It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: U.S. Quits International Pact Used in Capital Cases

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States has pulled out of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The pact has been used by opponents of the death penalty to fight sentences given to foreign nationals. The treaty allows the International Court of Justice to make the final determination when a citizen of another country claim they have been denied the right see a home-country diplomat.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
The Bush administration has decided to pull out of an international agreement that opponents of the death penalty have used to fight the sentences of foreigners on death row in the United States, officials said yesterday.

a two-paragraph letter dated March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The United States proposed the protocol in 1963 and ratified it -- along with the rest of the Vienna Convention -- in 1969.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I have to admit I was ignorant of the law. However, as an administration spokesman described the pullback as "protecting against future International Court of Justice judgments that might similarly interpret the consular convention or disrupt our domestic criminal system in ways we did not anticipate when we joined the convention," This calls for some research to see if interference in the laws of the country has occurred and to what extent. However, if it is being used to oppose the death penalty for political reasons then they are right to withdrawal.




posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I think it's mainly to alienate the International Court of Justice further.

Having said that though, that court is a joke, it will never be able to get anyone even from Australia, let alone US, China, Russia.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
This means they are planning on executing some foreign detainees, like at gitmo. If it was just ideological they'd've pulled out in the first term.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Great, carte blanche to execute foreign nationals at will with no reprucussions! God bless America.

Reason #3027 why America is the Worlds problem and not just Americans



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Great, carte blanche to execute foreign nationals at will with no reprucussions! God bless America.Reason #3027 why America is the Worlds problem and not just Americans


You do realize that the people facing the death penalty have been tried and convicted of murder right? Let me repeat CAPITAL MURDER CONVICTION They actually killed someone over here. If I go to say France and shoot somebody. Is it not reasonable to face whatever penalties they have there?

So how exactly is this the worlds problem.

I love this type of "I'm going to rant about the U.S., even if I have not read the article or understand the issue" poster :shk:



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
"In a two-paragraph letter dated March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The United States proposed the protocol in 1963 and ratified it -- along with the rest of the Vienna Convention -- in 1969.


The protocol requires signatories to let the International Court of Justice (ICJ) make the final decision when their citizens say they have been illegally denied the right to see a home-country diplomat when jailed abroad.


The United States initially backed the measure as a means to protect its citizens abroad. It was also the first country to invoke the protocol before the ICJ, also known as the World Court, successfully suing Iran (news - web sites) for the taking of 52 U.S. hostages in Tehran in 1979.


But in recent years, other countries, with the support of U.S. opponents of capital punishment, successfully complained before the World Court that their citizens were sentenced to death by U.S. states without receiving access to diplomats from their home countries."

===============================================

"that their citizens were sentenced to death by U.S. states without receiving access to diplomats from their home countries."



Well, how many US prisoners in other countries have used their access to US diplomats while sitting in god-forsaken prisons around the world. I know I can vaguely remember two or three cases right off the bat.

With all the hoopla over Kerry and his desire to hand us over to the UN, and considering just how willing and eager they are to pull out of treaties like this one that are actually used to protect our citizens and servicemen, well, it will be interesting to see just what he does with the WTO when the demand that we structure our laws more to their liking.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
It's surprising how few people realize the implications of this, the government is trading off OUR right to protection in foreign countries so that they can deny the same to foreign nationals here. There's more on the subject here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Ach, my mistake, I read in haste. I didn't realize that this pertains to people on death row. It could be used perhaps for the execution of terror suspects, but the phrasing indicates its relevant to just good old fashioned murderers.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
OK FredT I apologise for my flippant post. It contributed nothing to this thread. You assume I dont understand the issue here but I do. Please tell me what your opinion is on this hypothetical situation.

An American is caught with drugs on them in Thailand. Drug trafficking in Thailand attracts the death penalty. The American is charged and found guilty and sentenced to hang.

In the USA drug trafficking is not punishable by death. Would you allow the hanging of a fellow citizen for drug trafficking? Or would you advocate that the US embassy in Thailand asks for the release into US custody of the US citizen to serve time in US prisons?

Do you trust the Thai legal system to give a US citizen a fair trial?

Note that even things such as sodomy are capital crimes in some countries. Still think ripping up a protocol authoured by the USA that would help prevent executions of US citizens in these situations is a good idea?

Now consider that most of the civilised world has banned the use of capital punishment. Is it too much to ask that our citizens are given back to us so we can punish them for what they have done, under the laws they were born into.

Hypothetically China can pass a law making the fact that your an American in China a capital crime for spying. Americans are arrested and shot and legally the USA can do zero about it. Thats what the protocol was established for but because it was used to prevent the USA executing FOREIGN NATIONALS they've cracked it and withdrawn from it.

[edit on 12/3/05 by subz]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join