Bush Working With International Court of Justice To Get Convictions of 51 Mexican Killers Reversed

President agrees to take his ‘home state’ to the Supreme Court to get decisions reversed

By James P. Tucker Jr

President Bush has taken his home state of Texas to court on behalf of 51 Mexican killers who are under a death sentence in the United States. In Mexico v. United States of America, the president’s lawyers are arguing that the cases should be thrown out under international law because these killers were not told they were entitled to help from the Mexican consul.

The Mexican killers had been sentenced to death in the United States for murdering Americans, including children.

These shocking revelations came in a speech by John B. Bellinger III, legal advisor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, before a group of international lawyers gathered at The Hague in the Netherlands. The Hague is home to the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court.

Contents of Bellinger’s speech were made available to AFP by Accuracy in Media (AIM) June 25. Bellinger is described by the State Department as “the principal adviser on all domestic and international law matters to the Department of State, the Foreign Service, and the diplomatic and consular posts abroad.”

In the case of Mexico v. United States of America, the ICJ ruled 14-1 on behalf of the Mexican killers. Now, reports AIM, “Bush is so committed to the primacy of international law that he has taken his home state of Texas to court on behalf of a group of Mexican killers.”

The Bush administration is taking the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of 51 Mexican citizens convicted of murders on U.S. soil. The government is arguing that the Vienna Convention requires that the killers be given an opportunity to meet with Mexican representatives. A decision is pending.

“The government is arguing that
the Vienna Convention requires that
the killers be given an opportunity to
meet with Mexican representatives.”

Bellinger recognized the brutality of the murders and the long suffering of family survivors but persisted in pimping for the ICJ. They “all involved heinous murders, including young children,” he said. “Some proceedings had gone on for many years, with the victims’ families patiently waiting while our state and then federal courts reviewed the outcome. Yet the ICJ judgment nonetheless required us to review these cases again.”

Texas was the first state to reject its home-grown president, Bellinger admitted. “The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the president had no power to intervene in its affairs, even to obtain compliance with an order of the ICJ,” he said. “This administration has gone to the Supreme Court to reverse this decision.” Ironically, because Bush has made good appointments, the high court is likely to support Texas.

Bush has long been an advocate of internationalizing U.S. law.

On Feb. 28, 2005, Bush said: “I have determined . . . that the United States will discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice . . . by having state courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.”

Bellinger’s words were soothing to Bilderberg and other advocates of a world government. “Our critics sometimes paint the United States as a country willing to duck or shrug off international obligations when they prove constraining or inconvenient,” he said. “That picture is wrong. The United States does believe that international law matters. We help develop it, rely on it, and abide by it, and—contrary to some impressions—it has an important role in our nation’s Constitution and domestic law.”

In the same speech, Bellinger boasted that Bush is pushing ratification of the sovereignty-surrendering Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

American Free Press
July 9, 2007