By Shawn Macomber on 7.17.08 @ 3:15PM
Boy, Texas isn't going to
like this much. There are apparently five Mexican nationals on
death row in Texas whom Mexico feels didn't receive a fair trial.
They took it to the World Court, which agreed. The Bush
Administration, too, agreed, and pledged cooperation. The U.S.
Supreme Court, however, was not keen on forcing Texas to accept the
international court ruling. Thus, Mexico returns to the World Court
and:
The dispute, argued Mexico,
was over just how far the U.S. had to go in trying to enforce the
ruling. It was Mexico's understanding that "other federal and state
authorities" had to try to enforce the ruling.
In today's ruling, the World
Court aligned itself with Mexico, ruling that a dispute did, in
fact, still exist. Therefore, it could (and would) take the
opportunity to clarify its earlier ruling. Apparently it will soon
- all it said today is that the U.S. was required to "take all
measures necessary" to halt the executions. And what does that
mean? Well, the World Court is apparently planning to rule "with
all possible expedition."
I think I'm beginning to understand the
internationalist perspective now: Invading Iraq, bad. Invading
Texas, good. I'm not sure what time the Alamo closes on weekdays,
but I encourage our Lone Star state readers to look into it soon.
topics:
Law, Supreme Court, Iraq