I am sure that the majority of these 51 are slated to be executed here in the state of Texas.

 So, on behalf of all Texans I would just like to say to the ICJ and the Mexican citizens:

 "If you commit a capital crime in Texas, you die in Texas"

Period.

I'm sure Obama will turn our rights over to the IJC. McCain probably would too. I don't know how we got here. Actually I do know. The media got us here.

Mexico is demnanding the US apply the law...

OK...lets apply the illegal immigration laws we have...

why do we put up with this little puppy yipping at our heels

  but, the United States never agreed to be bound by World Court rulings, correct?  So this is all a moot point.  At least until the Supreme Court hands over our sovereignty.

I read a great statement on NB a few weeks ago that said:   I carry a gun because I can't carry a policeman.

I carry a gun because I can.  I've carried for many years....never pulled it a single time, thank goodness.  But if I ever see a pit bull eating a child, or am in the mall with my family and some towel head starts screaming Alihu Ackbar and begins shooting, then I am prepared to do my best to protect my family and fellow countrymen.

FYI, I carry a Glock model 23 in .40 because my 1911 .45 is a little too large to carry.

Jeff Lebowski

www.angrywhitedude.c...

But he [Gomez-Robledo] appealed to the United States to respect international law. "The rule of law is the foundation stone on which the United States was built," he said.

Here's another foundation stone of the United States from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Our government never agreed to accept the ICJ's jurisdiction, and we the people certainly didn't get to vote for it.

I've had all I can take of Mexico trying to dictate their will to us.  Would that we had a President who would stand up to this crap and tell them to shut up. 

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Unfortunately, liberals (or as they like to call themselves progressives) are growing in this country and may eventually dominate our political system.  For the most part, I believe this is due to our poor educational system in the grade school and high school levels with the resultant abysmal high dropout rates. If you can’t read , write, or do basic math you will find it difficult to obtain a good-paying job so that you can take care of yourself and your family; hence, you will come to rely on and vote for the liberal party, with their belief in Big Government to take care of you for all the days of your life.

With liberalism comes the embrace of a worldview rather than a national perspective. That is why the liberals care so much about how we are perceived by other nations.

Which political party is invested in our defeat in Iraq?

Do not get me wrong, the rule of law is important and I agree that our Constitution and our Supreme Court tells us what our limits are based on our Constitution and that means we do follow the rule of law, something Reuters seems to be rather ignorant about. I mean if they are not ignorant, why did they not provide those details too?

But there is a higher issue here. You see, there is a "one world" frenzy going on these days, where elitist types are out to turn all sovereign countries into "states" under a one world government, which then imposes unbearable dictates upon its member states. The EU is a perfect example of this, and this is why several countries have rejected this tyranny by refusing to join the EU, most recently Ireland.

These "one world" elitists are under the delusion that a "one world government" would bring an end to war, for example. But of course they forget to recognize or mention that hundreds of civil wars within countries have not been stopped simply by a federal government "over all." And they believe a lot of other jiberish there is not time to go into.

I suspect Reuters has its own lack of respect for International Law, as the UN charter assures its member states that each country's laws are not be tampered with by other countries, even via the ICJ, and that International Law trully only applies to international situations, for example, when a business in country A sells defective products in country B or in areas such as international drug deals, human trafficking, crime in international waters, etc.

Simply put, the ICJ does not have jurisdiction. Reuters thinks it does, but only to "bad mouth" the USA while President Bush is still in office, because it is a "sworn enemy" of President Bush, IMHO. In fact, it seems that "bad mouthing" President Bush these days is pretty much "smear tactics" based on total lies or worthless BS.