Yesterday, the Chronicle‘s D.C. bureau reported on President Bush’s executive order that certain Mexican nationals on death row have their cases reviewed to see if they were harmed by failure to notify them of a “right” to contact consular officials (a “right” asserted by an international tribunal), and the newspaper ran another, longer story. Four Chronicle reporters contributed to the two stories.
The other shoe soon dropped, as the Bush Administration announced that it had withdrawn from the optional protocol related to the disputed international tribunal. Chronicle reporters must have been occupied, as the newspaper went with a reprint from the New York Times. Actually, let me correct that. The Chronicle chopped the New York Times version roughly in half. Maybe they needed the space they saved for one of those informative boxes they’ve added to try to make the newspaper more attractive to idiots (I don’t have a print version in front of me, so I can’t really say — readers are free to offer their guesses in the comments).
At least the editorial board had the good sense to leave this topic alone. The last time they tackled it, they conjured a nonexistent treaty out of thin air to try to make a point — and make a point they did.
UPDATE (03-11-2005): I spoke too soon, as there’s a house editorial on this subject today. At least they got the name of the treaty right this time, even if the accusation that the Administration’s stated reason for pulling out of the protocol is akin to a “Martha Stewart defense.” If the terms of a treaty — or in this case an optional protocol — are interpreted contrary to a signatory’s understanding, of course withdrawing from said treaty (or protocol in this case) is and should be an option of American foreign policy! That has nothing to do with Martha Stewart. The Chronicle‘s anti-death-penalty obsession sometimes can lead to strange conclusions. But as I said, at least they got the name of the treaty right this time. Baby steps.
