Mexico, who allows hundred of thousands of its "immigrants" to illegally cross over into the United States each year, has shown its "compassionate" side. The Mexican government has appealed to the World Court to "take urgent measures" to get the U.S. to stay all executions of Mexicans on Death Row in American jails.
Amazingly, President Bush had already agreed with the World Court back in 2004. The court, which resides at the Hague in the Netherlands, ruled that the trials some 50 Mexicans on Death Row were in violation of the 1963 Vienna Convention. It was then that Bush did something that was extraordinary for an American president, he not only deferred to a ruling by a World Court but then issued an executive order to the state of Texas demanding they review the case of a Mexican national on Death Row.
The World Court had ruled that because the Mexicans on Death Row had not had access to their country's consular officials that the Death Row convictions must be overturned and then each case reviewed. Bush issued his own Executive Order based on the ruling of the World Court. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court, who, in a majority decision, struck down Bush's executive order and ruled that the Constitution "allows the President to execute the laws, not make them".
The Mexican government now asks the World Court to take "urgent measures" and intercede on behalf of the Mexican nationals on American Death Rows. The World Court, also known as the International Court of Justice, is under the aegis of the United Nations. We weren't sure just what "urgent" measures" the Mexican government was referring to, so we looked up the World Court at its website.
The World Court
Jurisdiction:
The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction). Source - International Court of Justice
The World Court states in its "jurisdiction" section that it gives "advisory" opinions on legal questions. Could a World Court ruling supersede decisions made by United States Courts?
According to the United States Supreme Court, the answer is a resounding "no". The courts, when they struck down Bush's meddling in the cases of the Mexican nationals who were on Death Row, ruled that judgments of the International Court of Justice, as the court is formally known, are not binding on U.S. courts and that Bush's 2005 executive order, that courts in Texas comply anyway does not change that".
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the World Court, nor the "operative part of the United Nations Charter, creates binding law in the absence of implementing legislation from Congress". He also pointed out that Bush did not have the "power to issue a directive that reaches deep into the heart of the state's police powers and compels state courts to reopen final criminal judgments and set aside neutrally applicable state laws".
Read more of Mexico Demands World Court Intercede in American Judicial System at DBKP.com
Source - McClatchy Washington - Mexico Crime Continues to Surge
Source - Washington Post - Justices Rebuff Bush and World Court
Source - Sign On San Diego - Mexico Asks World Court to stay executions in the U.S.
Image - World Court
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page
In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Five years later, President Bush strongly signaled Wednesday that he won't order troop withdrawals beyond what's already been planned.
The president refuses to "jeopardize the hard-fought gains" of the past year.
As anti-war activists demonstrated around downtown Washington, the president spoke at the Pentagon to mark the anniversary of a war that has cost nearly 4,000 U.S. lives and roughly $500 billion. The president's address was part of a series of events the White House planned around the anniversary and next month's report from the top U.S. figures in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. That report will be the basis for Bush's first troop-level decision in seven months.
"The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated," Bush said.
What did Bush have to say to those who "still call for retreat"?
Read rest of "Bush Speech: Will Resist Democrats Who Call for Retreat".
by Mondoreb
image: RidesAPaleHorse
Source: Bush Speech: Will Resist Democrats Who Call for Retreat
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
What is Presidential Directive 51?
In a story that got almost no media attention, either in Canada, or the United States, the U.S. and Canada signed a military agreement that allowed the armed forces from one nation to cross the border and support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency--even one that doesn't involve a cross-border crisis.
The agreement was not announced by the Harper government in Canada.
The move set up the beginnings of a North American Army. The agreement was not okayed by Congress.
From WorldNetDaily:
The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.
In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest.
"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration," Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians told the Canwest News Service. "We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites."
The military Civil Assistance Plan can be seen as a further incremental step being taken toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situation.
The move is sure to add fuel to the fire of those critics who warn of American armed forces involved in domestic matters.
When it was signed, the American by U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, and by Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command--it was held up as a good thing for forest fires and hurricanes.
"This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities," Renuart said in a statement published on the USNORTHCOM website.
"In discussing the new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan established by USNORTHCOM and Canada Command, Renuart stressed, "Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering an mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment."
Lt. Gen. Dumais seconded Renuart's sentiments, stating, "The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command."
"Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century," he stressed, "and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends."
In Nov. 2007, WND published a six-part exclusive series, detailing WND's on-site presence during the NORAD-USNORTHCOM Vigilant Shield 2008, an exercise which involved Canada Command as a participant.
In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered USNORTHCOM involvement.
In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so.
It is this last part that is particularly troubling.
In what domestic emergency might it be necessary to deploy troops in the USA without getting Congressional consent?
And why hasn't this received more publicity.
We're all for fighting the War on Terror, at home and abroad.
But, we're also for safeguarding civil liberties at home.
And who knows who the next president shall be?
And now a new North American army.
We're looking into the agreement and Directive 51 and will have more to say on both later.
We're not a conspiracy theorist, by any means, but we have to admit, our first thoughts agree with the way one person put it.
"Kinda scary."
by Mondoreb
Source: North American Army created
As if conspiracy theorists didn't have enough to worry about, now a new North American army is being created
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Municipal Parking Fees Discussion Tabled
Yet another quaint American town takes up the important municipal business of impeachment, this time Boulder, CO.
Boulder's elected leaders are expected to make time in their busy schedules to decide whether to draft and vote on a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Immediately after the decision is made, city leaders are also expected to consider the important business of calling for another Nobel for Al Gore and negotiating an end to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
An end to world hunger and peace in our time is tentatively on the city council's agenda for the first week of March.
For the past few weeks, activists have been showing up at Boulder City Council meetings, carrying signs, handing out "impeach" pins and asking City Council members to take up such a resolution. Similar measures have passed in cities across the country, including Detroit and Telluride.
Liz Robinson, one of the organizers of the effort, said people hoping to see impeachment proceedings have given congressional Democrats — who won a majority in the fall of 2006 — plenty of time to act.
But since they haven't, she said, locally elected officials should take up the slack.
"Whether or not it's the city's business directly, like potholes, I feel this affects all of us," she said. "We're the ones who are paying the taxes to support this administration's depredations, especially the war."
Ms. Robinson then paused to make sure no one was reading her brain waves via the fillings in her teeth, then continued.
"Impeachment proceedings would be worth doing even if they only put the last few months of Bush's eight years in office at risk. We need to send a message that this all matters to us, whether it's last-minute or not," she said.
Meanwhile, the citizens of Boulder rolled their eyes at another government program not likely to show results, something for which municipal governments are rightly famous.
The group appears to have some support among the City Council, although it's not clear if it has the five votes it would take to get a resolution drafted and subsequently debated.
City Councilman Macon Cowles wrote in a memo to his colleagues that he'll likely make a motion at the Feb. 19 meeting asking that a resolution be drafted.
"I believe that these citizens deserve a hearing," Cowles wrote to the council.
It wouldn't be the first time the City Council has weighed in on matters far outside the city's physical boundaries. In 2006, the council approved a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and in 2003, the council passed a resolution opposing the invasion.
Cheered by the success their previous grand-standing attention-seeking resolutions have enjoyed, Boulder's elected leaders will then gather for a photo-op and complimentary back-patting.
Deputy Mayor Crystal Gray, who helped draft the 2006 resolution, said Boulder has a tradition of debating big-picture issues.
"I'm a believer that the council should be responsive at the level of local government to issues that the residents raise, just like the Iraq war resolution," she said.
Not everyone on the Boulder City Council pretends to be in Congress.
City Councilman Ken Wilson said he's not on board. During a recent retreat, the City Council agreed to priorities ranging from fixing structural problems in the budget to doing better land-use planning.
"We did not identify national issues as a priority for work by council and staff. We are already seeing scheduling problems trying to address our priorities and the immediate needs of the city," he said. "Hours spent discussing national issues will reduce the amount of time we can spend on city issues."
In related news, the city of Gob's Nobbler, KY is expected to vote on a resolution calling for war crimes trials (with torture during testimony) for Boulder's City Council.
"War trials for Boulder's city council would be worth doing even if they only put the last few months of the council's last year in office at risk. We need to send a message that this all matters to us, whether it's last-minute or not," stated Dan Druff, Gob's Nobbler's mayor and Chief of Police.
"We want the newspapers to print articles about us too. We don't want left out."
"We Kentuckians can posture."
by Mondoreb
idea/image: RidesAPaleHorse
Source: Boulder: Impeach Bush?
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
A departing Sid Blumenthal disproves the maxim, "no man can serve two masters". His last piece for old boss, Salon, "Goodbye Mr. Bush" is the same as his first for new boss, Hillary Clinton.
Reading the opening, one suspects that Sid is guilty of double-dipping.
The Republican will to power remains ferocious. It will take a dauntless Democratic leader to win back the White House and restore dignity to the Constitution.
Under crisis conditions of an extraordinary magnitude political leadership of the highest level will be required in the next presidency. The damage is broad, deep and spreading, apparent not only in international disorder and violence, the unprecedented decline of U.S. prestige, and the flouting of our security and economic interests but also in the hollowing out of the federal government's departments and agencies, and their growing incapacity to fulfill their functions, from FEMA to the Department of Justice.
That Blumenthal penned the next sentence without laughing to tears is proof that he's a perfect fit for the Clinton war room.
"The patently perverse notion that weakness is strength is the basis of Bush's remaining credibility within his party."
Coming from someone present during the gutting of the U.S. miltary--Codename: the "Peace Dividend"--this is good stuff. He has the reader hooked. Salon is losing a keeper in Blumenthal.
This campaign pits two parties running on diametrically opposite ideas of the presidency and the Constitution. There has not been such a sharp divergence on the foundation of the federal system since perhaps the election of 1860.The farewell's apex is reached in that one paragraph. All before and after are Blumethal/Clinton boilerplate.
"The Democrats at key junctures have been seduced by the illusion of anti-politics to their own detriment."
With this masterpiece of self-parody, Sidney Blumenthal closes his anti-Bush piece with a warning on the pitfalls of anti-politics. He also closes out his regular columns for Salon. One door closes and another one opens.
Goodbye Mr. Blumental.
by Mondoreb
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
A trick-or-treat break on Halloween. Here's the spookiest pictures of people in the news we could find. From Jason bin-Laden to Evil Dick Cheney to Evilly Clinton, if you don't find one of these that scare you, you aren't paying attention to the news.
Maureen Dowd's next New York Times column?
Frankindinejad?
To her opponents, she's Evilly Clinton
No wonder they can't find Jason bin-Laden
Palestinians and Israelis alike fear the Condi Witch
Three famous witches prepare toil and trouble for a favorite foe
Everyone's favorite Nobel Prize-winning Enviromentalist
by Little Baby Ginn
& Mondoreb
See more great Halloween Spookies at Freaking News.
Yesterday's PIXELANEOUS:
Contented Cows?
Back to Front Page.
