International Law Supreme Court case

[iron81]

Chicago Tribune

Cliff's notes: Under a treaty ratified by the United States, the police are required to advise suspects of foreign nationality that they may meet with a representative of their home country's consulate. Mexico sued in the International Court of Justice to release 51 Mexican death row inmates on the grounds that this wasn't done. The ICJ ruled for Mexico and in a shocker, the Bush Administration ordered state courts to comply with the ruling. Texas wasn't happy about the Admin's order. The Supreme Court will hear the case this week and if the Administration wins, the 51 Mexican death row inmates may be released.

I had heard about legal challenges along these lines before, but I had no idea about the ICJ case or the Bush Admins order. I'm personally shocked that an Administration that goes to such great lengths to crap on treaties they don't like has decided to release convicted murderers. However, I'm thrilled about the prospect that the US might start taking the treaties we ratify seriously.

The Constitution specifies that ratified treaties are the "supreme law of the land", but the precent up to now was that this provision is generally not enforced. It would go a long way toward making this country a better place and pay dividends in foreign policy if we started taking treaties seriously.

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]

Cliff's notes: Under a treaty ratified by the United States

[/ QUOTE ]
everyone knows that doesn't matter if you need to stop terrorism.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Cliff's notes: Under a treaty ratified by the United States

[/ QUOTE ]
everyone knows that doesn't matter if you need to stop terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm personally shocked that an Administration that goes to such great lengths to crap on treaties they don't like has decided to release convicted murderers.

[/ QUOTE ]

edit - seriously, this baffles me. I guess it is just a "see, we aren't against honoring treaties" move or something. I mean deporting 51 people is not that huge compared to reducing emissions, so maybe it is just a big spin move.

[Keepitsimple]

The deporatation of 51 death row inmates is a low prize to pay for better foreign relations imo.

[SackUp]

Do they get deported immediately?

If not, can they be tried here again?

Are they tried again in their home country?

[iron81]

After reading the defendant's brief, it sounds like if the defendants win their cases will be remanded to lower courts for a hearing. If the lower court rules that violation of the treaty led to the defendants being convicted, then they would be freed. Oftentimes, these convictions relied on confessions that defendants can argue they wouldn't have made if they had spoken to a consular rep.

Whether the defendants get deported I assume depends on whether they were in the country legally: some were, some weren't. If they win, I doubt they can be retried without independent evidence, either here or in their home countries.

[eviljeff]

I looked up some of the briefs for this case on Lexis and there are like 70+ amicus briefs. poor SCOTUS clerks [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[vqchuang]

[ QUOTE ]
I looked up some of the briefs for this case on Lexis and there are like 70+ amicus briefs. poor SCOTUS clerks [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what they get for working so hard in LS.

Im sure SCOTUS will do some hand waiving and talk about if the inmates wanted to appeal based on some procedural matter they should have done so in their original trials; shame on them for not doing so etc. etc., original decisions stand.