LaGrand brothers

Remove all ads!

Preface:
1982 the two brothers LaGrand killed a bank clerc in a bank robbery, a silly crime they doubtless have benn guilty of. For this reason they have been sentenced to death and finally executed in 1999. Not at all unusual in the US.

However, the brothers LaGrand were both german and US citizens. The Vienna Concention from 1965 [date - iirc; something like the constitution of international relationships, focussing on consular relations) guarantees a country to assist (with a consul) his citizens accused of having comitted a crime in another country. To enable this he local authorities - the Arizona state - would have had to inform the, in our case, german authorities, that they had imprisoned a german citizen.
This didn´t happen for the Arizona state didn´t care (or knew) about international law and didn´t tell the LaGrands or their (probably incompetent) attorney about possible consular support.

So they heared about their right the first time in 1992 from fellow criminals in jail when they had already been sentenced. When they claimed that they have been withhold from consular support the authorities answered that this fact wasn´t known to the time of the trial and therefore irrelevant. German authorities first heared of that case in 1992, when the judges decision was final alredy. Germany went to the international court of the united nations in Hague. Despite a preliminary judgement of this court and massive protests of the german government the brothers LaGrand were executed.

Now the good part:
At the united nation's international court in Hague Germany accused the US that they had violated international law in this case by

(a) denying german citizens consular support by not informíng them properly about their rights deriving from international law (miranda seems incomplete ). This didn´t give Germany the opportunity to assist it´s citizens *timely*
(b) by not delaying the execution till the decision of the international court against a provisional order of the international court from 1999

Gemany further demanded that the US have to:

(c) in case of death penalty to allow to check the sentence and the proceedings in a case of capital punishment to ensure the rights of foreign countries and their citizens. They stated that a lousy excuse for violation of international law, as happened in the LaGrand case, is insufficient.
(d) ensure to maintain these rights of foreign countries and their citizens in future.

Today the Hague judges agreed in all four points to the german claims and sentenced the US government

It is a great day since the US had to accept for the first time that international law is of higher rank than even their loved good ol' constitution and that even the US states are bound to international obligations from the USA. The US government(s) will have to change their proceedings to match the standards of international law! Additionally these sentence will probably improve the rights of american citizens too - there is no reason why US citizens should be treated worse the people from other countries.

Since these constitutional and international rights in the proceedings are made to protect the innocent (even though criminals get most of the benefit - but that´s the price) I think that today´s judgement is a major step ahead.

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited June 28, 2001).]

 

Yay, Ragusa!! What are you some kind of law student? Come on, Bel, rebuttal, rebuttal!!

Actually, from what you say, it seems to make good sense, if a bit too late for the LaGrand brothers. Oh well. But not knowing any of the particulars, I'll simply applaud the fact that you posted, and reserve judgement. (As usual).

*takes her customary seat on the fence*

 

A major step ahead? So what you're saying is, that if a criminal with dual citizenship commits a heinous act of inhumanity, such as...KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, in the country with which they have citizenship (which means they should abide by its' rules)
They should be given the sentencing of the other nation, just because they can claim dual citizenship? That is ridiculous.

They committed a crime in a state where the death penalty is used as punishment. They were found, beyond a reasonable doubt mind you, that they committed the crime, and were sentenced accordingly.

My guess is that these two brothers were born overseas by military personnel, and other than physically being born in Germany, how many other ties did they have to the nation? Did they vote regularly? Did they visit Germany often? Or was this just a last ditch ploy by 2 craven murderers just to save their ass? (Which is my guess)

So ends my Thursday morning Rant. Have a fun one!

 

*thinks about the size of the fence that holds a dragon wifey*

 

(Disclaimer - I'm going through caffine withdrawl and am feeling like a Neanderthal this morning . . . now to my comments)

"Today the Hague judges agreed in all four points to the german claims and sentenced the US government "

Sentenced? What's the penalty? We can't bail other countries out of their trade defecits anymore or send our navy to guard their interests?

wtf does America care if a bunch of international jurists frown upon our conduct. Internally, our "beloved Constitution" takes precedence.

For all I care the Hauge can take the WTO and all the "peace keeping troops" and jump in the bloody ocean!

(Okay, I'm going to get my coffee for the day! Sorry if I've offended any of my international friends. Forgiven? )

 

You totally miss my point Bel:

No doubt the LaGrange's were guilty. It is absolutely all right that they went to jail in the US (I'm not going to discuss capital punishment). I don´t want them to go to jail in germany instead, if they killed in the US and get their rial there they go to jail there - that's not the problem.

The topic is instead about a country that is signing treatys not willing to hold them. If the president of the united states signs a convention/ treaty/ pact it cannot be that US states don´t consider themself obliged too.

The USA signed the Vienna convention - so they have to stand to their obligation - and that includes *every single US state*. To make clear the sense of the agreement to grant consular support to citizens of other countries a counter example:

Imagine yourself in europe, Bel. In a country like France. Imagine you don´t speak french. To your big surprise you are arrested. Some cops speak to you - and you don´t understand a word. After two days you start to unterstand that you are accused of having comitted a crime. Suddenly you get a lawer and a trial. And just as suddenly you are in jail. Would you like that? Unlikely.

To prevent this, the consular support is there - the consul would speak french and could translate and help you. This consular support has been denied to he LaGrange's - they weren't properly informed about their rights.

From a lawyer's point of view it is simply irrelevant how strong their ties to germany were or if they even spoke german at all - as german citizens they had the right of consular support just like any US citizen would have the same right in germany.

Mathetais is right - the sentence will not have any legal consequences for the US. No one can force the USA to change their legislation since they are a sovereign country. So basically this problem is purely academic.
But this sentence is a slap in the face of the leader of the free world - since they demand that countries like Iraq have stand to international obligations they made.

PACTA SUNT SERVANDA.

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited June 28, 2001).]

 

I don't know all the facts of the case...But the ties WOULD be relevant. If I were an American (with no other citizenship) traveling abroad - I would be subject to the laws of the country I was in. People are responsible for their individual actions, regardless of their citizenship status.

What if the situation in this case were reversed? What if Germany had the DP and Arizona only sentenced them to a life sentence? Would they have been asking to be remanded to German authorities?

Even in the United States criminals are subject to the nuances in law in each jurisdiction. If these two were diplomats, then they would have immunity. Since they were US citizens - they were subject to US laws, which would supercede any international law or agreement.

As far as the treaty is concerned...How many nations honor it? We've been trying to extradict Ira Einhorn from France for a 30 year old murder without success - and he's a US citizen!

Am I still missing the point?

 

What a life sentece would have changed is that in such a case the possible effects of a violation of these rights would have been only half as grave - loosing freedom alone is bad enough. But the capital punishment in LaGrange case takes it to the extreme: Getting executed is about the final loss of all rights.
Given (HYPOTHETICALLY) they would have been innocent and unable to speak english - maybe consular support would have helped them to proove their innocence and to regain their freedom and their rights ...

Additionally it´s a principle in international law that when you accept prolonged violation of your international law for a time this results in an unspoken acceptance - therefore germany had to protest to maintain it´s right to protest. Germany has no reason to call up a political process just for the fun of seeing america getting sentenced.

And at least all the developed countries in the world (here I mean: all Europe including Belgium; possibly canada, australia and switzerland ) guarantee consular support even for US citizens ...
And since the LaGrange's are *both* US *and* german (or british/ french ... whatever) citizens they are in fact subject to international law and just having a US citizenship too does in fact *not supersede* international law.

The LaGrange's are (or have been) in fact subject to the law of the USA - BUT THIS LAW ISN'T CONFORM WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW. The US just had about 35+ years time to implement the vienna convention into their law - and they didn't.

International law *always* is of higher rank than national law. The USA signed the vienna convention and they are obligated by it. If the US have problems to implement it into their national law (like explaining it to Arizona authorities or politicians) - their problem, but not at all relevant in international affairs. They just shouldn´t wonder if get sentenced. If you don´t like the sentence - blaim the US authorities, not the international community.


btw - the ira einhorn case seems to be a wee bit different. The vienna convention regulates consular relations. It doesn´t regulates extradictions - that´s what bi-national extradiction treaties are made for. There is certainly a franco-american extradiction treaty. Therefore the french simply can´t dishonour the vienna convention by not extradicting him.

And the immunity of diplomats is subject to another vianna convention of 1961 about diplomatic relations (Art.31 to be precise). Diplomats are immune for they represent their country (originally their king - international law is an old business).
The immunity problem is just relevant with some rogue-state diplomats using their immunity to smuggle or to prepare terrorist attacks. And in fact - in this case they can be arrested for they forfeit their immunity. I think this also applies for armed bank robbery with murder.

 

Hmmm, just recently here in Canada a Russian Diplomat decided to have a few drinks, drive to his hotel, and in the process run down and kill a woman pedestrian. Diplomatic immunity did rule in this case, and instead of being tried for man slaughter, the diplomat was shipped back to Russia to be tried for his crime. I don't know the later details, but I believe he got off relatively unscathed.

However I do agree with Ragusa on the points of consular relations outlined by the Geneva Convention. I would sure like to have some legal assistance from my own country should I have difficulties when abroad. In the case of the Lagrange trial (which I know nothing about)if the US failed to meet their international obligations, then they are guilty and I agree with the ruling. Yes the US is the leader of the free world, yes they do many good things for international relations with foreign countries, but this does not absolve them from international rules and obligations.

"wtf does America care if a bunch of international jurists frown upon our conduct."

This is the type of encapsulated comments that draw shots towards the US. Americans should learn the finer points of conduct in a global society.

No offence intended here, I'm just pissed because it's my day off and I'm here in the office There must be some international law that I can use for an appeal.

 

Indeed germany is against capital punishment, just like the other EU coutries.

However, this doesn´t change the fact that there is this rule that accepting a violation of your rights leads to a silent acceptance resulting in a country forfeiting the right finally (like: when you disliked it - why didn´t you say anything?) - that´s the principle of customary right in international law.

Most of the rules of international law where established right for a very long time already, when they were brought to paper to form the vienna convention.

 

bta - I will try my very best to find an online source about international law for you (allowing you to check my words for errors or righteous lies). I do my very best to explain the rules if international law correctly to allow a useful discussion.

However, despite the fact that the USA obviously again were innocent victim of a cunning attack of their political enemies (that seem to surround them) - can you get used to the idea that - maybe - the USA are bound to international law at all?

(no insult intended - this is my friday morning rant, haven´t had breakfast yet)

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited June 29, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Darien Noella (edited July 07, 2001).]

 

Indeed, if you have a dual-citiztenship you have a problem: It´s like a couple buying a house together - the trouble starts when they want to divorce. The international law is oldfashioned - a countrys citizen isn´t a subject of international law himself - he only becomes one for he is "property" of his country. In case of a dual-citizenship you have the problem that an individual enjoys the rights of both countries at the same time - so friction is preprogrammed. The arizona authorities ignored that. In fact - this may be i unsatisfactory but it is true - dual-citizens have more rights than an ordinary american criminal.

I also know that the citizen has to ask for consular support. The proceeding in the LaGrand cases was faulty, because the LaGrand's didn´t even know that they had this right - for the local authorities didn´t inform them. So for the LaGrand's - guilty or not - it wasn´t a fair trial for them for they haven´t been told about all their legal rights.

My approach to international law is still idealistic. I think that if at all there is an instrument to achieve international peace, international law and diplomacy is the way.

I know that IRL international politics are a different story - the NATO air war against serbia last spring was in fact a clear violation of international law - and no one cared about it. Very recently the US president simply decided to ignore the tokio convention for CO2 emissions signed by his predessessor, since follwing it could cost him some lobby support. Well, such is life, I however think that this is a questionable way to go.

 

Right BTA, the LaGrand's would have been sentenced with or without consular support. But why didn´t you consider the denial of consular support to be unfair? You mentioned the possibility that consular support could have made a difference between life sentence and excetution. I can see nothing pointing out the unfairness in denying consular support clearer.


That´s it for the topic and what follows is just for the fun of pointing it out and to laugh about america <MUAHUAHUAHUA>

The USA, one of the foundation members of the united nations (founded in San Francisco - basically as an alliance of the WW-II victors), have developed the habit of not to fully pay their contribution to the UNO budged (despite they are obligated to do so). Basically, despite some presidents wanted to pay them, the largest part of the payments were blocked by the senate for colourful reasons. Some of these reasons were that some senators didn´t want cuba to benefit from it. Finally some other senators just stated, that since the UN just wastes money, the cut of payments would teach them a lesson in economizing (unfortunately I don´t have a quote ) only to point out later that the UN bureaucracy is lacking power to act quickly and decisive (maybe due to budged shortage ... ) so giving more money to them would be a waste. Ironically it was one of Anand's first tasks (given by the US) to economize the UN bureaucracy. Well, international law and international foreign politics IRL ...

That makes me remind the episode of a german taxpayer, who - pacifist to the bone - shortened his income tax payment by the amout that would supposedly go to defense budget. Of course he had to pay against his opinions but I fear he never understood why.

However, IMHO I think this example gives a clue about the perception of international law and the united nations in the US society in general

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited June 30, 2001).]

 

I don´t want my last post to be misunderstood as a final positon - I´m still open to dicussion

So if anyone disagrees with me he's still welcome to tell me.

 

guess what? life sentence or execution, their life is still over. result is the same. Explain to me why you are more concerned about the murderers than their victim