Stupid wrote:You are telling me that treaty signed by US (Federal) has no effect on Texas. How interesting. What's the point of signing any thing with USA who will not honor it anyway?
If that's the way you choose to take it, I guess so. Remember that the US Constitution reserves certain powers and rights for the federal government, such as regulating interstate commerce, and others go to the states and the people. The people get the right to keep and bear arms, and the states get to determine the death penalty. Until after JFK's assassination there was no Federal law against murder, which lead to an interesting debate which was never fully resolved due to Jack Ruby's killing of Lee Oswald.
The US can make treaties, but there is no real mechanism for the feds to force the individual states to go along with those treaties, unless they are under federal power, which does not include crimes at the state level. Long history of prosecutions of non-nationals in other countries shows that they are even less inclined to interfere locally based on international treaties.
Stupid wrote:I thought we were more civil and more developed. Not only have we been practically slapping everybody around the world and ordering them to do whatever we want, but also we want to drag ourselves "down" to the level of "developing" countries - oh since they tell the world court to take a hike, we will just do the same thing or worse.
Besides my own personal opinion that the "world court" has absolutely no reason to exist, I also do not believe that, granting its existence, it should be allowed to interfere in anything that does not constitute an international dispute at law, such as whether an entire nation or national government has committed "crimes against humanity" with Nazi Germany being an example - and then how would such an entity enforce its ruling? By doing what we did to Nazi Germany.
US citizens in other nations already suffer indignations well beyond the norm in the US when the are arrested, even when they are nominally innocent, trying to convince us that by not following the other countries' rules we are going to suffer awful fates is still nothing more than extortion.
Also recall that a lot of that slapping has been done at the behest of the UN, or coalitions which the US has been part of and provided most of the funding for.
Stupid wrote:Come on. Is this how a society should be built? Is this not double standard?
I don't know where building a society comes into this, are you saying you are in favor of a one world government? That's what it sounds like from my point of view. We should hold to our own standards, without regard for other nations, they always do the same for us. No "double standard" just our own, and they can have theirs.
Stupid wrote:The Monroe Doctrine was merely to tell the European to take a hike so that USA could colonize every country in America (North and South). Again, very "civilized."
Your history teachers must have been a lot different than mine, would you mind showing me just where we colonized in the Americas after the Monroe Doctrine? Louisiana was purchased, Texas, a free nation, was voluntarily annexed, Alaska was purchased. Cuba, when conquered, was given back except for one little outpost, the US Virgin Islands were acquired in a trade, the Bahamas have remained British, and the French and Spanish colonies in South America stayed the way they were until they obtained their own independence. Brevity begs the list, but there is absolutely no support for your contention.
jimlongley wrote:
As pointed out above, the ICJ does not have jurisdiction directly over Texas, they only have a treaty with the US, and all the US can do is what it did, attempt to influence Texas. The state did not violate any legal procedure, that would only occur if the treaty signatory did not allow consular access, and the US never tried to inject itself into the process until recently.
The thinly veiled threats issuing from the State Department, the UN, and various other entities, that US citizens arrested abroad will suffer repraisals in response denies the fact that US citizens have already been suffering such indignities for decades, and is nothing more than an attempt at extortion.
This is indeed about something more than simply putting a confessed and unrepentant rapist and murderer to death, it's also about whether the world gets to say how we conduct our business in our state. Imagine if France, Guatemala, or even Mexico were approached by the World Court due to urging from the US on a similar issue - they would laughingly suggest that the World Court peddle their goods elsewhere, and that would be no change from what has always transpired.
If we let them get away with this stuff, the next thing they will want is for us to outlaw guns . . . Oops, forgot, they already are insisting on that.
Maybe it's time to consider reimplementing the Monroe Doctrine.
[/quote]