Diamondback
03-14-2005, 10:47 AM
Isolationism 101 or perhaps cutting off our nose to spite our face.
No matter how you wish to term it, the current administration is making the potential dangers of international travel even greater just at a time when world opinion of us is at one of it's lowest points ever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14mon2.html
The New York Times
A Travel Advisory
Published: March 14, 2005
José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican on death row in Texas, has been a problem for the Bush administration. In response, the White House has taken a step that could imperil American tourists or business travelers if they are ever arrested and need the help of a consular official.
Mr. Medellín was arrested for a gang-related killing at 18 and assigned a lawyer, who, unbeknownst to the court, had been suspended from the bar for ethics violations. He called not a single witness at Mr. Medellín's trial and only one in the penalty phase that ended with a sentence of death. Mexico's consular representatives learned of Mr. Medellín's case only when he had been on death row for three years. Mexican authorities argued that if Mr. Medellín had been able to notify them at the time of his arrest, he might have had competent representation at his trial. This month, the Supreme Court will hear Mr. Medellín's petition.
But meanwhile, the issue of Mr. Medellín's access to consular help was addressed last year by the International Court of Justice, sometimes known as the World Court, the United Nations' top court for resolving disputes between countries. In a case brought by Mexico, the court said Mr. Medellín and 50 other Mexicans on death row in the United States should get new hearings because they were not given access to consular officials, as required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which Washington has been a signatory for decades.
The administration surprised everyone at first by accepting the court's judgment and supporting Mr. Medellín's right to review. It said, in what seemed like a promising change of heart, that "consular assistance is a vital safeguard for Americans abroad" and that if America did not comply with the court ruling, "its ability to secure such assistance could be adversely affected."
That was good reasoning. It applied in 1963 when the United States itself designed the optional protocol, the part of the Vienna Convention that allows the World Court to hear disputes over consular access. It applied in 1979 when America became the first country to use the protocol by successfully suing Iran for taking American hostages. Now, in a climate of global hostility toward Americans, the right to consular help is all the more important.
But this administration is not always given to sound reasoning when it comes to institutions like the World Court - especially on red-meat issues like the death penalty. Last week, just days after accepting the court's judgment, the administration revealed its hand: it said it had withdrawn from the optional protocol. Apparently forgetting its concern about citizens arrested abroad, the State Department said it wanted to end the court's meddling in the American judicial system.
In other words, ideology triumphed over sound judgment and Americans abroad are all less secure as a result.
No matter how you wish to term it, the current administration is making the potential dangers of international travel even greater just at a time when world opinion of us is at one of it's lowest points ever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14mon2.html
The New York Times
A Travel Advisory
Published: March 14, 2005
José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican on death row in Texas, has been a problem for the Bush administration. In response, the White House has taken a step that could imperil American tourists or business travelers if they are ever arrested and need the help of a consular official.
Mr. Medellín was arrested for a gang-related killing at 18 and assigned a lawyer, who, unbeknownst to the court, had been suspended from the bar for ethics violations. He called not a single witness at Mr. Medellín's trial and only one in the penalty phase that ended with a sentence of death. Mexico's consular representatives learned of Mr. Medellín's case only when he had been on death row for three years. Mexican authorities argued that if Mr. Medellín had been able to notify them at the time of his arrest, he might have had competent representation at his trial. This month, the Supreme Court will hear Mr. Medellín's petition.
But meanwhile, the issue of Mr. Medellín's access to consular help was addressed last year by the International Court of Justice, sometimes known as the World Court, the United Nations' top court for resolving disputes between countries. In a case brought by Mexico, the court said Mr. Medellín and 50 other Mexicans on death row in the United States should get new hearings because they were not given access to consular officials, as required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which Washington has been a signatory for decades.
The administration surprised everyone at first by accepting the court's judgment and supporting Mr. Medellín's right to review. It said, in what seemed like a promising change of heart, that "consular assistance is a vital safeguard for Americans abroad" and that if America did not comply with the court ruling, "its ability to secure such assistance could be adversely affected."
That was good reasoning. It applied in 1963 when the United States itself designed the optional protocol, the part of the Vienna Convention that allows the World Court to hear disputes over consular access. It applied in 1979 when America became the first country to use the protocol by successfully suing Iran for taking American hostages. Now, in a climate of global hostility toward Americans, the right to consular help is all the more important.
But this administration is not always given to sound reasoning when it comes to institutions like the World Court - especially on red-meat issues like the death penalty. Last week, just days after accepting the court's judgment, the administration revealed its hand: it said it had withdrawn from the optional protocol. Apparently forgetting its concern about citizens arrested abroad, the State Department said it wanted to end the court's meddling in the American judicial system.
In other words, ideology triumphed over sound judgment and Americans abroad are all less secure as a result.