The U.S. Supreme Court’s hearing of the case, Medellin v. Texas, has reminded the American people of President Bush’s terrible tendency to put the foreign interests of Mexico above those of the United States. But the case, being heard on October 10, is significant for another reason. It demonstrates the dangers of passing global treaties and getting involved with international courts and tribunals. The Senate should remember this lesson as it ponders ratification of the U.N.‘s Law of the Sea Treaty, which creates an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and various “dispute resolution panels” that will inevitably rule and act against the U.S. The Senate could vote on this treaty shortly and the odds are that it will pass unless the American people voice their objections immediately and vociferously.
In the Medellin v. Texas case, which we addressed in a June 12 special report, the Bush Administration acted so committed to the primacy of international law and global courts that it took the President’s home state of Texas to court on behalf of a group of convicted Mexican killers. The Mexicans had been sentenced to death for murdering U.S. citizens, including teenagers and young children. It is another low point in the presidency of George W. Bush but it helps explain the twisted mentality behind the administration’s push for ratification of the dangerous United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Medellin v. Texas figured in Mexico v. United States, the case brought before the U.N.‘s International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled 14-1 on behalf of Mexico against the U.S., insisting that the killers were somehow denied their rights to seek outside counsel and advice from Mexican authorities. The ICJ was headed at the time by a judge from communist China, who also ruled against the U.S.
John B. Bellinger III, Legal Adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, cited Mexico v. United States of America in a June 6 speech trying to convince international lawyers that the administration is doing what it can to enforce international law in U.S. courts. He noted with pride that Bush had come down on the same side as the U.N.‘s International Court of Justice. In the ICJ decision, Bellinger said, “the ICJ ordered the United States to review the cases of 51 Mexican nationals convicted of capital crimes.” And the President, he said, “acting on the advice of the Secretary of State,” decided to “require each State involved to give the 51 convicts a new hearing.” That’s a total of 51 convicted killers that the President sided with. Assuming the role of a dictator, Bush ordered Texas and the others states to comply with this U.N. court. Texas and many other states resisted. Hence, the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bellinger’s audience for his June 6 speech was gathered at The Hague, a city in the Netherlands which is home to over 100 international organizations, including the U.N.‘s International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
Bellinger may have mollified the globalists but the reaction that the case is getting here in the U.S. is very different. The reaction is one of anger and outrage. Fox News and the Laura Ingraham radio show are among the media which have featured emotional interviews with the father of one of the murder victims, Jennifer Ertman. He flatly accused Bush of being a liar when he said he wanted to see justice done in the case and the killers punished for their crimes. He noted that Jose Ernesto Medellin has been on death row longer than his daughter lived. Medellin and other gang members raped and murdered Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pe?a as the girls were going home.
James Oliphant of the Chicago Tribune provides some of the graphic details about the case: “Medellin stopped Pe?a. When she tried to run, he threw her to the ground. Ertman ran to help her but also was shoved to the ground. They were gang-raped and beaten. Even as the girls begged for their lives, they were dragged to nearby woods and strangled, one with her own shoelace, the other with a belt and then by a shoe pressed on her windpipe. Their bodies were found four days later.” Medellin had no regrets and bragged about the crime.
Bellinger acknowledged to the international lawyers that “The first defendant to try to take advantage of the President’s decision was in the state of Texas, which objected to the President’s decision. In response, 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. This Administration has gone to the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse this decision. We expect a ruling from that Court this time next year.”
This is the case before the Supreme Court on October 10. A decision, as Bellinger indicated, is expected next year.
We don’t know how the Supreme Court will rule on this case. But the people don’t have to wait before sending the President a strong message of protest. They can send that message by having the Senate defeat Bush’s U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty and by drawing the line at further interference by U.N. courts in our sovereign affairs.
The American people have shown, through derailing the Senate’s illegal alien amnesty bill, that they won’t play dumb or go to sleep when the issue is American sovereignty. That is why the Mexican killers case is striking such a chord, leading many to wonder if President Bush has lost his mind by intervening on behalf of the corrupt U.N. and its foreign judges against his home state of Texas.
The problem, of course, goes far beyond the Medellin case or UNCLOS. Trying to appease his foreign audience at The Hague, Bellinger declared that Bush was now trying to get 35 treaties, including UNCLOS, ratified. Bellinger declared that “international law binds us in our domestic system” and that the Bush Administration had entered into 429 international agreements and treaties last year alone. He bragged that, “?I have a staff of 171 lawyers, who work every day to furnish advice on legal matters, domestic and international, and to promote the development of international law as a fundamental element of our foreign policy.”
After hopefully defeating UNCLOS—and the battle is now underway—we should show Mr. Bellinger and his fancy legal team the door.
As for the President, it looks like he’s trying to bring into being the New World Order his father only talked about. It’s not a legacy to be proud of. But it’s one that a President Hillary Clinton would like to inherit.