Earl Evleth

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.

Gordon Forbess

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

Capitalist Pig

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
news:BC90A949.2D035%...
    > 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.

Magda

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.

Earl Evleth

On 2/04/04 16:19, in article ,
"Magda" <> wrote:

    > 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.
    >

Capitalist Pig just oinks.

Earl

Anonymouse

Hi Earl,

while I know you're a lefty :-} I must assume this post is forged.

it's beneath you.

ttyl

akia

btw...just curious... which newspaper do you normally read?

in Paris I normally read the IHT (it's better than the USA Today) and
various french sporting magazines... it helps my french since I know the
subject, names of the players, etc.

Earl Evleth wrote:

    > On 2/04/04 16:19, in article ,
    > "Magda" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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.
    >
    >
    > Capitalist Pig just oinks.
    >
    > Earl
    >

Capitalist Pig

Hey Magda, why don't you go shit in your hat?
Capitalist Pig


"Magda" <> wrote in message
news:...
    > 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.

The Reid

Following up to Capitalist Pig

    >Hey Magda, why don't you go shit in your hat?
    >Capitalist Pig

bye!

Earl Evleth

On 3/04/04 10:45, in article ,
"The Reid" <> wrote:

    > Following up to Capitalist Pig
    >
    >> Hey Magda, why don't you go shit in your hat?
    >> Capitalist Pig
    >
    > bye!


Cajun alias Capitalist Pig is in the final stages of his
illness, have sympathy.

earl

Phil

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