AP: Bush, Texas at odds over death case

[Teller]

George W. Bush is the most hideous disgrace of a president ever to cast a shadow over this great land. Now he's giving up our state courts' sovreignty to international law, placing the lives of Mexican rapist-murderers over the lives of American citizens, and completely disregarding our rule of law. (Again.)

This case, and the Idiot in Chief's position on it, damn near make me physically ill. You don't think U.S. sovreignty is being threatened by this president? You better wake the hell up.

I never thought I would see the day where our own president could be defined as a "domestic enemy," but we are perilously close to that point. Thank the good Lord he'll be out of office soon. I just hope his successor can put us back on a path to sovreignty and observance of the Constitution before it's too late.

I can't believe how criminally stupid this guy is. :mad:

(And I'm sure that if I wasn't on a watch list before, I am now. Afterall, my right to free speech is only protected by the Constitution, not the International Court of Justice, so I'm pretty much screwed.)

WASHINGTON - To put it bluntly, Texas wants President Bush to get out of the way of the state's plan to execute a Mexican for the brutal killing of two teenage girls.

Bush, who presided over 152 executions as governor of Texas, wants to halt the execution of Jose Ernesto Medellin in what has become a confusing test of presidential power that the Supreme Court, which hears the case this week, ultimately will sort out.

The president wants to enforce a decision by the International Court of Justice that found the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexican-born prisoners violated their rights to legal help as outlined in the 1963 Vienna Convention.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071007/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_mexican_national

[twa]

I fail to see forcing SCOTUS to rule on the issue a bad thing.

It is a issue that needs settled so we can execute or expel the murdering scum w/o the constant appeals..

I think you know which option I prefer.

Added

"The president does not agree with the ICJ's interpretation of the Vienna Convention," the administration said in arguments filed with the court. This time, though, the U.S. agreed to abide by the international court's decision because ignoring it would harm American interests abroad, the government said.

[Teller]

I fail to see forcing SCOTUS to rule on the issue a bad thing.

It is a issue that needs settled so we can execute or expel the murdering scum w/o the constant appeals..

I think you know which option I prefer.

But Bush's decision and desire to stop this appears to be based 100% on the opinion of an international court. Is that a road you really want to go down? Where in the heck does that one stop?

I don't disagree that having the SCOTUS hear the case is a good thing. Having international courts involved in the legal process in sovreign U.S. states (let alone our national sovreignty) is not a good thing.

Having a president who cares more about Mexican citizens than his own, is willing to outsource our judicial system, and who could give half a damn about our guiding documents and principles is just flat out dangerous.

[twa]

Having SCOTUS decide a issue that effects both the illegals here AND our people in foreign countries would seem reasonable.

I love Texas,but it's not our job.

"The president does not agree with the ICJ's interpretation of the Vienna Convention," the administration said in arguments filed with the court. This time, though, the U.S. agreed to abide by the international court's decision because ignoring it would harm American interests abroad, the government said.

[Teller]

Having SCOTUS decide a issue that effects both the illegals here AND our people in foreign countries would seem reasonable.

I love Texas,but it's not our job.

"The president does not agree with the ICJ's interpretation of the Vienna Convention," the administration said in arguments filed with the court. This time, though, the U.S. agreed to abide by the international court's decision because ignoring it would harm American interests abroad, the government said.

I read that part multiple times, including the two times you posted it.

IMO, that just drives the point home even harder. Bush is accepting decisions from international courts that he doesn't agree with (in violation of U.S. sovreignty) and trying to force Texas to accept it (in violation of the state's sovreignty.)

And saying it would hurt American interests abroad, sounds like another ****amamy excuse from this administration for circumventing the damn law. They want people to think, "Oh noes!! If we don't accept the ICJ's decision, then other countries will kill Americans for no reason!" I call bull**** until proven otherwise. Because EVERY other time they've cried foul like that, it's BEEN bull****.

edit: And let's not forget the two Americans who have ACTUALLY BEEN HURT in this case; the two teenage girls who were gang-raped and strangled to death. How about them, Mr. President???

[Larry]

1) I'm remembering a comment I once read in a book:

God is an iron.

If a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron.

2) The man who, when Governor of Texas, stated, in writing, in court, that US Treaties don't apply to the state of Texas, because Texas didn't sign the treaty, is now claiming that a Treaty does apply to Texas. (And Texas, who lost their case when Bush was governor, is trying to use the same argument again.)

3) And speaking of irony, is Bush arguing that we should adhere to international treaties with respect to the treatment of prisoners, because we want Americans to receive similar protections? (Psst. Geneva Conventions?)

4) I notice that the article doesn't mention a word about what "the Vienna convention" is, or it's legal status. (Did the US sign such a Treaty? What does it say?)

[Teller]

I'm not going to read the whole thing, Larry, as my "legalese" is admittedly weak. But it looks to me like it sets rules for consulate operations between countries. Ratified in 1980, from what I can tell, by us and 107 other nations.

http://www.ukrchicago.com/laws/viennconv.html

[PokerPacker]

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

[twa]

You may be reading it,but you seem to miss in the international sense it is a issue that must be addressed...now is as good a time as any since executions are on hold anyway.(due to SCOTUS)

Personally I would not oppose a lynching party for the poor downtrodden murdering scum,but I am patient...for now.

[Sarge]

Jorge Bush isn't going to do anything to piss off the illegals

I'l be glad when this dude is gone

[ACW]

Jorge Bush isn't going to do anything to piss off the illegals

I'l be glad when this dude is gone

You'd probably want him to bomb Mexico

I don't get it. Bush is: 1) not ignoring international law, 2) cares a bout the Vienna Convention yet :pooh: all over the Geneva Concention, and 3) is actually delaying an execution? :wtf:

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

You'd probably want him to bomb Mexico

I don't get it. Bush is: 1) not ignoring international law, 2) cares a bout the Vienna Convention yet :pooh: all over the Geneva Concention, and 3) is actually delaying an execution? :wtf:

You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into... the Twilight Zone.

[SUSkinsFan]

NOW he cares about the Vienna Conventions....little late to the game aren't ya Dubya

[ACW]

NOW he cares about the Vienna Conventions....little late to the game aren't ya Dubya

Vienna, not Geneva. Still makes you go though.

[SUSkinsFan]

Vienna, not Geneva. Still makes you go though.

I gotta get more sleep, I know the difference between them too.

[DjTj]

The way to understand Bush's stance on this issue is not to think of in terms of U.S. vs. Mexico or domestic law vs. international law or in terms of the death penalty or criminal rights.

The issue is Executive Power vs. Judicial Power.

On that axis, Bush's stance here is exactly the same as his stance on the Geneva Convention. He doesn't want courts and judges and juries determining these issues; he wants the President to be the decider.

What's the definition of torture? The President will decide. What's an enemy combatant? The President will decide. What rights do foreigners get in Texas criminal court? The President will decide.

IMO, these really should be questions for the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court has been stepping in (as they are here), but Bush will continue to oppose them at every step because he has consistently advocated for strong Executive Power.

[Sarge]

The way to understand Bush's stance on this issue is not to think of in terms of U.S. vs. Mexico or domestic law vs. international law or in terms of the death penalty or criminal rights.

The issue is Executive Power vs. Judicial Power.

On that axis, Bush's stance here is exactly the same as his stance on the Geneva Convention. He doesn't want courts and judges and juries determining these issues; he wants the President to be the decider.

What's the definition of torture? The President will decide. What's an enemy combatant? The President will decide. What rights do foreigners get in Texas criminal court? The President will decide.

IMO, these really should be questions for the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court has been stepping in (as they are here), but Bush will continue to oppose them at every step because he has consistently advocated for strong Executive Power.

I tend to believe it rests more with Bush's "One World Order" philosophy

[DeanCollins]

I tend to believe it rests more with Bush's "One World Order" philosophy

What philosophy? He gets handed a piece of paper several times a day telling him what to say :doh:

[Sarge]

What philosophy? He gets handed a piece of paper several times a day telling him what to say :doh:

Please. He and his daddy both were of the same strip when it comes to that stuff

NAFTA

SPP

World Court

LOST

IF it hadn't been for 9/11, we probably wouldn't even have a border anymore