digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

World Court orders U.S. to stop executions of 5 Mexicans

usatoday.com — The U.N.'s highest court on Wednesday ordered U.S. authorities to do everything in their power to halt the executions of five Mexicans on death row in Texas until their cases are reviewed.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Tomboys, on 07/16/2008, -40/+84The headline makes it sound like Americans do nothing all day but execute Mexicans. If these 5 people are on death row I'm pretty sure they are guilty of some heinous crimes where they probably "killed" people.
    • DarthTater, on 07/16/2008, -25/+17Nop. It says to stop 5(five) executions. Nobody is saying they are innocent. The point is the didn't have a good defense. They could at least avoid execution with the right opportunity.
      • p0s3r, on 07/17/2008, -6/+28They had a good defense. They World Court ordered the stay because these illegal immigrant rapists and murders weren't informed they could contact their consul.
      • Lukesed, on 07/17/2008, -14/+10How can you possibly know whether they had a good defense if they had no real lawyer?
      • VeritasAequitas, on 07/17/2008, -1/+13How do you figure they didn't have a good lawyer. Do you think they were just sat down in court w/o a defense attorney provided? Are you saying that public defenders aren't good lawyers. I for one think that if someone comes here illegally and rapes and kills children that a public defender paid for by the taxpayers of that country is probably fine. OH yeah and they were also given the due process of an appeals trial too.
      • spritom, on 07/17/2008, -1/+7The article says nothing about whether their defense wasn't appropriate or whether they didn't receive due process. It says that the World Court wants Texas to review it based upon what they state as a "right to seek help from consular officials."
      • GreatSunJester, on 07/17/2008, -1/+10If they did not have a "Dream Team" of high priced lawyers they at least would have had court appointed lawyers --- you know.. the SAME lawyers that are good enough for citizens who can not afford a "Dream Team" ?
      • RogueGenius, on 07/17/2008, -5/+2If say, p0s3r or GretSunJester were arrested for ANY reason and the cops didn't read him his Mirandas, I'd put heavy green on it that he'd be on the phone to the ACLU in about 10 seconds. Any cop worth his salt should have done that. What, haven't these guys watched any cops shows since Manix?

        Hypocrisy sickens me.
      • p0s3r, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5They were read their Miranda rights. They just weren't informed that since they were in America illegally and thus not American citizens, that they could contact their consul. They weren't denied the ability to contact their consul, just not told they could.
    • yuletide, on 07/16/2008, -36/+11Moral/financial issues regarding the death penalty notwithstanding... Your brilliant display of logic: because "Americans [don't] do nothing all day but execute Mexicans" therefore: All Mexicans on death row are "guilty of some heinous crimes where they PROBABLY 'killed' people." Oh, at least you're "pretty sure" they're guilty...

      I can sleep at night only because I know you are not anywhere NEAR the workings of the American criminal justice system. The fact that you are able to vote, however, is still quite disquieting.
      • Tomboys, on 07/17/2008, -7/+22Dude. If you are judging my knowledge about the cases bases on a two sentence comment. you are the idiot.

        I guarantee you I am more politically informed than you are. The demanded “stay” of execution by the world court had NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence. It had to do with the fact that the guilty assholes were not informed that they could contact Mexican consul.

        So before you act all superior in your knowledge... and throw around quips about your opinion about my qualifications to vote... Why don’t you debate me. And the loser of the debate will lose their right to vote in the next election. Come on! I dare you!
      • NoCt1, on 07/17/2008, -10/+4How about both of yall just not vote?
      • norman619, on 07/17/2008, -2/+13Based on your logic I don't think you are in any position to be advising others in their use of logic.
    • monoa, on 07/17/2008, -16/+8Why have you put 'killed' in quotes?

      Is 'probably' good enough justification to murder people?

      Take a look at the company the USA keeps in murdering its citizens - dictatorships, Islamic theocracies and the third world: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb ...

      USA! USA! USA!
      • Tomboys, on 07/17/2008, -2/+5First of all this has NOTHING to do with this case. Secondly, in the future I would refrain from referencing wikipedia. Everyone knows wikipedia is not a credible source because anyone can write whatever they want to in it.
      • monoa, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1Legalised murder has EVERYTHING (do you feel that SHOUTING improves the strength of your argument?) to do with it.

        lol. Unable to argue with fact and reality, you attack the source - completely ignoring the independent references that prove the information contained on the page. You putz.

        If there were any truth to your statement, you'd be able to login and change some of the civlized countries in to legalised murderers. Give it a go. See how long your changes, and your access, lasts.
    • raffithegreat, on 07/17/2008, -2/+27the five gang raped and killed two teenagers girls 15 years ago.

      i both hope and assume their 15 years in jail has been hell, and by now, they should be looking forward to the death penalty.
      • GodsDragon, on 07/17/2008, -10/+4btw only one of them was accused of gang raping the teens.
      • Midtowner, on 07/17/2008, -7/+2Relevance?
      • Oracle95, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Not only did they gang rape and murder these girls, but they were caught because they were BRAGGING about it! These bastards are rapid animals that need to be put down. The world court's order was nothing more than a "Do Over". This isn't a matter of their innocence or lack of a proper legal defense.
    • GodsDragon, on 07/17/2008, -11/+2I am pretty sure that the UN judge would not just say hold of on the death sentence for no reason. I think that there must be some doubt about whether or not some of the people sentenced to death are guilty or not. Even Mexicans deserve a fair trial and proven guilty without a doubt before sentenced to death.
      • JAVandiver, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6Beyond reasonable doubt, not without any doubt. They were, and then again on appeal. Every death row inmate in Texas has been found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury, and then granted an automatic appeal. Most have several others.
      • euphoriadj, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5the UN judge ruled a stay because the convicts were not able to contact the Mexican embassy. It was just an international law issue not guilt or innocents.
      • Midtowner, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2The U.N. judge has no jurisdiction. To have jurisdiction, the parties before the ICC (that's the court we're talking about) have to submit to it via treaties. While the U.S. recognizes the United Nations, the U.S. never signed onto the ICC because there wasn't much to gain from abrogating our sovereignty (actually, there was nothing to gain except for maybe some warm feelings from the E.U.).

        This "ruling" if you can even call it that is the ICC sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Juries, who were actually privy to all of the evidence and saw the testimony of all the witnesses have decided that these five Mexicans are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

        The issue here is whether the state's failure to notify the Mexican consulate merits reversal. While the failure was wrong, it was found by the American courts to be harmless error, i.e., it wouldn't have mattered in any of these cases if the Mexican consulate had been informed, so the rule of law here is, in essence "no harm, no foul."

        An American court never would have done something like this. You don't get federal courts sticking their nose into something which is clearly state business. You don't get federal courts making rulings when they lack subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the parties. The ICC here, ruling in the manner in which it did, in the eyes of the American legal community just seriously debased itself by making a futile proclamation based not on the law, but upon international politics -- something which gives the U.S. further reason to not sign a treaty recognizing the ICC.
      • nick1971, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1One can never give up hope that the US should accept the consequences and structures of international law. There are many questionable actions of the last few years that would best be addressed by the world court. Should the international community accept that the US can do what it wants or should it be held accountable for violations under international law - e,g, torture and detainment without trial.
      • Midtowner, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2"Should the international community accept that the US can do what it wants or should it be held accountable for violations under international law - e,g, torture and detainment without trial."[?]

        Should it? Perhaps. Will it? Absolutely no chance in Hades. The U.S. has no reason to submit and the world lacks the power to give the U.S. any incentive to submit or disincentive not to.

        Regarding the court itself, the feeling over here, even in legal/academic circles is that were the U.S. to submit to the ICC and other U.N. courts, we'd face a great many judges who would merely be interested in teaching the United States a bit of humility rather than doing any substantial justice (or they'd believe that teaching the United States humility equated to justice). A little paranoid? Maybe, maybe not.

        Just over 200 years ago, the United States fought a long and bloody war to throw off the yoke of England and Europe. We are an independent and sovereign people who I think will be very reluctant to willingly place ourselves back under the thumb of foreign powers. We have nothing to gain from such a transaction and an awful lot to lose.
    • prophet5, on 07/17/2008, -14/+9Why don't we execute Mexicans every day?
    • jekylltech, on 07/17/2008, -10/+4Non-US citizens who commit a serious crime should be deported, no questions asked. Record their DNA, fingerprints, everything and inform them they are never allowed to return to the US ever. Deport them back to their country of origin, and in the case of Mexico drop them off at the southern boarder, not just across the Rio Grande. Finally make returning to the US a capital crime and have this fully documented with ALL goverment agencies. Illegal immigrants come here looking for a new, better life and the USA provides that opportunity. However if they screw up at all(like gang-rapeing women), get them out of here, because there are plenty of others who would make better use of the opportunity. Illegal immigration is hyper-complex, but I think we all agree, that if we remove the bad illegals, it will make life better for legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, and US citizens.
      • RUFuKinCrazy, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7Are you ***** serious? You would take these rapist murders to the border and send them on their merry way? The deserve death, and that is what they will receive. Hopefully some time very soon. I would gladly pull the lever myself. This is the stupidest idea I have ever heard of. Hey, come on into the US and do whatever you like; rape, kill, whatever...but if we catch you, its back to Mexico for you buddy. Geez.
      • screamthenrun, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5My cousin works for ICE and deports people on a daily basis [he's one of their lawyers]. Deportation has NEVER stopped people from coming back. He has deported the same gang members and drug runners MULTIPLE times and they still are able to break through our crappy border security.

        I disagree completely with your assessment of what needs to be done. As the last line [why the hell did they leave it to the last line?] of the article says "The first of the Mexicans, Jose Medellin, is scheduled to be killed by lethal injection on Aug. 5 for taking part in the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls 15 years ago."
        You don't deport someone like that. Although I don't agree with capital punishment, these illegal aliens who commit heinous crimes need to be punished severely. Let them rot in prison for the rest of their lives.
      • woobyluv, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4Actually, non-citizens who commit serious crimes should be considered enemy combatants, directly attacking the U.S. and shot on the spot! Why waste the tax payers money on a trial or incarceration?
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/17/2008, -4/+1The headline might have sounded that way, but if you actually could READ the article you'd have had a clue.
  • BlindingDawn, on 07/16/2008, -16/+137Hold on a sec, bigger question.
    When did the World Court Trump US Court?
    • DarthTater, on 07/16/2008, -9/+41Bo they don't. It's just a recommendation but it's kind o hypocritical ask another countries to accept The Hague recommendations and don't do the same when it's your turn. Don't you think?
      • yuletide, on 07/16/2008, -3/+18That's just it, we don't ask other countries to accept Hague recommendations, as far as I know. Hence our very reluctant support for the recent warrant for the Sudanese head of state over the Darfur charges. We basically said "he should be brought to justice", but conveniently left out any mention of the ICC. The US govm't is supposedly afraid the court could be used to 'persecute' Americans (abroad) for 'political' reasons. Which I guess could be valid, but still sounds a bit strange. Also, do we have any better options for dealing with the likes of Mladic (Balkan War atrocities) or the many implicated in the (onggoing) Darfur tragedy?
      • natsfan, on 07/17/2008, -1/+9Then why did the state department praise the indictment of Sudan's president and why do we support the trial of war criminals from the Bosnian Wars?

        http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57459. ...
      • rhyss, on 07/17/2008, -13/+6But they took rrr jobs!
      • JAVandiver, on 07/17/2008, -1/+12It is immaterial. Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over state courts with regards to murder and the punishment thereof. If someone can find evidence that the criminals civil rights were violated prior to their execution date, then possibly federal courts could intercede. Until then, they have no legal right to do such.
    • ruddy, on 07/17/2008, -4/+7yeah, we just fund it...
      • Rotzooi, on 07/17/2008, -3/+4that would be true if we actually paid up.
    • rald84, on 07/17/2008, -10/+4the US signed certain treaties to be parties to the world court, though bush just withdrew from them. the constitution says treaties (ratified by congress) are part of US law.

      this is why, even though bush has disdain for world court and UN, he tried to get texas to do it their way in the supreme court case.
      • IPublius, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5That's not precisely correct. The treaty has to be ratified by Congress, yes, but ratification is secondary approval, implying that someone else made the decision to sign on first. In the US it is the President. If one wants it and the other doesn't, it doesn't fly. Bush never signed on to it, so Congress approving it doesn't really mean a whole lot at this time.

        Also, the Constitution says treaties are US Law only if they do not conflict with currently existing law. The US cannot write a law later to change something, but if it is already done, the treaty does not overrule.
    • synwolf, on 07/17/2008, -8/+2Probably ever since the dollar sank to 1.6 to a Euro. C'mon, now, that's just sad.
      • executorzz, on 07/17/2008, -1/+6Yeah so sad the US is increasing exports now because of the weaker dollar.
    • DifferentAngle, on 07/17/2008, -15/+1Digg this if you didnt even know there was a "world court".
    • IHaveIssues, on 07/17/2008, -1/+5Right after the RIAA decided that their power is worldwide as well.
    • pinchduck, on 07/17/2008, -8/+2That is a great question. The answer is: Maybe, I don't know. In the constitution, treaties trump the constitution. It is written right in there. It is like a jurisprudence IRQ port into our legal system. That is the basis for many conspiracy theories. They all have some variation of "U.S. enters into a treaty which has a loophole stating that all your laws are replaced by ours". I don't know if we have any such treaty with the World Court, and what it's scope is if we do.
      • jgzman, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3If I recall correctly, Treaties do not override the constitution, but treaties are considered law.

        Alternately, if we signed a treaty allowing the Germans to come over here and force us to quarter their troops, that would violate our rights, and couldn't happen. (oddly enough, I had to think hard to find something that hasn't already been tangled with. That one's still good, however)

        But if we sign a treaty saying we will respect the decisions of some world court, then we have to respect those decisions. HOWEVER, I'm pretty sure that the constitution names the Supreme court as, well, supreme. That means to me, that we are required to abide by the decisions of the World court, IAW the treaty, but that the Supreme Court could legally overturn their decision. For us, at least.

        I also agree that it would be very ***** of us to fail to respect the world court, if we expect other people to do so.
      • Mier, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4Negative. No treaty ever trumps the Constitution. If the rest of the world outlaws guns that law stops right at the shores of the US.
      • IPublius, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1Not totally correct. The Constitution trumps any treaties provided that the treaty relates to something already in the Constitution. Constitutional Law accepts that the Constitution trumps all other legal affairs in the US, but if a treaty is made, an amendment may not be later made to overturn that treaty. In other words, whoever binds the issue first (Constitution or treaty) is the ruling law.
      • jgzman, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1I have to disagree with that last point. If the Constitution is amended so that current laws are invalid, they go away. I see no reason that the treaties should not be treated the same way.
      • IPublius, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1@JG - I don't write the law, read the Constitution for yourself. Treaties are treated differently than laws in the Constitution. Barring an already existing Constitutional clause, they become the law of the land. Note that only those laws made "in pursuance of" the Constitution get the same coverage. Don't bury me because you dislike what the law is.

        Art. 6 para 2
        This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    • niczar, on 07/17/2008, -4/+6When the constitution said that treaties were the "law of the land" ...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

      Not that you guys should care about treaties you've signed since your constitution is pretty much a useless piece of paper anyhow, nowadays.
      • captainmage1966, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1 So a treaty we never signed is now the law of the USA
      • niczar, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1The treaty is the UN Charter. You've signed it.
        You're probably confusing the World Court with the ICC. Not the same.
    • Midtowner, on 07/17/2008, -1/+9@Nicczar, the U.S. never signed a treaty recognizing the World Court. We use it sometimes, but only when the U.S. parties willingly submit to its jurisdiction and agree to be bound thereby.

      We haven't recognized the World Court because we have nothing to gain by doing so. Most countries which do recognize the World Court only do so with strings attached.
      • zeabu, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1"We haven't recognized the World Court because we have nothing to gain by doing so."
        eg.: Blackwater

        If the US were sure they were not doing anything against international law, they would have ratified it already. But they know that they sometimes cross the line.
        eg.: Guantanamo Bay.
      • niczar, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1Yes you did. That's the UN Charter.
        You're confusing it with the ICC.
    • whatknight, on 07/17/2008, -3/+4it would be a nice gesture if we did actually do what they said to do.
    • stevelasseter, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4UN is just an organization, and if countries don't do what they are told other countries in the UN get mad. They have no right to tell us what to do, but because of the association they make "suggestions".
    • Schmich, on 07/17/2008, -11/+2Wow I'm so disappointed in all these comments. Someone (yeh "just" the World Court) ordered the US to halt (not the end of the world right?) a procedure and most Americans react. Seriously, American tell other countries what to do all the time and guess what? No one can do anything about it.

      America tells another country to do something it's perfectly normal. Someone tells America to do something and the US reacts or completly ignores. Always one way roads with the US...

      This reminds me of the Swedish inventor Håkans Lans (inventor of the coloured computer graphics, STDMA-GPS, and partially the computer mouse) who got his ideas stolen by the US government or army (can't remember which) and he had to fight on his own. Sweden can't do anything against the US. If it was the other way around, he was American and Sweden stole, then I'm sure Håkan would be as rich as you can be instead of being close to filing bankruptcy.

      oh and bury me for telling the truth, come on!
      • TheSexyGeek, on 07/17/2008, -2/+3I really wish people would stop asking to be dugg down, but if you insist. . . .
      • Acolyte357, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Douglas Engelbart at the Stanford Research Institute invented the mouse in 1963
        Lans got paid and sold the 986 colorgraphic patent to IBM and Hitachi.
        STDMA is a standard for GPS navigation.
        So which one was stolen?


    • Buttercup, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2Team America... WORLD POLICE!
    • pjpark, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1See Medellin v. Texas,http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_9 ... . It is actually a really interesting case on the limitations of Presidential power that we didn't read for class for some reason. But basically, no, the President of the United States cannot tell state courts what to do, much less the ICJ. No nation "treats ICJ judgments as binding in domestic courts."
  • diggrnumber1, on 07/17/2008, -19/+20even Texas no longer listens to Dubya
    • WhiteRaven, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2A state isn't *supposed* to listen. Neither the President nor the U.N. have any say in the matter.
  • Tomboys, on 07/17/2008, -12/+35I have always considered myself a liberal. But I have to say the extreme leftists with their arrogance are NOT helping the Democratic party. Seriously people. Pipe down with your arrogance.
    • Rotzooi, on 07/17/2008, -15/+1Shut up, you dumb hick. Go teach your children some more Creationist nonsense while you hunt raccoons.
      I'm off to perform a couple abortions in my local socialist headquarters.
      • Tomboys, on 07/17/2008, -4/+4yep. I'm a hick. a private school and college educated hick who lives n West Hollywood California and writes comedy, supports a woman's write to choose, believes in all religions and drives a Volvo. Now squeal for me piggy.
    • mahdaeng, on 07/17/2008, -3/+4I'm a conservative, but I dugg your comment.
  • Portwineboy, on 07/17/2008, -4/+68"The first of the Mexicans, Jose Medellin, is scheduled to be killed by lethal injection on Aug. 5 for taking part in the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls 15 years ago."

    Sounds like a nice guy
    • norman619, on 07/17/2008, -2/+40Sounds like justice to me. These guys are a waste of flesh.
    • juice09, on 07/17/2008, -0/+18It's pathetic it took 15 years.
    • scoottie, on 07/17/2008, -2/+13those are the type of people that the UN is trying to save .......

      it really goes to show you that the UN is impotent (that's impotent not important). They send peacekeepers that cant do jack ***** unless they are attacked. They cant stop Darfur or Zimbabwe crisis. The UN needs to be replaced they cant do jack *****
      • jgzman, on 07/17/2008, -8/+3The reason they want to 'save' them is because they were not advised that they were allowed to contact their consular. (or ambassador, or whoever the Official Mexican Guy is) That violates the rules for dealing with citizens of other countries.

        How would you feel if you were picked up for something in, say, Afghanistan, and they tried and punished you without letting you speak to the American authorities?

        I am eternally amused by the American desire to wander about with "civis Romanus sum" on their lips, coupled with the ability to ignore other countries.
      • Naieve, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7If I had gang raped and murdered a couple teenage Afghani's?

        I wouldn't expect to survive 5 minutes.
    • evilgourmet, on 07/17/2008, -1/+5Let them go, and have the police out of the way -- some other part of the state. See if they get what the people think they deserve.
    • raffithegreat, on 07/17/2008, -3/+3i don't know, life in jail with that sentence should be hell. they must be tortured by everyone from inmates to staff. i don't the mexican convicts would stick up for them either.

      let them rot. killing them would almost be merciful.
    • jbella, on 07/17/2008, -6/+2Of course Texas also leads the nation in most overturned death penalty cases due to DNA evidence coming to light later on.
      • Oracle95, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1That's because it usually takes 15 - 20 years of appeals to actually execute someone. DNA wasn't much of a factor 20 years ago.
    • Naieve, on 07/17/2008, -0/+10jbella, Medellin confessed IN DETAIL to the rape and murder. There is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO DOUBT he is guilty.

      I don't care if was allowed to talk to the Mexican Consulate. He lost any rights he had when he came into our country then gangraped and murdered a pair of grade school girls.
      • thesonofdarwin, on 07/17/2008, -4/+2False confessions, coerced by law officials happen all the time. A Mexican in Texas? Girls killed with a Mexican in the area? Come on people... the sentences aren't being dismissed, we just need to make sure the right person is being executed. Wouldn't want Texas to keep up with its killing of innocents.

        All cases involving a death sentence should always be thoroughly reviewed. Always. Always. Always.

        But it would be nice if the UN would step in on the other major atrocities happening elsewhere... priorities much?
      • Naieve, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2They are thoroughly reviewed. Which is why death sentences cost more then life imprisonment.

        The problem with your theory about making sure it is the right person is flawed. There is no doubt. He is guilty. He confessed in DETAIL. Meaning he confessed using facts known only to the murderers and the police. He is guilty.

        What you are seeing now is a last second plea for a GANGRAPIST MURDERER To be let free on a technicality that isn't US law, but International.
      • Oracle95, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1This wasn't a FALSE confession. The bastard was caught because he was BRAGGING about it. There was no remorse, he was the crimes as a badge of honor, like a fisherman hanging up a record catch or a hunter mounting a deer rack.
  • chase001, on 07/17/2008, -44/+6But it won't be Texas if they can't kill brown people and retards.
    • surfacewound, on 07/17/2008, -3/+13And it wouldn't be Digg without idiotic comments like this one.
    • Brownds, on 07/17/2008, -4/+10@chase001
      STFU you ***** vacuum.
    • kleptomaniac, on 07/17/2008, -3/+13I think the emphasis here is less on the Mexican part and more on the rape and murder part.
  • bentman78, on 07/17/2008, -23/+119In other news, World Court doesn't ask terrorists to stop beheading and torturing people. They should also talk to China about it's record.

    The UN is worthless...
    • Schmich, on 07/17/2008, -3/+2"World Court doesn't ask terrorists"
      but it asked the US government? Note: government, not people
      • WhiteRaven, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3You're right, equating the state of Texas to terrorists doesn't make a lick of sense. One imposes a death sentence on killers after finding them guilty in a court of law, the other targets innocent people for killing in the name of insane abstracts.

        It would make a lot more sense to draw a parallel between the men on death row and the terrorists. And there's the bonus that the World Court and the UN tends to come to the defense of both types.

        You know, it's really disturbing how so many people that strongly oppose the death penalty end up dooming countless innocents through their weakness.
    • chc131, on 07/17/2008, -9/+2Ask China about its records????????
      Ask USA about violations of human rights in its prisons.
      Ask USA about Genocide of Iraqis.
      Ask USA about predatory laws against minorities.
      Ask USA about what happened to all the Native Americans.

      • bentman78, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6Ask USA about violations of human rights in its prisons.
        Please cite examples. Is it any worse than the Falun Gong? I bet not even close. I'd rather be in the US prison than any other prison.

        Ask USA about Genocide of Iraqis.
        Most Iraqi deaths are a result of other Iraqis or Arab and Persian fighters, not the US.

        Ask USA about predatory laws against minorities
        Please these laws. If you are referring to the 60's than okay, you aren't saying things people don't already know..

        Ask USA about what happened to all the Native Americans.
        Let's ask the Chinese what happened when Mao led his revolution. A reported 500,000 dead. Stats are likely a lot more died because the government and local authorities covered up a lot of their misdeeds. .Mao: The Unknown Story reports 3 million died which is probably closer to the real number. Let's also not forget the Tibetans and Nepalese who live under Chinese tyranny.
      • WhiteRaven, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Those questions have been asked and answered thousands of times. The only reason people like you continue to pursue those dead ends is because empty accusations and dead history is the only thing you have going for you. Demonizing the US is a loser's game. It is the last refuge of those who cling to mindlessly naive ideals.
  • Lugano, on 07/17/2008, -15/+31It seems like the UN has decided to jump on the bandwagon and start with US bashing.
  • amightywind, on 07/17/2008, -18/+54The US has its own laws. The Mexicans get due process. Hang 'em high!
    • DifferentAngle, on 07/17/2008, -15/+4The article said that they didnt get due process, which is why Mexico asked the World Court to intervene.
      • VeritasAequitas, on 07/17/2008, -0/+15They didn't get help from their country, they did have formal representation. Paid for by us taxpayers. Oh and a formal appeal.
    • Takfam, on 07/17/2008, -6/+1Countries that are members of the U.N. agree to abide by certain rules. If the U.S. doesn't wish to follow suit, they should leave. A bad idea considering half of the globe views the U.S. leaders as warmongers.

      See how gung-ho blind patriot you are if the U.S. has no allies and the bombs start dropping.
      • FolkTheory, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6lol we got NATO you moron. the UN wouldnt do ***** to help the US in war. only thing they ever did was declare war for us in yugoslavia...
      • Takfam, on 07/17/2008, -4/+1You really think NATO matters to the "Whateva! We Amurika! We do what we want!" crowd? If NATO said no to this, they'd want to pull out of that too.
      • Naieve, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6Truthfully people.

        Go look at the military's of the world.

        We don't need allies if you start bombing us, we will wipe the oceans clean and you will use them at our leisure.
  • Ronin, on 07/17/2008, -10/+56Does anyone actually think that Mexico would do the same for an American?
    • JammoBlammo, on 07/17/2008, -0/+19If the American could withdraw enough money at the teller machine.
    • rald84, on 07/17/2008, -5/+19Mexico doesn't have the death penalty.
      • manstein01, on 07/17/2008, -5/+16Not officially anyway. But if someone (usually a central American) is beaten to death by the police, nobody bats an eyelash.
      • stevetrojanman, on 07/17/2008, -2/+21Nor do they have "rules" for treatment of Americans...

        Mexico isn't exactly forgiving when it comes to it's prisoners.
      • dexter411, on 07/17/2008, -3/+13They also jail anyone found to have illegally crossed into their country over the border with the USA...
      • funkyloki, on 07/17/2008, -0/+19Case in point: Darren Mack. Convicted of murdering his wife and attempting to murder the family court judge presiding over his divorce. He ran to Mexico, where he was caught. Mexico would not release Darren Mack to US custody, until they were assured that the death penalty was off the table if he was found guilty.
      • mooheiferghandi, on 07/17/2008, -6/+8Yes they do. For anyone who tries to stand up to the corrupt politicians and drug cartels that run the place. It's turning into every other Latin American pie hole.
      • mahdaeng, on 07/17/2008, -3/+5@manstein01:

        [[if someone (usually a central American) is beaten to death by the police, nobody bats an eyelash]]

        That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that most of the Central Americans that come to Mexico bring violence and crime with them could it? Furthermore, Americans should be happy that Mexicans are doing what they can to keep unsavory individuals, such as the mara-salvatruchas, from spreading farther north.
      • Oracle95, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1No, you just DISAPPEAR
  • natsfan, on 07/17/2008, -19/+8I wonder how loud we would cry when some American tourist gets in trouble and is denied consular access
    • ender7074, on 07/17/2008, -3/+11Moron. They had their day in court with consul. They were found guilty of gang raping a teenage girl. Guess you think terrorists are just misunderstood too right?
      • DreKor, on 07/17/2008, -6/+2They had LEGAL COUNCIL, but not DIPLOMATIC COSULAR access, which is what the world court is basing this on.
      • natsfan, on 07/17/2008, -6/+2It you would read the case, the were denied access to the Mexican consul, i.e. a right guaranteed by the Vienna Convention, which we ratified. There is a reason that the federal government and the state department want a hearing.
    • VeritasAequitas, on 07/17/2008, -0/+8If an american tourist Gang Rapes and Kills some teenage girls, then goes through a trial with representation and then goes through an appeals process. Then I don't care. Of course after they are legitamately found guilty of rape and murder of a child I no longer care what harms happens to them, cause it's too good.
  • dblespresso, on 07/17/2008, -11/+40This is the same un who just pulled out of Darfur. The UN is a media circus with the hopes of global redistribution of wealth,
  • Francky, on 07/17/2008, -24/+11What the ***** is wrong with you people (the one that commented before) We are talking about the U.S. not allowing people ON U.S. soil to have due process, preventing them to have proper council and then executing them. Yet you seem pissed that the UN is trying to intervene ?! If they start with foreigners on US soil, it won't be long now if they do this to US citizens now. Would you still want the UN to shut up when your government starts killing you ?
    • manstein01, on 07/17/2008, -2/+15um, what?" If an American trespasses on foreign soil, then goes on to murder/rape a few people, I will not give two ***** about consular access.
    • JAVandiver, on 07/17/2008, -1/+10They had due process, they question is whether or not they denied access to consular officials. It Texas, if sentenced to death you get an automatic appeal. Obviously in the appeal, no misgivings were found, thus the execution was scheduled. Look, it is not like we are railroading these border-jumping criminals to the death house, the one up for execution gang raped and murdered teenagers in 1995. That was 13 years ago!
    • stevetrojanman, on 07/17/2008, -2/+14They already had due process in the courts...they were tried and found guilty in the courts...they were sentenced to death in the courts...what exactly is the Mexican consulate going to do?

      Maybe, for once in your life, view the situation from the side of an American that doesn't despise everything America does...you might become more rational.

      You sound paranoid and might want to consider therapy.
  • FearFactory, on 07/17/2008, -14/+18I know this sounds crazy but if these guys dodge death row they will probably be hailed as heros in Mexico.
    • GreatSunJester, on 07/17/2008, -1/+13And likely in Europe as well..... probably some American newspapers too.
      • zeabu, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1I think death penalty is stupid, because I don't believe in an afterlife. It's the easy way out, the short pain.
        I as a European am for life-long sentence, so that they can rot in prison, and think about their actions the rest of their lifes.
        That life-long sentence is also reversable, in case new evidence shows up. How many times has it happened already that after 15 years, or after 18 years some Death Row inmate seems to be in prison innocent.
        Stick them in jail, and undo the luxary state of todays prisons.
    • phoenixshard, on 07/17/2008, -3/+5Highly doubtful they would be hailed as heroes anywhere. They were found guilty in court. The problem is that the rules of not being able to seek the consul of their own government, who quite possibly would have taken care of a legal defense for them. Its the same as if a criminal here is convicted and then let go because they weren't read their rights. Its a technicality.
    • Naieve, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4The world is hailing the release of a terrorist from Israel who murdered a family.
      • Whatup, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2The crushed a 4 year old toddler's skull,... what a hero.
  • drmangrum, on 07/17/2008, -17/+87The US is a sovereign nation. The UN has no power here. People aren't put on death row on a whim. Mexicans aren't rounded up at Home Depot and randomly accused of capital crimes. Seeing how a VAST amount of the Texas population is Hispanic; the sensational title rings a little hollow for me. While the 5 Mexicans on death row probably didn't receive the best defense ( public defenders ), you can bet their lawyers did speak Spanish, and did have full access to the legal system, at least as much as their lawyer was willing.

    FTA: "The first of the Mexicans, Jose Medellin, is scheduled to be killed by lethal injection on Aug. 5 for taking part in the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls 15 years ago."
    Yeah, it's been 15 years. Something tells me, he's had his appeals. Gang rape and murder of teenagers...he should have been executed long ago. You have to love the verbiage too. "killed" instead of "executed."

    Hey, UN. How about going to Mexico and investigating all the charges of extreme government corruption? You know, the corruption that's so bad it's been a running joke for decades?

    At the risk of sounding like an arrogant, egotistical American, the UN can go ***** themselves.
    • Sunnygurm, on 07/17/2008, -38/+9Yeah, you do sound like an egotistical American. For an American to say "the UN can go ***** themselves" is a little redundant. Your president already made that statement by invading Iraq.
      • ElDiablo6870, on 07/17/2008, -5/+13Good, then you got the message.
      • Acolyte357, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Cool, want us to pull our funding out of the UN?
    • DifferentAngle, on 07/17/2008, -30/+5We supposedly signed a treaty saying that we'd respect the World Court, which by our constitution makes it our law.
      • Midtowner, on 07/17/2008, -0/+10Never happened.

        The U.S. is not a member of the ICC.
      • Acolyte357, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2We didn't sign *****.
    • crazy0, on 07/17/2008, -22/+1what about thee 400+ years of US/anglo corruption what say you?
      • devnullDood, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7You obviously missed the whole point
      • crazy0, on 07/17/2008, -7/+1the previous point doesn't matter as it is hypocritical and superseded by mine, thx
      • auto98, on 07/17/2008, -0/+11I'd say teh US hasn't existed for 400+years
      • mahdaeng, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5Whether or not your allegations are true, your argument is completely faulty. Do you honestly believe that if you do something wrong, you should expect everyone to look the other way when someone else does something wrong?
      • Midtowner, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5What corruption would that be.

        We are not a signatory to that treaty and therefore don't have to submit to the World Court.

        Some of you are so damned clueless about the things you apparently feel so strongly about that it's scary.

        My advice: lurk more.
      • crazy0, on 07/17/2008, -6/+0ahem...case and point anglo moral corruption, new world genocide & slavery.....stfu the lot of yall, ya suburbafoon wiggers

        i was merely commenting on what the Dr wrote......
      • drmangrum, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3You can comment on what I wrote all you want. That doesn't make your point a valid one. Spotting the ill-informed is easy, they typically degenerate debate into name calling.

        You're not in grade school anymore crazy0, at least I hope not.
      • crazy0, on 07/18/2008, -3/+0sure...like your diatribe was any better
      • Acolyte357, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2I would say your name fits your thoughts.
      • crazy0, on 07/18/2008, -1/+0it does...your mom says i giver her the craziest O's ever....
    • rald84, on 07/17/2008, -14/+4"... and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ..."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_Un ...
      • drmangrum, on 07/17/2008, -1/+17Treaties are signed between countries. The UN is not a country. Member states are voted in. There are no treaties involved.

        Nice try though, next time do some research.
      • phoenixshard, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1The UN is a body that is a central point between the nations that are members there. The US and Mexico both being members. The treaty in question would be signed by all members of that group.
      • niczar, on 07/17/2008, -6/+1Hey, drmangum: "The United Nations Charter is the treaty that forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations.[1] It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, California, United States"

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un_charter

        Eat that, tardboy!
      • Midtowner, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5And we don't recognize the World Court... there is no treaty doing that. We all know that the supremacy clause exists, but for a treaty to be enforced, it has to exist.

    • niczar, on 07/17/2008, -15/+2Hey toughguy redneck dumbass, AKA drmangum, how about you read your damn constitution, namely article 2, section 2, clause 2 before beating your hairy chest like a rabid gorilla?
      • drmangrum, on 07/17/2008, -1/+6Maybe you should try reading it and understanding it. It doesn't apply here. Less name calling more critical thinking.
      • Midtowner, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6This would only be applicable if there ever was a treaty signed by the President upon the advice and consent of the Senate which submits to the jurisdiction of the World Court.

        No such treaty exists or ever has existed.

        Glad you can read the Constitution, but you skipped a pretty major step in your analysis.
    • Mier, on 07/17/2008, -1/+8That's called media bias. It's rampant and it's subtle, I'm glad you saw it for what it was. Keep looking and you'll see that most papers and alot of "journalism" are actually just opinion pieces disguised as news.

      They already tried this once BTW you dumbasses. They SCOTUS shot it down fully saying the president doesn't have the power to force a retrial.
    • umbrellainabin, on 07/17/2008, -4/+1they are
    • trendygamer, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7They may not have received the best defense money can buy, but believe me - the attorneys assigned to defend cases in which the death penalty is in play are by NO means slackers. These guys take a lot of pride in what they do, and are far from the stereotype of the public defender. Many states even have agencies separate from the public defenders' office for these guys.
  • h3lx, on 07/17/2008, -10/+45Gang Rape and Murder of two teenage girls 15 years ago... that's 15 years to file appeals and sort through all the jurisdictional channels to get the matter resolved, if you can't exhaust every effort in 15 years, you're not doing it right.

    Kill them. Deal with the political rambling after Justice is delivered to the families of the maimed and murdered. It doesn't make it better, it just makes it right.
    • GodsDragon, on 07/17/2008, -5/+2Only one of the people were accused of that I am curious about what the others are accused of.
  • InspectorGadget, on 07/17/2008, -13/+23This so-called court's order is not legally binding. Ride the lightning, rapists.
    • auto98, on 07/17/2008, -6/+21 of them is a rapist, and it is lethal injection being used

      Fool
  • bacchante, on 07/17/2008, -26/+3Hahaha. USA #1. We're gonna murder some *****-brown Mexicans and there ain't ***** all any of ya'll can do about it. Bet they ain't light skinned Mexicans. Hoo ra!
    • crazy0, on 07/17/2008, -3/+3dont worry you will have ur day....
      • bacchante, on 07/17/2008, -5/+1Hahaha.. yeah right, this is America, chump
      • auto98, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2exactly bacchante - one day you will be imprisoned without trial and held for as long as they want - that is what america stands for nowadays

        Don't think you are safe because you are an american
      • bacchante, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1I'm safe because I'm a relatively rich white American and I'm not involved with anything bizzare.
      • crazy0, on 07/18/2008, -2/+0lol u loser...... you really think thats gonna last?? you forgot the rich white fat american ***** tho.... your demographic is as bizzare as it gets.....
    • GreatSunJester, on 07/17/2008, -0/+8Normally I try to avoid directly insulting posters here on Digg, I may disagree with them, I may get sarcastic with them....

      You, sir, are an IDIOT. Please, please never reproduce.
  • chikuten, on 07/17/2008, -12/+13i'd pull the trigger to shoot an electric chair full of lethal injection into those death rowers.
  • VeritasAequitas, on 07/17/2008, -8/+34They gang raped and murdered two 15 year old girls over 15 years ago. I think they've had a long enough "stay of execution" What are they hoping to re try them and get a mistrial so those animals can be set free? I'd say the same thing if it were americans. People like that don't deserve to keep living regardless of nationality. And I wonder why that information was the very last piece of the article? Is it because most decent human beings wouldn't care what happens to them if they knew why they were being executed?
  • orchidee2, on 07/17/2008, -9/+6A little question concerning the UN: What sense does an institution make which is not able to give effective orders?
    • Eddylee, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6Well the US Supreme Court has no practical authority to give effective orders either but we seem to listen to them pretty often.
    • MrWhite7, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7I agree, disband congress.
    • zeabu, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1It's function is as a moral authority.
  • hilander001, on 07/17/2008, -12/+2I love how Bush sides with the WORLD COURT but ignores US courts, and the right of the people to execute these criminals.
    • dexter411, on 07/17/2008, -1/+9Stop. Being. A. Politicized. Douchebag.
    • auto98, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2doesn't that tell you something hilander? If even Bush is trying to get the cases investigated there must be something seriously wrong somewhere
  • ender7074, on 07/17/2008, -14/+23To hell with the world court. Where where they when Saddam was dropping sarin gas on the Kurds? Where where they when warlords started ripping apart Somalia? Where were they when every little tinpot dictator started subjecting their people to atrocities? Nowhere. The UN only exists to criticize the United States and its only goal is to become the supreme power in the world. Its time to disband this defunct and extremely corrupt institution.
    • phoenixshard, on 07/17/2008, -5/+2Yes, it says it quite plainly in the UN charter, we're only here to make fun of the US.
    • spongya77, on 07/17/2008, -7/+2Hey, turdbrain. I seem to recall, that back then Saddam was a pal of the US, and hence could do whatever he wanted, the US effectively blocking everything against him. So were most of the little tinpot dictators. So SFU and read history. If it didn't bother you then, you have no right to complain now.
      • ender7074, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2Wow, you wound me with your kindergarden insults. Your idiotic comments are really funny. Thanks for the laugh. Oh, and I've stuided quite a bit of history. Maybe when you get back in school, you can have your teacher teach you some too.
      • phoenixshard, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1You really should go back and check on those history books yourself. Where was the US when Saddam was gassing the Kurds? Staying out of it, where did he get that technology from, funny thing is he got it from us when he was at war with Iran. Where was the US when those Somalian warlords were killing everyone? We got out of it after a Blackhawk was shot down. Where is the US right now when there is genocide going on in several African nations at the present time? How about with the atrocities going on in Zimbabwe? Oh yeah, we're freaking stuck in a place we had no business going to in the first place.

        Some of the criticism and scorn that we get from the world we do deserve. Not all of it mind you, but some of it we do deserve. Hopefully that will change with whatever President comes in after Bush.
      • Acolyte357, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1"How about with the atrocities going on in Zimbabwe?"
        "Where was the US when those Somalian warlords were killing everyone?"
        "Where was the US when Saddam was gassing the Kurds?"
        Didn't know we were the world police...Ohh wait isn't that the UN's job?
      • phoenixshard, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Last time I checked, we were on the UN Security Council, so yah, I'd say that does fit the bill for being part of that police force.
    • ponchietto, on 07/17/2008, -5/+1The ONU was looking the other way when Saddam gassed the Kurds,
      the Usa was providing the gas...
    • zeabu, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1The Den Haag court didn't exist yet.
      Stupid *****!
      It is installed after the Balkan wars, as a reply to it.
  • riseinhell, on 07/17/2008, -6/+33In June 1993, 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena and 15-year-old Jennifer Ertman took a shortcut home. They were brutally raped and murdered as a part of a gang initiation.

    Jose Medellin's guilt was never in doubt. He confessed in detail to participating in the crime and was sentenced to death. But Medellin is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a new trial, because the Mexican Consulate was never notified of his arrest as required under the Vienna Convention.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/28/ldt ...

    Postponing the sentence cos "the consulate wasn't notified" is retarded. The guy is a monster. The sooner the world is rid of him the better.
    • scoottie, on 07/17/2008, -2/+9I wonder how many times the US consulate in Mexico was never notified
  • asw0210, on 07/17/2008, -7/+22Stop wasting tax money and toast them.
  • executorzz, on 07/17/2008, -5/+15This is a state matter anyway. Federal government has no right to intervene on behalf of the world court.
    • chikuten, on 07/17/2008, -10/+2yeah. they should totally secede from the union.
      • executorzz, on 07/17/2008, -1/+9Hey crack jokes all you want but I think the federal government has overextended its authorities to the detriment of state rights.
  • briLo, on 07/17/2008, -8/+4Firing squad to the front offices please, I repeat, Firing Squad to the front office.
  • mike17032, on 07/17/2008, -12/+24US to World Court: ***** off.
  • coffee200am, on 07/17/2008, -11/+13Don't "you people" understand??? These poor men would never have been forced to come to the United States if our foreign policy was anywhere near decent! They were forced to come to the US and act out their rage against Americans because of Bush and Cheney and Iraq. They saw how Americans treated them as slave labor and it just was too much for them! They killed out of self defense and rage against a fascist state!...Oh..... I just can't believe "you people" who agree with executing these poor tortured souls ..../s
    • Eddylee, on 07/17/2008, -1/+5Gotta make that /s a little more obvious, coffee. A lot of people will probably miss that.
    • GreatSunJester, on 07/17/2008, -1/+5You forgot the /sarcasm tag ---- you are either going to make top +Diggs from the morons who believe that way or get Dugg down into a pit by the people who think you are serious.
      And people have actually wondered why I DO use /sarcasm sometimes....
      • agush, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1are you a little shortsighted? there's the tag wise one
    • jekylltech, on 07/17/2008, -6/+1I logged in just to bury your comment you idiot. This happened 15 years ago, probably when the first Bush was president.

      • evilbob333, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2I I logged in just to bury your comment you idiot. This happened 15 years ago, probably when Clinton was president.
  • Nico_, on 07/17/2008, -13/+7US will never ever listen to the world court about anything. The only world court they recognize is based in Washington. The US has always worked against anything international. The US government has always seen themselves as the undisputed rulers of the world and are one of the few countries in the world that can invade and kill millions of people without any repercussions.

    The US is one of the most dangerous countries in the world and they have no respect for a life that is not American.
    • coffee200am, on 07/17/2008, -2/+3America! ***** Yeah!
    • devnullDood, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Thats right! And dont you forget it!
    • Nico_, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1If you agree with me why are you digging me down?
    • curtisag, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3The US created the UN, so they are hardly working against everything international. We just don't take orders from them on internal matters like the death penalty. We execute our own people just as quickly as we do illegal immigrants. We don't have one world government.... yet. But I know talking to you is a total waste of time, you're mind is set is stone already.
      • Nico_, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1The UN replaced the League of Nations. My mind is not set in stone. I'm not hating on any people just the attitude.

        How about instead everyone shows some cooperation? The only reason the UN is useless is because its member nations makes it so. All nations are just in it to protect their own interests not to do anything productive about the collective situation. Veto this, veto that; I have to look out for my business interests.


      • auto98, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1curtisag: 15 years = quickly???
      • curtisag, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Not quickly, just as quickly, big difference there.
    • ElDiablo6870, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4And, you came to this conclusion because Texas intends to put to death a man who killed and raped little girls? Genius.
    • phoenixshard, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Where exactly are these millions of people that we have supposedly killed? If you mean Iraq, last time I checked, the vast majority of people killed in Iraq were killed by Iraqis. You know when the Shiite and Sunni militias killing each other.
      • spongya77, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2He mean Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, Columbia, Haiti, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, and the rest of the Americas where the US waged war directly, or supplied one side, Iran (the coup in '53, the war with Iraq), Iraq, Afghanistan... and the list is going on.
        That's what he meant.
      • Nico_, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1I'm not just talking about Iraq. But going in and doing regime change like the US government did in Iraq is just a recipe for disasters. It boggles the mind that trained military tacticians did not see the current situation years in advance. Unless of course they fully understood the result and did it anyway and got rich in the process. Of course the US government did not make any money of the war and the citizens was left with the bill. All the money went to the private companies chaired by their politicians.





  • diggthisman, on 07/17/2008, -9/+3Save the beans. Save the chili.
  • Badandy127, on 07/17/2008, -9/+14Does anyone care about the World Court?


    No.
  • dexter411, on 07/17/2008, -3/+11"The World Court has no enforcement powers but President Bush issued a directive to the Texas courts to abide by the 2004 ruling. The state courts refused to review the cases and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in March that the president cannot compel the state courts to comply."

    I'm happily surprised to see people on Digg not going on about the terrible actions of GWB.
  • normalkid0615, on 07/17/2008, -19/+4Bush can read?

    Why can we execute non-citizens?

    God ***** America
    • dexter411, on 07/17/2008, -1/+10Uh... because where someone calls home has nothing to do with whether or not they commit heinous crimes?

      Go back to discussing pro wrestlers and let the smart people talk about adjudication.
    • ElDiablo6870, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6Maybe, if this guy had raped and killed your daughter, you would understand.

      "God ***** America" ??? Why? The guy raped and killed two teenage girls. The guy admitted it and was found guilty in court. And, you find fault with America?? You are an idiot.
  • Dhalsim007, on 07/17/2008, -2/+7World Court tells U.S. what to do, but U.S. can't interfere in a state court decision, because our Supreme Court already said that the World Court's decisions can not be enforced. Also, I wonder how many of the World Court judges' member countries are up on their U.N. dues??? Probably none.
  • PueSi, on 07/17/2008, -5/+21Just kill them already, I'm Mexican myself but i don't see why should i care. They committed horrible crimes on a foreign country, they should pay the consequences.
    I'm against death penalty, that's why i don't go killing and raping people in the US.
    • ElDiablo6870, on 07/17/2008, -1/+7Thank you.
    • bobh1234, on 07/17/2008, -0/+8Amen. If I committed a heinous crime in Saudia Arabia, would I not be subject to their laws? I'm sure many of them are more barbaric than US laws.
    • Teck64, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6Horrible crime should equal horrible punishment.
  • SoupNazzi, on 07/17/2008, -2/+17The day the International Court trumps Texas courts, is the day Texas secedes and becomes its own country.

    • anaesthetica, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1I mean, really, in the matchup between the UN and Texas, it's not even close. Texans would eat the UN alive.
  • spunalot, on 07/17/2008, -10/+5Why can't we just put gun turrets all along our southern border? Mexicans stay the f out . Fix you own country. I want to retire there someday.
  • Theisos, on 07/17/2008, -8/+10I know the Americans won't stand for their country being told what to do and I know that these people they're going to execute do deserve a fate to mirror their crimes. I won't argue over the fact that US states still execute human beings. I know the UN is a useless organisation. In all of this though, why can't we be diplomatic and a little more civil? When did our laws start getting the better of human judgment? If the Americans want to go ahead and slaughter these people under the guise of law then fine, but I think it serves all of humanity if we have the laws of our country acknowledge the wishes of the international community. We don't have to do what the rest of the world says when it comes to running our countries but at least listen, wait, consider and then do whatever we think is best for the people of our individual countries. Using this method allows us to show a little respect for each other as members of the human race.
    • Nico_, on 07/17/2008, -3/+4This will never happen because there are lots of armchair soldiers who love to wave the flag and take credit for other peoples achievements. Its called nationalism and pride.
    • MrWhite7, on 07/17/2008, -1/+11having our laws respect the wishes of the international community? Are you insane?
    • devnullDood, on 07/17/2008, -1/+8I agree to a point, but these monsters have had 15 years of appeals to prolong the inevitable. The UN cant jump in at the last minute and expect the US to spend more money and more time on people who obviously have no defense. If the World Court wants to be involved, fine..... they have until August 5th to review 15 years of court case files.
    • curtisag, on 07/17/2008, -1/+9They've probably been waiting 15-20 years to execute these thugs because our system is so tilted in favor of the criminal and his right to find a way out of being executed. There's nothing to consider because their request is unreasonable. I know the trend is towards world government and loss of sovereignty for countries, but we're several decades away from that. And what about the world court's lack of "respect" for our laws? They condemn us because we have the death penalty as barbarians, but European countries don't have the crime we do either. Respect is a two way street my friend.
    • stanleyford, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6"Using this method allows us to show a little respect for each other as members of the human race." -- You know who I want the American judiciary to show respect for? The wishes of the American people, as codified in law by the elected representatives of those people. It is a necessary condition for a free society that no one may enforce laws upon its people except the people themselves, created either directly by referendum or indirectly by their representatives, or assented to by legitimate treaty. A society can't call itself free if its people are subject to laws not of their own making, no matter how well-intentioned those laws may be.
    • kcav8or, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3What's so sacred about "international law" anyway? Who writes "international law"? I don't recall ever voting on the international death penalty referendum. World court, drop dead.
    • pjpark, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, your idea does not make sense in the context of our system of government. The United States government is organized in a federal system. Yes, we are all "Americans", but we are also Texans, Virginians, Californians, Nebraskans, etc. "Americans" are not executing the Mexicans, the State of Texas is. The President of the United States does not have the authority to tell the State of Texas not to execute anybody, nor to tell Texas Courts whether to hear an appeal. Foreign governments can complain to our President all they want, but the U.S. Constitution limits what he can do. The only thing the President could do would be to ask Congress to pass a law overturning the Texas courts' decisions. However, such a move would be extremely unpopular and it would be very unlikely that Congress would pass such a law.

      Moreover, what you are asking for is political intervention in the criminal legal process which, quite frankly, I think most Americans (Texans, Virginians, or otherwise), would find noxious to our most basic principles.
  • raybury, on 07/17/2008, -6/+10I support the death penalty in general for the same reason I oppose it in the case of child rapists: Deterrence actually works.

    Don't get me wrong, I want child rapists to die; but they have a perverse incentive (not a pun) to kill their victim if he or she would be a potential witness against them in a capital case. If he doesn't kill the child, he may get jail time or may escape justice, but doesn't risk execution.

    One of the bastards involved in these cases did join in killing two teens, one 14, after raping them along with four other cretins. The accusation is emotional, but it is not just an accusation, it is a conviction that has TWICE been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the final arbiter. (Except in Washington, DC, where the city council seems to be ignoring half the ruling with its disassembly requirements, and is confusingly redefining "semiautomatic.")

    There is no serious allegation that these convicts would have fared better had they contacted their consulate, nor that they are wrongly convicted; only that they were not informed by police of their right as non-citizens when they were arrested. Given that the same lefties don't want police inquiring about immigration status, though, this is meaningless. It's not as if rape and murder are legal in Mexico. These are not political prisoners; let 'em swing.
    • crapman, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3I only regret he lasted 15 years, stop wasting tax money, a bullet is cheaper than lethal injection!
  • anillop, on 07/17/2008, -6/+1Its the best thing to happen to manufacturing in the US in decades.
  • Brownds, on 07/17/2008, -8/+13***** Mexico and the "World Court". Our own politicians need to stop pandering to illegal aliens and work on American issues. Listening to Obama and McCain pander to the La Raza organization made me sick. I have no faith in these jackasses running for President. Be prepared for more of the same in ‘09. Mexico needs to worry about their own "due process”.
    If you live in any border state you understand the problems that illegal immigration brings to the U.S. and the tax payers.

    http://www.policeone.com/border-patrol/articles/17 ...
    • Teck64, on 07/17/2008, -3/+2HAHA, they took your job!
    • Brownds, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Nope my job requires an education. So they are S.O.L.
  • Rotzooi, on 07/17/2008, -7/+2Kill all Mexicans. Problem solved.
  • GodsDragon, on 07/17/2008, -4/+5I am pretty sure that the UN judge would not just say hold of on the death sentence for no reason. I think that there must be some doubt about whether or not some of the people sentenced to death are guilty or not. Even Mexicans deserve a fair trial and proven guilty without a doubt before sentenced to death.
    • belumaves, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5yeah, that's what has been going on for the last 15 years. the one who is being executed August 5 even confessed and gave a detailed account of what happened. is that enough due process? the objection the mexican government has is their consulate was not informed immediately upon the arrest of these scum.
  • stagmire, on 07/17/2008, -6/+5To all the right wing ***** wetting the bed over this case: where was your outrage when the U.S. protested the caning of Michael Fay by authorities in Singapore?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

    Oh, that's right, you were leading the charge to have him EXONERATED you hypocritical morons.

    That's right: the American right was the first to raise the cry that Michael Fay should be treated "humanely" because he was being subjected to punishment that fell outside conventional American norms. Now these same ***** are pissing their pants over mexico making essentially the same claim. Typical right wing idiocy/hypocrisy/blatant douchebaggery.
    • spongya77, on 07/17/2008, -7/+3Save your breath. They can't and won't understand it. It's scary to see the stupidity raging in these minds. I wonder if they were pointing their finger to Saddam about the UN resolutions he did not comply to in order to justify an invasion...
    • murrchen, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Citing YOUR source: "The New York Times had several editorials and op-eds that condemned the punishment and called the public to flood the embassy with protests."

      New York Times, right wing??? Who knew?

      Way to uncover dude! Look quick! Might be some under your bed.
      • stagmire, on 07/17/2008, -3/+1O RLY?

        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950 ...

        Bush Criticizes Caning but Likes Singapore

        "Mr. Bush told an audience of students in this prosperous, authoritarian city-state that while "most Americans want stronger laws," they also feel that "the punishment should fit the crime -- caning is brutal.""

        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990 ...

        Mr. Fay has received support from several members of the United States Congress, including Senator William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine, who was in Singapore today as part of a tour for the Senate Armed Services Committee.

        Senator Cohen said that the case of Mr. Fay was "getting out of hand" and could disrupt the otherwise "great relationship between the United States and Singapore."

        Right wing ***** like you just can't admit that it was your very own brethren who raised a ***** fit over this incident.

    • Snassek, on 07/17/2008, -2/+3So you are comparing people that raped and murdered two teenage girls to a teenager that did some minor property damage? Dugg down!
    • Buelldozer, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2It's interesting that you're putting a dual murder / rape in the same category as vandalism.

      Also, Michael didn't have FIFTEEN YEARS to mount a defense.

      Ya' think there might just be enough difference in the offenses and time lines to make the situations completely different and therefore incomparable?
  • bobh1234, on 07/17/2008, -3/+8Screw the UN. How about they tell those particularly bad Middle Eastern people to stop killing their *innocent* citizens first.
  • TomT223, on 07/17/2008, -3/+14They didn't just gang rape and murder two 15 year old girls. They tortured them for hours. Why this scumbag is still living after 15 years shows how screwed up our whole court system is.
  • jetblackz4, on 07/17/2008, -7/+4I say keep them in jail for their lives with no chance of ever leaving. I do not support the death penalty. As sick and terrible the crime we do not have the right to take any life. An eye for an eye does not work and putting emotions aside we must not lower ourselves to the level of a murderer. Most countries have banned the death penalty and I hope one day we do to.
    • moghua, on 07/17/2008, -5/+3Agreed. Killing people as punishment for killing people? In what way does that make any sense? I am actually really surprised to see so much support for government sanctioned murder in a country that has such a strong anti-government undercurrent.
      • evilbob333, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Killing people as punishment for killing people? If that was the case I might agree. But we rarely do that if ever. More often than not, murder was just one of the crimes. In the case of Jose Medellin, he raped the girls he killed.
        Regardless, the death penalty is an issued for the states to decide. If Texas wants the death penalty, that is for the citizens and legislative bodies of Texas to decide.
  • mooheiferghandi, on 07/17/2008, -4/+7*hands the World Court a quarter, tells them to go call their mommy and tell her that they met a real legal system today*
    • Cayfox, on 07/17/2008, -4/+2A quarter? Better make it real money. The rest of the world doesn't like using America's worthless magic beans for currency.
      • Buelldozer, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Trite, but actually they do use our money.
  • rachecol, on 07/17/2008, -4/+13Cut his dick off and make it his last meal.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.