PeteEU

The US is in breach of its international obligations and should be ashamed. Every person visiting the US (legal or illegal) is protected by not only US law, but also international laws, that the US has signed and ratified. That is how civilization works.

What Texas is doing is not only pissing on long standing international laws and agreements, that the US have promoted time and time again to defend its own citizens in other countries, but also basicly pissing on the federal system of the US. What's the next international agreement that Texas intends to ignore? nuclear non-proliferation treaty? How about the agreement on human rights? Or the treaty for women's rights?

Or is it just that these Mexicans are in fact.. Mexicans and the current climate in the US is very anti Latino (especially among the right), that its okay? I know of a Dane years ago being held in Texas did have access to the Danish Embassy, so why the freaking difference all of a sudden?

The UN has no jurisdiction over Texas or anyone.. never had and never will. The UN is a place for countries settle international incidents and in this case the International Court was used and the ruling was 100% correct. Its up to the Bush Administration to slap Texas over the hands and make them behave to international law, but some how I doubt that they will.

But I am guessing no one here is willing to actually discuss the implications as the big boogy words "UN World Court" have been mentioned, and that this thread, like very other UN thread, will degenerate into an anti UN, anti World, anti Europe and probably labelling everyone not agreeing with the Texan stand point as terrorists.

In short Texas is wrong in what it has done, as it should have given these Mexicans access to their Embassy. Texas is 100% correct to charge and convict and punish them, but not giving access to Embassy official's was a breach of international agreements that the US has signed and promoted.

__________________
PeteEU

winston53660

I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm posting from Texas BTW.

__________________
http://winstoncreative.com/

DeeJayH

texas ****ed up
should have let him see his consulate
but i am not among the nimrods who think it was denied because he was latino

btw Pete did the dane rape murder 2 kids?

__________________
These days it seems that the deadliest place on earth for an American to be is inside the womb. - Joshua P. Allem

quatrotritikali

Oh, so you're an appeaser...a capitulator. It is just such people who are the most dangerous to freedom, independence, and democracy.

__________________

PeteEU

No smuggled a few tons of cocaine but as a principle the crime should not matter at all. Whether its a speeding ticket or mass murder, a non US citizen has per international treaties which the US has signed and defended the right to contact his embassy.

quatrotritikali

The U.S. is NOT in breach of any intl. obligations in this matter. Anyone visiting the U.S. from abroad is protected by U.S. law...and also must abide by U.S. laws. However, foreign citizens are not protected by any intl. laws or UN or World Courts. The World Court/UN Court laws are reserved for those people charged with international crimes, such as genocide, mass murders, certain other war acts, etc. These "criminals" are then charged and brought up before the World Court to answer for their crimes against humanity....

Correct...the UN has no jurisdiction over Texas or any other state. The International Court was not used in this case. The American Justice System was used to try and convict these two men. Crimes they knew were illegal. Crimes carried out on U.S. soil and against U.S. citizens. If this had been Singapore...I doubt there would be any serious talk of the upcoming executions. Singapore is tough on crime and they don't play these games.

The illegal Mexicans had plenty of opportunity of reaching the Mexican Embassy before they were apprehended for their crimes. They should have sought protection before their arrests, not after the fact.

PeteEU

You have zero clue about what you are talking about. The court has nothing to do with crimes against humanity. Its a court system put in place at the founding of the UN, to solve legal disputes between countries, legal disputes based on treaties and agreements made in the UN. You are thinking about the International Criminal Court.

The US has signed the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (in fact was one of its main backers), and it's in this that states that the US (and other countries) are required to inform the persons embassy about the persons arrest and charges. There is no if's or buts and the US has not pulled out of this part.

The only thing the US is not part off, as it pulled out of that part in 2005, is the part that states that the International Court of Justice has compulsory jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Convention. This has been a US tactic since the Reagan years, pulling out of any and all treaties that had methods to force the US to abide by said treaties. Basicly the US, from Reagan and now under Bush is trying to have its cake without gaining weight. But like it or not, the US and in this case Texas is in breach of the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations when they did not notify the Mexican Embassy of the arrests.

On top of that the US Supreme Court has ruled that evidence in a case, can not be thrown out due to not living up to this convention and that the US can only see rulings from the International Court of Justice as non binding, which is just fine. No one is disputing the rulings per say. At best they are disputing the death penalty, but that's another issue frankly which is long standing with most of the world and the US (Iran, Saudi Arabia and so). What the court has ruled is that the US is in breach of its obligations and that this breach could have had a negative impact on the out come of the trial and this should be put into consideration. And frankly they are right. Who knows what kind of lawyer they could have gotten if the Mexican embassy was notified about their arrests? We all know that the US court system is based on how good your lawyer is and how much money you have, not always about truth and justice. But that's not saying that they did not get a fair trial, just that protocol on the issue was not followed.

And its not been about the crimes. I have no doubt that these scumbags are guilty as hell (even with the so called Texan justice system), but it does not remove the fact that the US and Texas are in breach of a treaty they backed for 40 years as a cornerstone of international law.

Again you have zero clue about what you are talking about. Your feelings are getting in the way of cold hard facts. And frankly the xenophobia of the US is clearly showing in this case.. and it has gotten worse and worse the last decade under Bush.

Tashah

Foreign nationals arrested in the US (or anywhere) have the legal right to contact their embassy/consular officials. It is the responsibility of each sovereign government to make the arrangements for and to provide such access. This same legal protection applies to all US citizens arrested abroad.

Texas demonstrated poor judgement and has set a very bad precident by ignoring this international obligation. Even Dubya - not known for his fondness of international treaties and conventions - recognizes the vital importance of the mutuality inherent in this particular obligation and legal safeguard.

__________________

Dezaad

This is just another instance of our citizenry's diminishing ability to objectively assess any of the trade-offs that form a huge part of reality.

Americans can't even seem to understand that there is a trade-off between having low tax rates and high levels of government services. This is evidenced by our seeming willingness to listen to politicians who promise to cut taxes and increase spending when the result of such policies is for deficits to increase. This trade-off requires very little in the way of sophistication in order to be seen, yet it seems to be lost on most of us.

I have little hope that we will have the objectivity to see that we are in fact party to treaties that do obligate the State of Texas. Nor do I have hope that we will have the wit to understand that it is in our own citizen's interest for the U.S. to be party to these treaties.

I hope that we do not embarrass ourselves further with our knee-jerk backwater resistance to "furreners at the yooo eyun'.

SgtRock

What about the victims and there families? Don't they deserve justice? Do you suggest Texas turn the murderer over to Mexico? What happens when Mexico decides to purge there prison system and let this animal out on early parol? Something they do quite often. What if he murders again?

All people like you care about are the rights of criminals with no concern for the victims.

Medellin was givin a fare trial and found guilty. He took the life of two innocent girls. He should pay for his crime. To hell with the U.N. I am for abolising the U.N. all together.

__________________

The horsemen are drawing nearer. On the leather steeds they ride. They have come to take your life.