April 1, 2004
THEY JUST KEEP HANDING THE PRESIDENT ISSUES:
Court Tells U.S. to Review Death Sentences: The decision, by the United Nations' highest court, was seen as a moral victory in Mexico and as a stinging rebuke to the United States. (MARLISE SIMONS and TIM WEINER, 4/01/04, NY Times)
It is unclear whether American courts will heed the ruling, and federal officials reacted cautiously, saying they needed time to study the list of decisions. "It's a very complex ruling," said Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman. "We'll decide, based on studying it, how we can go about implementing it."The United States acknowledges the jurisdiction of the court to resolve disputes between nations arising under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which allows people arrested abroad to meet with representatives of their governments and says detainees must be advised of this right. The United States regularly invokes the convention to visit Americans in foreign jails.
Although the laws of an international treaty should prevail over national law, the Bush administration has often criticized the application of international law. Even if it bows to the ruling, federal officials may not be able to compel states to heed the court.
Gov. Rick Perry, who succeeded President Bush in Texas, has said that "the International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction in Texas."
If the decision is ignored, Mexican officials noted on Wednesday, they can return to the court, bringing further pressure. While the court's rulings are binding, it has no power to enforce them.
Introduce a Senate bill to withdraw from the treaty, or amend it unilaterally, and make Kerry vote against it, alienating Americans, or for it, proving his complaints about the President's unilateralism to be empty. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 1, 2004 10:11 AM
Although the laws of an international treaty should prevail over national law, . . .
As we used to say in the 1970s, say WHAT?
Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the only international law which is binding on the United States are the terms of a treaty which has been signed and ratified. A signed, ratified treaty is of equal dignity with a federal statute. That is, it is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution; a treaty that conflicted with the First Amendment, for example, would be unconstitutional, and therefore void. Further, if a statute conflicts with a treaty, the most recent of them controls--the same rule as when two statutes conflict. The idea that there is a free-floating body of "international law" that trumps everything is just plain wrong.
Posted by: Mike Morley at April 1, 2004 10:43 AMDomestic U.S. criminal law can be disputed by another nation? Since when? Has this particular treaty undergone re-interpretation? Is the treaty in question some kind of "living" documment?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at April 1, 2004 11:20 AMIt would be a handsome gesture if the Mexicans apologized for exporting their murderers to the United States.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 1, 2004 12:51 PMYou guys go tell that to Justices O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer and probably Stevens and Souter as well.
Posted by: Peter at April 1, 2004 1:31 PMThe treaty provision at issue here is that aliens be allowed to contact their home country's embassy or consular personel, who can then advise them and monitor the trial. It does not give the foreign country any rights to infervene in the trial or to review the result.
I think it is better for Americans that this treaty be taken seriously, as we are more in danger, as travelors, of not being treated fairly by other countries than foreigners traveling here. Also, the most likely result in any pending case is that the court will find that failure to advise the accused of this right did not change the outcome of the trial (its hard to see how it could) or of any appeals, and thus doesn't matter.
Having said all that, this is going to be just another nail in John Kerry's multilateralist coffin.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 1, 2004 1:41 PMWell put, David. For those in trouble in hostile lands, contact with national authorities is their lifeline to civilization. Re-trying 51 Mexicans is not the end of the world.
Posted by: Peter B at April 1, 2004 2:24 PMThus the time-zone rule.
Posted by: oj at April 1, 2004 2:32 PMMr. Judd;
Couldn't you end up in Venezuela, Columbia, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Chile or even (*gasp*) Canada without violating that rule?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 1, 2004 3:23 PMNo, you'd be violating the state border rule.
Posted by: oj at April 1, 2004 3:34 PMNot going to come down and see a ball game this year?
Posted by: David Cohen at April 1, 2004 3:57 PMThey're on the radio.
Posted by: oj at April 1, 2004 4:20 PMC'mon up to one in Montreal this year, Orrin. I'll buy the Molson's and talk loudly about President Bush's courage during the French announcements.
Posted by: Peter B at April 1, 2004 4:52 PMMexico: the model of justice for all. I loved vacationing there but they lost my future tourism dollars last year, possibly forever. And I'm sorry about it. The food in the Southwest is better anyway.
Posted by: Genecis at April 1, 2004 5:14 PMTime-zone rule? State border rule? What meanest these strange words? (IANAL!)
Posted by: Just John at April 1, 2004 5:15 PMJust John:
It means that, to OJ, both Soddom and Gomorrah are everywhere outside his own time zone and state border.
Whether that is true or not, it certainly eliminates the problem of first-hand knowledge.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 1, 2004 6:30 PMOJ:
I can read. I have traveled.
You are wrong.
Peter:
I think it means what I thought I meant. But it is possible I was too clever by at least half.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 1, 2004 8:55 PMI'd rather put my trust in the Marines.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 2, 2004 12:41 AM