There are several ironies in this story, and I doubt I've thought of all the odd twists it could take as it plays out. Perhaps the most obvious is that a court ruling against Bush means that an execution can proceed.
It seems that as President, Bush has tried to order the Texas courts to obey a ruling by the International Court of Justice (often called the World Court) that an inmate on death row in Texas wasn't advised of his right to notify and consult with diplomats from his home country, Mexico. I assume that would mean he should get a new trial. Texas courts and authorities have ruled otherwise, which has caused diplomatic friction with Mexico, where they don't have a death penalty.
More below the fold:
The story is "Justices Rule Against Bush on Death Penalty Case" dated March 25, 2008, by David Stout. Here's a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Toward the end, it points out one irony:
The case has put President Bush in an odd position. As governor of Texas in the 1990's, he declined to intervene in dozens of executions. As president, Mr. Bush initially objected to the lawsuit Mexico filed before the World Court that led to that tribunal's 2004 decision.
But in 2005, the White House announced that it would abide by the World Court's ruling and would instruct the states to reconsider the convictions and sentences of Mexican nationals on death row. The Texas courts refused to go along, however.
When the case was argued before the Supreme Court on Oct. 10, R. Ted Cruz, the Texas solicitor general, argued that the president had gone beyond his authority, and that if he wanted to enforce the World Court's judgment, he should have asked Congress for authorization to do so.
Perhaps Dubya should ask Congress for exactly the authorization that Texas solicitor general Cruz suggests he needs. It certainly isn't Bush's style to ask Congress for power, but this time perhaps he should do it anyway. At first I thought there would be a huge irony in Dubya asking Congress for that power, because I was confusing the World Court (formally the International Court of Justice) with the International Criminal Court. I hope some day to see Bush tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the ICC would be a sensible place for that to happen, but the United States has never ratified the treaty setting up the ICC. We have, apparently, ratified the treaty that creates the ICJ, though we removed ourselves from being automatically under its jurisdiction in 1986 and now accept jurisdiction only on a case by case basis. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/... )
Wouldn't it be interesting if Dubya asked Congress for that power, and Congress not only granted it but also ratified the ICC treaty? That just might make Bush subject to trial by the ICC for any war crimes or crimes against humanity that happened in, say, Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, after the ratification. Al Franken has pointed out that the new Congress will be seated about two weeks before the next president is inaugurated. He suggested they use those two weeks to impeach and remove Cheney and Bush. It might be easier just to ratify the ICC treaty, and then extradite them to the Hague.
The constitution gives the president "Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." I'm not sure if any president formally submitted the ICC to the Senate for ratification, so it's murky at best whether the Senate could quickly take the initiative and ratify it, even with an overwhelming majority. But it's a satisfying thought.