ChristiansUnite Forums

Outrage erupts over Bush demands in murder case 
Appeal of torture-slaying conviction could set U.N. law over U.S.

President Bush's demands in the Medellin murder case, now being heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, are "bizarrely grotesque," according to the chief counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

And the warning from ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull notes that the case could result in U.S. laws being subjugated to U.N. resolutions and rules to the point that local police officers will have to spend more time studying international law than catching criminals.

"The notion that an international body can Mirandize the right of an illegal immigrant to call a consulate, so that if the local police trip up and innocently don't to it, a convicted rapist-torturer-murderer goes free, goes beyond bizarrely grotesque," Bull, whose organization has filed an amicus brief on the issue, told WND.

At issue is the death penalty verdict for Jose Medellin, who confessed in 1993 to participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers. Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena were sodomized and strangled with their shoe laces. Medellin then boasted of keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime.

The Bush administration is before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the death penalty, at the behest of the International Court of Justice, a division of the United Nations.

Medellin and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to Texas' death row. A juvenile court sentenced Medellin's younger brother, who was 14 at the time, to 40 years in prison.

But the Bush administration intervention came after the U.N.'s International Court of Justice found Medellin was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.

That, according to the Hague, was a violation of a 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.

WND requests for comment on the situation to the campaigns of three leaders for the GOP nomination for president, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain, as well as several other "second-tier" candidates, did not generate a response.

But Bull said the potential results are frightening.

"This is going to be a watershed case," he said, "which could bring the U.S. criminal justice system into a brave new world, subordinated to United Nations regulations and issuances."

He noted the 50 convictions of illegal immigrants that could be overturned by the ruling, and said many of them would simply go free despite the assaults and homicides that may have been committed.

"Most of these individuals will never be retried – and that's another level of concern – because the witnesses aren't available," he said.

And even worse yet, he noted, is the precedent it would set for "activist presidents."

If the case is decided the wrong way, he said, a future president simply could impose such requirements on the United States simply by signing a treaty composed by the United Nations.

"That should scare the pants off Americans," he said.

"What this would do if decided wrongly would be to transfer American sovereignty to instruments of the United Nations, essentially putting it under the 3rd World governments who form a majority of the governments at the United Nations," he said.

"Our worst nightmare as Americans who love our country will happen," he said.

He said he expects the outcome of the case ultimately will turn on the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy, because the liberal and conservative blocs on the court largely have coalesced in previous decisions.

"He's the swing vote. I know which way Souter, Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg will vote. Ginsburg, when she was general counsel with the ACLU, wrote a law review article advocating that American foreign policy be under the United Nations," Bull told WND. "This [case] is manna from heaven for her."

"It just shows how terribly important the appointment of U.S. Supreme Court justices is," he said. "The activist left is working to import their agenda through cases like Medellin. A requirement like this, which is not found in the U.S. Constitution, would never pass through even the most liberal legislative body.

"Remember, this is just the camel's nose inside the tent. This is not the end," he warned.

Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who is arguing on behalf of the state court system and its death penalty, said it is unusual to be litigating against the U.S. along with Medellin.

The Bush administration became involved in the Medellin case in 2003 when Mexico sued the U.S. over the consular issue in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The so-called "World Court" is the United Nations' top court for resolving international disputes.

The court ruled in Mexico's favor in late 2004 and ordered the U.S. to reconsider the Mexican inmates' murder convictions and death sentences. In February 2005, Bush announced that while he disagreed with the World Court's decision, the U.S. would comply. He ordered courts in Texas and elsewhere to review the cases.

A few days later, however, the president withdrew the U.S. from the part of the Vienna Convention that gives the World Court final say in international disputes.

The Supreme Court, which had agreed to hear Medellin's case, dismissed it later in 2005 to allow the case to play out in Texas. Last November, the all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals balked at the president's order, saying Bush had overstepped his authority.

The Texas court said the judicial branch, not the White House, should decide how to resolve the Mexican cases. It also said Medellin wasn't entitled to a new hearing because he failed to complain at his original trial about any violation of his consular rights and had therefore waived them.

Then Medellin appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court, which announced last May it would hear his case. His lawyer, Donald Donovan of New York, will argue this week that Bush was correct when he took action to comply with the World Court's decision.

Bush argues U.N. court ruling trumps Texas law

In its attempt to help an illegal alien from Mexico avoid the death penalty for a double murder, the White House says the ruling of the International Court of Justice must be respected.



President Bush wants Texas courts to re-review the death row case of confessed double-murderer Jose Medellin, who complains he was not allowed to speak with the Mexican Consulate at the time of his arrest. He was subsequently convicted of torturing, raping, and murdering two teenage girls in Houston, Texas.

After Mexico sued the U.S. in the judicial body of the United Nations -- alleging the U.S. had violated the 1963 Vienna Convention -- the Bush administration began its effort to block the killer's execution. Twenty-eight states have signed on in support of Texas in the case, which is being argued before the Supreme Court today.

Cully Stimson is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington. He says the high court will be addressing one of the most important constitutional questions it will wrestle with this term, and maybe in the next ten years.

"You know there is a debate nationally about what effect, if any, should we give to international opinions from international bodies. Should Supreme Court justices look to foreign law to fill in the gaps that they perceive exist in our domestic law? Or should we stick with a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and go forward with that?" questions Stimson.

Stimson notes that the 28 states supporting Texas say it is a separation of powers case. "States have a particular interest in realizing final judgments of conviction and [are essentially asking] 'Who are you, federal government, to be telling us what rules we should have when in fact the whole compact that was setup in the 1770s and [17]80s was that we would be independent bodies?'" he states. "And so it's a really interesting question: Can the federal government force down the throat of the states what they believe international law obligations are?"

The Bush Justice Department argues that Texas courts must respect the opinion of the judicial body of the United Nations. However, Stimson believes the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the Texas Court of Appeals, but may look for a way to give both the Bush Justice Department and Texas an out.

If this incident occurred in any other nation there would be no question about the this subject. The UN would not even be considered and the person would be executed. This will set the precedent for the loss of the U.S. sovereignty.

Brother,

I've listened to several news spots on this story today. It's absolutely ridiculous to grant any kind of power at all to a so-called world court. It's also ridiculous that George Bush is standing against the State's Rights of Texas in favor of a completely corrupt world system. This would be another one of those situations where the people would have to vote for something like this, AND they haven't.

Bluntly, the so-called world court has no jurisdiction, no power, and this is none of their business. This would represent another SIGN of a move toward one-world government. The people of Texas, the United States, and the citizens of other countries should say "NO!" to the so-called world court. If the so-called world court wants something to do, they can take care of the massive corruption of the U.N.

In the meantime, I'd have to say there is a string of ABUSE OF POWER like nothing I've ever seen before. The people need to hold their ground with "NO!" and mean it. Further, criminal charges should be filed in several areas. We have our own Laws and Constitutions, both State and Federal. By the way, the Federal is to be the servant of the States - NOT the other way around. NO entity has the power to sign away ANY of our sovereignty to a foreign power, and certainly not to a completely corrupt so-called world court. We have our own system of checks and balances framed by the founders and called "The Separation of Powers". This system is broken and needs to be restored. Nobody can sign away our rights. A vote of the people is required to change our rights or our system, and that hasn't happened. SO, Bush needs to butt out of the people's business in Texas. The so-called world court needs to be told BLUNTLY to butt out and go back to playing "tiddly-winks".

Tiddly-Winks with land mines might produce better results.