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.

 

Mexico asks World Court to block executions in U.S.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by purplemonkey
reply to post by jsobecky
 


yeah so what ever happened to Iraq's sovereignty?


Same thing that happened to Nazi Germany's.


Guess what country in the world right now is the new Nazi Germany...

Dont you think the germans felt exactly like you do right now? They had a very strong army, and ignored what the world was telling them because of it. The US is exactly the same right now.

The only problem with trying to boss countries around is that they will no doubt want to get rid of the oppressor sooner or later, and combine their forces to do it. Its basic human psychology.


[edit on 7-6-2008 by Copernicus]




posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 


Ethiopia? Sudan? Rwanda? Myanmar? Haiti?

[edit on 7-6-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Copernicus
 


Ethiopia? Sudan? Rwanda? Myanmar? Haiti?

[edit on 7-6-2008 by jsobecky]


I hope you are kidding. Or maybe you dont know much about the Germans during World War 2.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 



Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Copernicus
 


Ethiopia? Sudan? Rwanda? Myanmar? Haiti?

[edit on 7-6-2008 by jsobecky]


I hope you are kidding. Or maybe you dont know much about the Germans during World War 2.


I know they committed genocide on a mass scale. Just like the countries I listed.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I know they committed genocide on a mass scale. Just like the countries I listed.


Thats true, but I was talking about the massive army of the germans and how it made them feel they could invade other countries without anyone being able to stop them.

But yes, the US is not committing genocide against its own population like many of the countries you mentioned are, while the world ignores it.


[edit on 7-6-2008 by Copernicus]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 



Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by jsobecky
I know they committed genocide on a mass scale. Just like the countries I listed.


Thats true, but I was talking about the massive army of the germans and how it made them feel they could invade other countries without anyone being able to stop them.


Germany began by invading it's neighbors. Much like Mexico is invading the US.

So obviously, you were referring to Mexico, correct?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Well that's 50% right. Its a big thing. Its sovereignty vs Human Rights.

1) Who gets to decide what Human Rights are?

2) If a sovereign nation violates them, what are the remedies?

3) There should be one answer. There is not one set of Human Rights for one country and one for another. Human Rights as a concept sits above the concept of sovereignty.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 



As much as I find the death penalty an odious tool and immoral, it is still the independent right of the United States of America to determined its own method for dealing with criminals.


Please detail how Human Rights violations are to be remedied. If any nation-state is perpetrating Human Rights violations internally or externally, and the framework of laws within the nation-state are inadequate or not being executed, what is the remedy?



No nation or international organisation should not be imposing an unelected dictorial power over anyone.


Including the US right? What if the nation has internal laws supporting the imposition of unelected dictatorial power? What would be the penalty for doing so in your model?



Anyways, the World Court is a toothless tiger. Most of the nations signed up to the Court pay no attention to the regulation and directives issued.


Failure to execute is just that. It does not indicate that the idea is unsound.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by wytworm]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by purplemonkey
reply to post by jsobecky
 


yeah so what ever happened to Iraq's sovereignty?


Same thing that happened to Nazi Germany's.


Or Poland's, or Ukraine's, or France's.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 



But yes, the US is not committing genocide against its own population like many of the countries you mentioned are, while the world ignores it.


Thats sort of the point of the post. The world isn't ignoring Human Rights violations in this case. What is the remedy?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 



Germany began by invading it's neighbors. Much like Mexico is invading the US.


Please draw the parallel for me. I can't see it.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   
i tell you whats sickening, white european people occupying america, every

white european in america should be be removed by any means necessary and

sent back to europe where they belong, im afraid where heading to a second

civil war unfortunately



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
These people were sentenced to death by laws passed by elected officials, and the voters who put them there.

If the laws need to be changed, it'll be done by those same people, not by some nebulous "world court". No soveriegn nation, whether the United States, or another, need bow to it. Mexico has a problem? Come talk to the folks in charge here...it's called diplomacy.

"world court"? Phooey, on the whole thing.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I heard someone here post that quote" Its Mexican Citizens being executed in the US". Well thats true...about 80% of them happen to be here Ilegaly and deserve no more consideration than any other criminal. They have broken our laws once for being here ilegaly and twice for committing murder. Why in hell should we worry about CONVICTED criminals? How many murderers that are put in prison and get out then recommit the same crime with impunity. One solution that protects us all is to make sure, by execution, that this doesn't happen! I for one do not mourn the execution of murderers, no matter where they are from. If your here and commit a crime that is punishable by death, to freekin' bad, you die!

Zindo



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 



Originally posted by wytworm
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Well that's 50% right. Its a big thing. Its sovereignty vs Human Rights.


3) There should be one answer. There is not one set of Human Rights for one country and one for another. Human Rights as a concept sits above the concept of sovereignty.


No, it's 100% right. A convicted criminal gives up certain human rights. That's why capital punishment is fair...the murderer has taken away all human rights from the victim, so therefore should forfeit all his rights.



Please draw the parallel for me. I can't see it.


Copernicus was trying to draw his usual US=Nazi Germany correlation. I was playing with his mind.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Mexico needs to seriously overhaul their corrupt justice system, before sticking their noses into ours.
Let them bring the care of prisoners in their institutions up to civilized standards before complaining about our punishments of their citizens. Let them make sure our citizens are treated to civilized standards while in their custody. The same as their prisoners are treated to civilized standards while in ours.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by groingrinder]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by trewth
i tell you whats sickening, white european people occupying america, every

white european in america should be be removed by any means necessary and

sent back to europe where they belong, im afraid where heading to a second

civil war unfortunately


We expect you to be in front leading the cavalry. I am sorry. I meant the Indians.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 




A convicted criminal gives up certain human rights. That's why capital punishment is fair...the murderer has taken away all human rights from the victim, so therefore should forfeit all his rights.


Which is certainly a legit point of view, but one that is in dispute in this case no? Assuming that the US agrees with your take, it is inarguable that Mexico does not. Therefore, this is a great place to figure out how to handle a situation where one sovereign nation has a dispute over another in regards to a Human Rights violation.

What is the remedy?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I'm sorry but if you are visiting a country you are applicable to their laws. If your in their country illegally then doubly so. I wouldn't expect different treatment for doing something that was wrong. Now there is some considerations to this effect. Wrong in one country could be not wrong in another. The basic wrongs (murder and theft) should be acknowledged in every country. If a person goes down to Mexico and kills someone, do they not get killed themselves or thrown away into a Mexican jail forever (which they will die at some point by anothers hands) There are exceptions of course. If the murder they carried out was in their home country, then they should be extradited to that country to await justice. If they murdered in another country, then they are responsible for their actions in the foreign country. When travelling I had to learn the laws and tranditions of the visiting countries I went to so that I didn't break any laws and wind up in that type of situation. I'm sorry they had to leave their country and commit crime, but if they would of stayed in their own country they would of gotten the justice from their country. When they leave thier country, even illegally they lose that sovereignty as they are now the other nations problem. International business though is a completely different matter. I wish the USA would stay out of everyones business. We stop getting involved with other countries except the really close allies. When aid is needed they are so quick to put their hands out, but complain when we expect things from them. But its my opinion, and you can have your own.

-Aza



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


This is not a human rights violation. However, what to do what to do...


Facts:

Mexico does not have capital punishment.

They will not honor extradition if the person is facing the death penalty.

Currently we use each other's prisoners as trading pawns

The UN Court involved makes rulings, but they are seldom followed

The SCOTUS has overruled the President in this case

A scumbag who raped and murdered two teenagers will now die for his crimes.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join