mexican Supreme Court. Gordon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What the World court decision means to traveling Americans
The world court. HAH There's a real body who's friend of the USA. A bunch of
monkeys lecturing America on the law and morality? What a joke. If it wasn't for America, have the members of the World Court would represent countries who enslaved the other half. You think the USA is so wrong, Earl? Why don't you stay in France? Cochon Capitaliste "Earl Evleth" wrote in message ... In 1963 the United States signed the 1963 Vienna Convention which eventually the US Senate approved in the form of consular agreements with various countries. One of the stipulations of that convention was that if an American citizen is arrested in a foreign country, American consular officials will be notified "without delay" of that arrest and access is granted to the arrested person so that he or she may be advised. The same procedure is supposed to be accorded to foreign nationals arrested in the United States. The danger is that if the United States eventually refuses to allow such access, then foreign powers may reciprocate in not respecting American citizen's rights under the treaty. Earl ***** World Court: U.S. Violated Mexicans' Rights By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The International Court of Justice on Wednesday ruled that the United States violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row and ordered their cases be reviewed. The United Nations ( news -web sites )' highest judiciary, also known as the world court, was considering a suit filed by Mexico claiming 52 convicted murderers weren't given their right to assistance from their government. "The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans, presiding judge Shi Jiuyong said. Shi said the review, in all but three cases, could be carried out under the normal appeals process in the United States. But for three men whose have already exhausted all other appeals, the court said the United States should make an exception and review their cases one last time. The court found that in the remaining case, the convict had received his rights and his case didn't need to be reviewed. At the heart of the Mexico-U.S. case is the 1963 Vienna Convention, which guarantees people accused of a serious crime while in a foreign country the right to contact their own government for help and that they be informed of that right by arresting authorities. The world court is charged with resolving disputes between nations and has jurisdiction over the treaty. It found that U.S. authorities hadn't properly informed the 51 men of their rights when they realized they were foreigners. Both the United States and Mexico were preparing reactions to the ruling. The United States had argued the case was a sovereignty issue, and the 15-judge tribunal should be wary of allowing itself to be used as a criminal appeals court, which is not its mandate. In hearings in December, lawyers for Mexico argued that any U.S. citizen accused of a serious crime abroad would want the same right, and the only fair solution for the men allegedly denied diplomatic help was to start their legal processes all over again. Juan Manuel Gomez said that Mexico "doesn't contest the United States' right as a sovereign country to impose the death penalty for the most grave crimes," but wants to make sure its citizens aren't abused by a foreign legal system they don't always understand. U.S. lawyer William Taft argued that the prisoners had received fair trials. He said even if the prisoners didn't get consular help, the way to remedy the wrong "must be left to the United States." In its written arguments, the United States said that Mexico's request would be a "radical intrusion" into the U.S. justice system, contradicting laws and customs in every city and state in the nation. "The court has never ordered any form of restitution nearly as far reaching as that sought by Mexico," the arguments said. In 2001, a similar case came before the court filed by Germany to stop the execution of two German brothers who also had not been informed of their right to consular assistance. One brother was executed before the court could act. The judges ordered a stay of execution for the second brother, Walter LaGrand, until it could deliberate, but he was executed anyway by the state authorities of Arizona. Under the court's statute, its judgments are "binding, final and without appeal." Its rulings have rarely been ignored, and if one side claims the other has failed to carry out the court's decision, it may take the issue to the U.N. Security Council. When the court finally handed down the belated ruling in 2001, it chastised the U.S. government for not halting the LaGrand execution, and rejected arguments that Washington was powerless to intervene in criminal cases under the authority of the individual states. Mexican President Vicente Fox ( news -web sites ) canceled a visit to President Bush ( news -web sites )'s ranch in 2002 to protest the execution of a Mexican citizen not mentioned in the world court suit. The visit finally took place earlier this month. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What the World court decision means to traveling Americans
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What the World court decision means to traveling Americans
Hey Magda, why don't you go **** in your hat?
Capitalist Pig "Magda" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 05:53:16 -0800, in rec.travel.europe, "Capitalist Pig" arranged some electrons, so they looked like this : ... The world court. HAH There's a real body who's friend of the USA. A bunch of ... monkeys lecturing America on the law and morality? What a joke. If it wasn't ... for America, have the members of the World Court would represent countries ... who enslaved the other half. This is not even English. The guy is pathetic. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What the World court decision means to traveling Americans
Following up to Capitalist Pig
Hey Magda, why don't you go **** in your hat? Capitalist Pig bye! -- Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso Walking, Wasdale, Thames path, London etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What the World court decision means to traveling Americans
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What the World court decision means to traveling Americans
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:58:49 +0200, Earl Evleth
wrote: The danger is that if the United States eventually refuses to allow such access, then foreign powers may reciprocate in not respecting American citizen's rights under the treaty. If this happens I have sympathy for individual travelers but as a nation they get what they deserve. Why they are so blind to their own neo-fascist regime who flout just about every international agreement I do not understand. Some of their press are critical of the present regime's activities and for that they are accused of being unpatriotic. Phil UK |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What the World court decision means to traveling Americans
Phil wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:58:49 +0200, Earl Evleth wrote: The danger is that if the United States eventually refuses to allow such access, then foreign powers may reciprocate in not respecting American citizen's rights under the treaty. If this happens I have sympathy for individual travelers but as a nation they get what they deserve. Why they are so blind to their own neo-fascist regime who flout just about every international agreement I do not understand. Some of their press are critical of the present regime's activities and for that they are accused of being unpatriotic. Phil UK Phil you should recognize that in many cases the individuals involve is the US cases were not identified as foreign nationals at any point during their arrest, detention, and trial. The claim is simply being made long after the fact as a way of trying to get dismissed an honest conviction. FFM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Curley v. American Airlines: false imprisonment (case dism'd) | Sufaud | Air travel | 0 | March 27th, 2004 04:01 PM |
Most of the World Still Does Without | Earl Evleth | Europe | 1 | December 26th, 2003 08:07 PM |
VOTE: Shrub in 04 | None | Air travel | 40 | December 4th, 2003 08:39 PM |
Cuba Travel Ban | john | Air travel | 235 | November 29th, 2003 06:05 AM |