World Court Orders Stay of U.S. Executions

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Hammer
hahahaha the UN

Best post ever.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: docmanhattan

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: docmanhattan
and what's so bad about getting sanctioned?

it's like a bobbie cop saying "Stop! or I'll say 'Stop' again!"

Do you understand the basics of imports vs. exports? Sanctions would hurt!

because suddenly the entire world is going to stop trading with the US? the biggest, fatest ( figurative and literal ) consumer market in the world.

this is just a guess, but i don't think that would happen.

No one's going to stop trading with us. Most likely, tarrifs would be imposed on our goods, which would suck.

And we turn arround and put tarrifs on foreign products. This is a fight they dont want to start.

That'll fix everything!

Like I said, this is fight they dont want to start.

 

[rufruf44]

I doubt any country would implement any type of sanctions against the US just because the World Court is requesting them to do it (and risk the millions of trade they're getting?). The only directly involved party in this matter is Mexico, and it'll be suicide for them to do it.

 

[Mandrill]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Today's Times, Page A17:

"The Hague - The United States must temporarily stay the executions of three Mexican citizens on death rows in Texas and Oklahoma, the World Court ruled yesterday...The 15-judge World Court, officially called the International Court of Justice, is the United Nations' body for resolving disputes between nations...If the U.S. does not abide by the decision, the World Court could complain to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions, court spokeswoman Laurence Blairon said."

The U.N. would impose sanctions on us?! What sanctions?? Ha, ha, ha.....

"President Bush, when told of the ruling, was quoted as say "I think that is a good ruling...........................for me to poop on."

 

[Nitemare]

And we care?

 

[XZeroII]

Considering that the US is not part of the world court, the world court has no juristiction over us. What are they doing? Making up their own rules then complaining whenever someone breaks them? Another reason why the UN is bad news...

 

[Nitemare]

Maybe we can do it Mexico style, just throw them in a hole and wait for them to die, that way we would not have to waste tax payers money and give them a trial like they do in that horrible USA

 

[exp]

The World Court has no authority in the US.

Bingo. The World Court routinely orders countries around and is ignored as a matter of course. The U.S. has walked all over World Court demands before without consequences and likely will continue to do so here.

And we can expect more of this same comedy in the future. It won't be long before the World Court begins demanding the extradition of U.S. governors, judges, and others for enforcing the death penalty (a war crime in their view). That should be fun.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: exp

The World Court has no authority in the US.

Bingo. The World Court routinely orders countries around and is ignored as a matter of course. The U.S. has walked all over World Court demands before without consequences and likely will continue to do so here.

And we can expect more of this same comedy in the future. It won't be long before the World Court begins demanding the extradition of U.S. governors, judges, and others for enforcing the death penalty (a war crime in their view). That should be fun.

And then those UN peacekeepers with their *cute* blue helmets are going to come into the USA... and be told to leave.

 

[alexruiz]

Easy racists.....

The issue here is that several of the executed persons were not allowed to talk with an ambassador/consul. As simple as that!

By the way, how many of you have been in Mexico in a place different than a resort??? Not many for what I can read.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Screw them with a 2x4 sideways.

Very colorful imagery...yet painful to think about

 

[TheShiz]

the US doesn't listen to the world court or the UN if they disagree, which is ridiculous since they expect other countries to abide by them.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: docmanhattan
and what's so bad about getting sanctioned?

it's like a bobbie cop saying "Stop! or I'll say 'Stop' again!"

Do you understand the basics of imports vs. exports? Sanctions would hurt!

They'd hurt the rest of the world as much if not more than they would hurt us. We run at a large trade deficit. Lots of countries sell more to us than we sell to them. So if they impose sanctions, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Sanctions will not happen because they only work against countries that have nothing that other countries want. Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, etc. No one will ever sanction an industrialized economy, let alone the worlds largest market for imported goods.

 

[tcsenter]

The issue here is that several of the executed persons were not allowed to talk with an ambassador/consul. As simple as that!

That's what their attornies are for, to be a liason between the defendant and their embassy consulate. Its as simple as that!

By the way, how many of you have been in Mexico in a place different than a resort??? Not many for what I can read.

Mexico a festering sh-t hole. What's your point?

 

[Zebo]

I don't like the death penalty BUT you know where they can stick it IMO.

Also, I find it a bit hypocrititcal they arn't arguing all (to include US citizens) executions to be stayed. What';s thier justification for that?

 

[Mandrill]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Well in this time of "If Iraq ignores the UN we should do this and that", I find it a bit hypocritical if the US tells the world court to shove it. And by a bit I mean a lot.

Its quite simply out of the World Court's scope of legitimate interest and authority to take any issue with the capital punishment of anyone in any country with a legal system which protects the rights of due process, legal representation for the accused, high prosecutorial burden, constitutional protections, the right to a fair trial by jury subject to review, a multi-stage appeals process, and every other tenet of a modern civil justice system.

If the United States were summarily executing the nationals of other countries without a trial, then maybe the World Court would have cause to intervene. It doesn't.

What's next, the World Court ordering the United States to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms from private citizens because the United Nations is vehemently opposed to the private possession of guns? Screw them with a 2x4 sideways.

Pressure treated or Wolmanized?

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The issue here is that several of the executed persons were not allowed to talk with an ambassador/consul. As simple as that!

That's what their attornies are for, to be a liason between the defendant and their embassy consulate. Its as simple as that!

By the way, how many of you have been in Mexico in a place different than a resort??? Not many for what I can read.

Mexico a festering sh-t hole. What's your point?

You are a complete !diot.... If the attorneys are to to be the liason, maybe your attorneys are !diots also. The request is only to have a person from the embassy/consulate to talk with the persons held prisoners. Suspending the executions is to allow personnel from the embassies/consulates to talk with the defendants. That is all!!!

Regarding your comment about Mexico, I just have an advice... log off, and stop watching TV, the radiation has damaged your brain..... Don't believe me??? You are native and your spelling/grammar could make a child feel embarrassed. The sh-t hole is on your mind, idiot imperialist!!!

Any country would want to DEFEND their citizens abroad......

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well in this time of "If Iraq ignores the UN we should do this and that", I find it a bit hypocritical if the US tells the world court to shove it. And by a bit I mean a lot.

Skoorbie, you have a point, but you do know of course that there is a difference between the United States and Iraq.

Without the United States, the UN wouldn't even exist. If we left it tomorrow and kicked everyone out of New York and Washington, I don't think the UN would survive. Maybe it would, but it wouldn't get much done without us. *shrug*

Hopper

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Mandrill

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Well in this time of "If Iraq ignores the UN we should do this and that", I find it a bit hypocritical if the US tells the world court to shove it. And by a bit I mean a lot.

Its quite simply out of the World Court's scope of legitimate interest and authority to take any issue with the capital punishment of anyone in any country with a legal system which protects the rights of due process, legal representation for the accused, high prosecutorial burden, constitutional protections, the right to a fair trial by jury subject to review, a multi-stage appeals process, and every other tenet of a modern civil justice system.

If the United States were summarily executing the nationals of other countries without a trial, then maybe the World Court would have cause to intervene. It doesn't.

What's next, the World Court ordering the United States to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms from private citizens because the United Nations is vehemently opposed to the private possession of guns? Screw them with a 2x4 sideways.

Pressure treated or Wolmanized?

Wolmanized. Let them get some CCA slivers where the sun dont shine

 

[JellyBaby]

If only the U.N. had a Grand Army of the Republic it might be able to enforce its Holy Decree.

We're a sovereign nation fully capable of resolving problems with foreigners and that's how it should be.

 

[sean2002]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well in this time of "If Iraq ignores the UN we should do this and that", I find it a bit hypocritical if the US tells the world court to shove it. And by a bit I mean a lot.

I dont recall the US being a member of any world court.

and we are not, for a damn good reason

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Mandrill

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Well in this time of "If Iraq ignores the UN we should do this and that", I find it a bit hypocritical if the US tells the world court to shove it. And by a bit I mean a lot.

Its quite simply out of the World Court's scope of legitimate interest and authority to take any issue with the capital punishment of anyone in any country with a legal system which protects the rights of due process, legal representation for the accused, high prosecutorial burden, constitutional protections, the right to a fair trial by jury subject to review, a multi-stage appeals process, and every other tenet of a modern civil justice system.

If the United States were summarily executing the nationals of other countries without a trial, then maybe the World Court would have cause to intervene. It doesn't.

What's next, the World Court ordering the United States to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms from private citizens because the United Nations is vehemently opposed to the private possession of guns? Screw them with a 2x4 sideways.

Pressure treated or Wolmanized?

They don't make pressure-treated any more, so you'd better hurry if you want some.

 

[Mandrill]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Mandrill

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Well in this time of "If Iraq ignores the UN we should do this and that", I find it a bit hypocritical if the US tells the world court to shove it. And by a bit I mean a lot.

Its quite simply out of the World Court's scope of legitimate interest and authority to take any issue with the capital punishment of anyone in any country with a legal system which protects the rights of due process, legal representation for the accused, high prosecutorial burden, constitutional protections, the right to a fair trial by jury subject to review, a multi-stage appeals process, and every other tenet of a modern civil justice system.

If the United States were summarily executing the nationals of other countries without a trial, then maybe the World Court would have cause to intervene. It doesn't.

What's next, the World Court ordering the United States to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms from private citizens because the United Nations is vehemently opposed to the private possession of guns? Screw them with a 2x4 sideways.

Pressure treated or Wolmanized?

They don't make pressure-treated any more, so you'd better hurry if you want some.

Home Depot here I come!

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well in this time of "If Iraq ignores the UN we should do this and that", I find it a bit hypocritical if the US tells the world court to shove it. And by a bit I mean a lot.

Skoorbie, you have a point, but you do know of course that there is a difference between the United States and Iraq.

Without the United States, the UN wouldn't even exist. If we left it tomorrow and kicked everyone out of New York and Washington, I don't think the UN would survive. Maybe it would, but it wouldn't get much done without us. *shrug*

Hopper

You can't say that just because the US is a big part of the UN we can ignore its rulings. A key part of the UN should be that everyone is treated equally. I'm not so sure it would fall apart if we did leave anyway. At least the Europeans and Russians would try to hold it together.

 

[sandorski]

Even the US is subject to International Law, *if* it has broken an International Law, it should be confronted.