Talk:LaGrand case

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Mid-importance).

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Mid-importance).

Which is it?[edit]

The third paragraph of “The case” section ends with, “As of 2007 this was the last use of the gas chamber in the U.S.,” but the final sentence of the previous section says he was dispatched by lethal injection. Which is it? Or does this mean they hauled him into the gas chamber to give him a lethal injection? Jim_Lockhart (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No- it says one brother was executed by lethal injection (Karl, who was the first to be executed-on 24th Feb), whilst Walter, the second brother was executed by gas chamber (on 3rd March). So there is no contradiction here. Was it you who flagged the sentence “As of 2007 this was the last use of the gas chamber in the U.S.,” as dubious and, if so, is there another reason for leaving this superscript comment in, or should it be removed? 82.71.13.219 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)A Smith.[reply]

how silly that there is even any controversy over this...they killed someone and severely injured another....the ICJ has no authority here...ha ha ha... 173.116.4.30 (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this comment (which I did not delete) shows perfectly the arrogance of the USA and its citizens! They recognize verdicts of legal institutions they originally urged to be installed only if the verdict is in their favour! This article is and comments like the above are excellent examples of this! 89.50.29.145 (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this makes no sense to our European friends, but the US Constitution clearly says that no outside entity has authority over the US government. Respectfully, we aren't Europe and we will never accept such a ruling as valid. Any US President that did would end their career instantly. The US Supreme Court would be impeached and removed. No US Congress would ever ratify any treaty that specifically gave up US sovereignty on this kind of issue and the Treaty that was ratified did NOT specifically give the ICJ authority over the US. The Lagrand case was typical of a nation trying to save the lives of two of its citizens, but the US actions were obvious and predictable under US law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suddensam 57 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous half knowledge the poster above is spreading. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/104/8552.pdf

"having been born in Germany"[edit]

seems to imply that they had German citizenship because of their birth on German soil. But that is probably not the reason they have it, see German citizenship. --188.98.215.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LaGrand case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112013951/http://supreme.justia.com/us/526/111/ to http://supreme.justia.com/us/526/111/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107025823/http://supreme.justia.com/us/526/115/ to http://supreme.justia.com/us/526/115/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/317/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]