Score another one against Barbarity (sic)!

Torakus · Post by **Torakus** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:55 am

President Bush has conceded that the United States has an obligation to abide by to international treaties to which we are signators. To wit: he has called for official review of 51 Mexican nationals on death row in the United States on grounds that the individual states failed to abide by International Law requiring that they be advised of thier right to contact with their Consular officials.

Those 51 Mexicans account for a bit more than 1/3 of all non US nationals currently on death row in the United States.

It is interesting to note, that the case that brought this about involves a Mexican who would be receiving relief from his death sentence anyway due to recent USSC 8th amendment rulings.

My real interest here is, why after disregarding our obligation in so many other international agreements, is the administration making this one a priority?

Is this decision and the decision to snub Sinn Fein on St. Patties Day and a public call for the IRA to disband a sign of new things to come?

Are the recent efforts at repairing our international image too little, too late?

Tora

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:41 am

Without being familiar with the intracacies of the case, it's almost impossible to tell. It could be though, that US needs to repair this particular part of our treaty obligations in order to persuade other countries to extridite people to the US.

You may recall, many countires refuse to extridite people to the US if there is a possibility of that person receiving the death penalty.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:21 am

President Bush has conceded that the United States has an obligation to abide by to international treaties to which we are signators.

Then why did he nominate Bolton for UN Ambassador? He's written explicitly in the past supporting the exact opposite.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:36 am

Does Mexico have a death penalty??

Torakus · Post by **Torakus** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:40 am

Then why did he nominate Bolton for UN Ambassador? He's written explicitly in the past supporting the exact opposite.

Ignoring the point that you don't make factual sense, EXACTLY! That is my point. The Bush administration foreign policy and domestic policy affecting foreign affairs is all over the place. They are backing down on things they have held near and dear for many years (allowing international law to impact domestic judicial decisions for one), but still putting the worst foot forward, in this case Bolton and previously Condi Rice, on the international and foreign affairs front.

Embar may have nailed it though. Perhaps the concessions are specific and goal oriented. Which leads one to wonder what is the return on the investment. Are we throwing a bone at Mexico in this case for something specific? If so, Im not sure exactly what that would be.

Either way, the question stands. Can this Administration recover enough credibility abroad and more importantly at home, to help the GOP stay in power after 2008?

Torakus

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:50 am

I think that they'd have to radically change their policy to one less destructive to the interests of the American people, our foreign relations, and our environment - one less singlemindedly focused on funnelling tax dollars to their cronies and wealthy campaign contributors regardless of the cost to the rest of us - in order for them to maintain their hold on power.

Unless, of course, the Dems keep being too fucking scared to call a spade a spade and offer a clear alternative.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:29 pm

Relbeek Einre wrote:I think that they'd have to radically change their policy to one less destructive to the interests of the American people, our foreign relations, and our environment - one less singlemindedly focused on funnelling tax dollars to their cronies and wealthy campaign contributors regardless of the cost to the rest of us - in order for them to maintain their hold on power.

Unless, of course, the Dems keep being too fucking scared to call a spade a spade and offer a clear alternative.

I think your first point can win or loose an election, the second is suspect if it is significant for national elections. I don't think the environment will win or lose anyone an election though. Too many vote pocket book. Reality can stink.

Post by **Ddrak** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:53 pm

Is this decision and the decision to snub Sinn Fein on St. Patties Day and a public call for the IRA to disband a sign of new things to come?

Well... that's been one of the criticisms I'd made in the past of the administration (that they were ignoring the IRA) so I have to pony up and say good job. Without US support, the IRA and Sinn Fein will die a pretty fast death.

Dd

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:11 pm

I think that they'd have to radically change their policy to one less destructive to the interests of the American people, our foreign relations, and our environment - one less singlemindedly focused on funnelling tax dollars to their cronies and wealthy campaign contributors regardless of the cost to the rest of us - in order for them to maintain their hold on power.

Unless, of course, the Dems keep being too fucking scared to call a spade a spade and offer a clear alternative.

The implied belief that the Democrats are not guilty of the exact same things is the most frightening aspect in my mind.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:37 pm

Ignoring the point that you don't make factual sense

Are you saying that Bolton has NOT said that we are NOT bound by international treaties?

Think VERY carefully before you reply.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:47 pm

The implied belief that the Democrats are not guilty of the exact same things is the most frightening aspect in my mind

I believe most Republicans are not guilty of the exact same things, Waterhead. The corruption of this administration is unique to this administration and a few party leaders in Congress.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:14 pm

Quite an admirable job avoiding the point.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:10 pm

You had no point, Waterhead, except to make another of your baseless accusations.

SicTimMitchell · Post by **SicTimMitchell** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:04 pm

This just in:

The U.S. withdraws from the international accord, and those 51 Mexicans are back where they started.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/10/vienna ... index.html

SicTimMitchell · Post by **SicTimMitchell** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:06 pm

This also just in, CNN's website needs a proofreader. "Foreign inmates of U.S. prisoners"?!?

Sigh.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:27 am

The Mexicans are still in good shape - Bush needs Mexican help to get his slavelabor er guest worker program through, and if they're pissed at him, they won't help.

Otherwise, it's Boltonian logic - treaties weigh us down, no matter how helpful they are to us. I swear to the Gods this clown and his crew won't be happy until it's completely in the hands of Hobbes.

Torakus · Post by **Torakus** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 6:39 pm

Partha,

You are going to have to link exact quotes by Bolton for me. I have read a lot of statements by him where he talks about specific treaties that he believes the U.S. should withdraw from, and specific language of other treaties he feels the U.S. should not be bound by. I don't see him crusading for the total abandonment of all U.S. treaties, like you make it sound.

Because the U.S. signed a treaty 20 or 10 or even 1 year ago, does not mean that treaty is good for the U.S. today, and we as a sovereign people should not be bound to the guidelines of agreements made that no longer benefit us as a nation. If you mean Boltonian Logic, as someone who advocates the U.S. withdrawing from treaties that are lopsided toward U.S. interest, then I agree with you.

Torakus

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:23 pm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/bolton.htm

It broadly reinforces your position, except for one little factoid that both Bolton and you conveniently forget about. What would that be? Article VI of the Constitution.

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.

However, Bolton has helped persuade this administration to walk away from the Non-Proliferation Act at the very least - and that's a treaty we signed. One would throw Kyoto and the ICC into the mix had we actually signed them.

Like I said, they want to leave it in the hands of Hobbes - Us vs. the World. Unfortunately, that won't work.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:38 pm

Partha wrote:http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/bolton.htm

It broadly reinforces your position, except for one little factoid that both Bolton and you conveniently forget about. What would that be? Article VI of the Constitution.

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.
However, Bolton has helped persuade this administration to walk away from the Non-Proliferation Act at the very least - and that's a treaty we signed. One would throw Kyoto and the ICC into the mix had we actually signed them.

Like I said, they want to leave it in the hands of Hobbes - Us vs. the World. Unfortunately, that won't work.

Citing the Article of the Constitution that addresses treatys is a good start, but its no more informative about how the US interprets and handles treatys anymore than a title of a book describes a plotline.

Read this for a better understanding of how the US interprets and adminsiters treaties, and how they fit within the framework of US law.

http://www.asil.org/dalton.pdf

Note that not all treatys carry the force of law. And even when they do, there is still plenty of wiggle.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:09 pm

From your link:

J. Legally Binding Decisions of International Organizations
The United States is a member of the United Nations. Under its Charter, the United Nations can make decisions that are legally binding on its members. Article 25 of the Charter provides that the Security Council may make such decisions when acting under Chapter VII. The Senate having given its advice and consent to ratification of the Charter containing those powers, and the President, having ratified it, have bound the United States to carry out those obligations. An obligation made binding on the United States pursuant to one of those provisions is not viewed as a new treaty commitment that requires new authorization. On the other hand, implementation of the new obligation may require legislation, issuance of executive orders, or a new proclamation laying out
the legal or factual predicate.

Brell Rants

Score another one against Barbarity (sic)!

Score another one against Barbarity (sic)!

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: