Talk:LaGrand case

Which is it?
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)

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.

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)

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)

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)


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

"having been born in Germany"
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)

External links modified
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 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.

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