Can a treaty grant foreign nationals greater protections that those afforded U.S. citizens?

Chi is today offering SCOTUS a different treaty.

With regard to the discussion above, I noticed this quote in the Chi cert:

Of course, it is well established that a self-executing treaty binds the States pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, and that the States therefore must recognize the force of the treaty in the course of adjudicating the rights of litigants. See, e.g., Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U.S. 483, 25 L.Ed. 628 (1880). And where a treaty provides for a particular judicial remedy, there is no issue of intruding on the constitutional prerogatives of the States or the other federal branches. Courts must apply the remedy as a requirement of federal law.

Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 2680 (2006).

[This message was edited by david curl on 08-07-08 at .]

The Supreme Court has denied Chi's motion for stay. SCOTUSblog has the story here.

The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant Wednesday for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. He is the first sitting head of state the court has ordered arrested.

...

Al-Bashir denies the war crimes accusations and refuses to deal with the court, and there is currently no international mechanism to arrest him. The main tool the court has is diplomatic pressure for countries to hand over suspects.

[What is the point of a world court with no enforcement power? Imagine if you had to convince your felons to turn themselves in for justice.]

Details.

[This message was edited by JB on 03-04-09 at .]

Team America, World Police!