Texas still plans to execute killer despite U.N. order - Page 3

SgtRock · 07-20-08, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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'.

What is your solution? Should we spit on the families of the victims and deny justice? Should we turn Medellin over to a corrupt Mexican government? What is your solution?

PeteEU · 07-20-08, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Where on earth have even suggested that? Show me where I stated or even hinted that they should be released or handed over to Mexico?

Quote:

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

And where have I said this?

Quote:

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.

And you here show us that you have zero clue on what the whole issue is about.

Okay, how about this.. You go to the Germany (or similar), and get arrested for a crime (that you may or may not have committed) but the locals refuse to contact your embassy so you can get help. That would be okay for you?

Tashah · 07-20-08, 11:43 AM

Quote:

ASSISTANCE TO U.S. CITIZENS ARRESTED ABROAD

SUMMARY: One of the most essential tasks of the Department of State and of U.S. embassies and consulates abroad is to provide assistance to U.S. citizens incarcerated abroad. The State Department is committed to ensuring fair and humane treatment for American citizens imprisoned overseas. We stand ready to assist incarcerated citizens and their families within the limits of our authority, in accordance with international law. We can and do monitor conditions in foreign prisons and immediately protest allegations of abuse against American prisoners. We work with prison officials to ensure treatment consistent with internationally recognized standards of human rights and to ensure that Americans are afforded due process under local laws.

CONSULAR ACCESS TO PRISONERS: Article 36(a) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, 21 UST 77, TIAS 6820, 596 UNST 261, a multilateral treaty to which many, but not all, countries are party provides that consular officers shall be free to communicate with their nationals and to have access to them. However, Article 36(b) provides that the foreign authorities shall inform the consular officer or the arrest of a national "without delay" (no time frame specified), if the national requests such notification. Bilateral Consular Conventions between the United States and individual countries are more specific, requiring notification, regardless of whether the arrested person requests it, and generally specifying the time period in which such notification is to be made. When there is no treaty in force, notification and access are based on comity and largely dependent on whether the two countries have diplomatic relations.

Consular services include:

Upon initial notification of arrest:

- visiting the prisoner as soon as possible after notification of the arrest;

- providing a list of local attorneys to assist the prisoner obtain legal representation;

- providing information about judicial procedures in the foreign country;

- notifying family and/or friends, if authorized by the prisoner;

- obtaining a Privacy Act Consent;

- relaying requests to family and friends for money or other aid;

Source: US Department of State

Quote:

Prisoner Transfer Treaties

Q. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME IN ONE COUNTRY TO BE TRANSFERRED TO HIS/HER HOME COUNTRY WHERE HE/SHE WILL SERVE THE REMAINDER OF HIS/HER SENTENCE?

A. Yes. Under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. §§ 4100-4115) foreign nationals convicted of a crime in the United States, and United States citizens or nationals convicted of a crime in a foreign country, may apply for a prisoner transfer to their home country if a treaty providing for such transfer is in force between the United States and the foreign country involved.

Q. WHAT COUNTRIES DOES THE UNITED STATES HAVE PRISONER TRANSFER TREATIES WITH AT PRESENT?

A. The United States has 12 bilateral prisoner transfer treaties in force in Bolivia, Canada, France, Hong Kong S.A.R., Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Palau, Panama, Peru, Thailand and Turkey.

Source: US Bureau of Consular Affairs

Dezaad · 07-20-08, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtRock

What is your solution? Should we spit on the families of the victims and deny justice? Should we turn Medellin over to a corrupt Mexican government? What is your solution?

Abide by our obligations. Be people of our word. Here is what I envision happening:

1. The executions are delayed.
2. The Mexican consulate is provided with the necessary information to conduct their reviews of the situations and to inform whomever they wish of what actions they intend to take.
3. Perhaps some additional legal wrangling will result, especially if the Mexican government can show some reason why their not being informed casts some doubt on the guilt of the men.
4. Texas will finally execute the men.

I view this issue as largely procedural. It could (there is a small chance)result in the men being returned to Mexico, but I highly doubt they would simply be set free there. That is not in the Mexican people's interest, and they know it. It is my understanding that there are legal avenues that would prevent their being simply set free there, if they were returned.

I could ask you the same thing in reverse: What would you say a few years from now to a family whose plausibly innocent son is being held in a foreign country? Please understand that I mean a hypothetical country who would be using this case as their rationale for not abiding by agreements they made to us under these same treaties. This is certainly not far-fetched... after all, we do have many many thousands of Americans who enter Mexico each year.

Please understand that I think both your question and mine are erroneous in that the intent of asking them is to evoke emotional, rather than reasoned, decision making. Such decision making is short-sighted and in the medium and longer term reduces, rather than increases, justice.

You seem to think that if the Texas governor capitulates, no justice will be done upon these criminals. Can you cite in the article, or in some other article, where this is indicated?

SgtRock · 07-20-08, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

Where on earth have even suggested that? Show me where I stated or even hinted that they should be released or handed over to Mexico?

And where have I said this?

And you here show us that you have zero clue on what the whole issue is about.

Okay, how about this.. You go to the Germany (or similar), and get arrested for a crime (that you may or may not have committed) but the locals refuse to contact your embassy so you can get help. That would be okay for you?

Its funny you should say this. I was arrested in Germany. I was treated fairly and was released to my commanding officer.

If however I murdered 2 girls and was found guilty of the crime under German law I would expect to be punished according to said law. I do not believe it to be necessary to contact my consulate. When you go to a forgein country you should be expected to abide by the local laws. If you do not, to bad for you. Keep your ass out of countries where you don't belong.

PeteEU · 07-20-08, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtRock

Its funny you should say this. I was arrested in Germany. I was treated fairly and was released to my commanding officer.

Not talking about military personnel as they have special status for the most part depending on what country we are talking in.. talking about normal person with no immunity or anything.

Quote:

If however I murdered 2 girls and was found guilty of the crime under German law I would expect to be punished according to said law. I do not believe it to be necessary to contact my consulate. When you go to a forgein country you should be expected to abide by the local laws. If you do not, to bad for you. Keep your ass out of countries where you don't belong.

Maybe you believe that, but that's not what the US has been advocating for since before WW2. Consular rights for ones citizens has been a corner stone of international law for decades.

And again, we are talking about contacting the embassy of your country, and that has ZERO to do with being punished for what ever crime you have committed.

Of course you should be punished for crimes committed in your host country, that has never ever been at doubt, and is not at doubt with these Mexicans. The problem is pure and simple that the US is not living up to its international obligations (yet again one could say) based purely on some warped idea (or lack of idea) of a state or people on how to conduct international affairs.

And because they are not living up to their international obligations, not only are you risking the treatment of Americans in other countries, but you are also risking the total collapse of international law and treaties, which the US has fought wars to protect over the last 100 years.

Why should the rest of the world follow treaties and laws if the bastion of "law and order" cant be bothered to do it either? Ever heard of the moral high ground? And its even worse when the US quotes international laws and treaties against others, when it cant be bothered to follow others. Either you are part of the world community like everyone else, or you can isolate yourself like Burma.... no wait, even the Burmese follow this treaty..

And again no one is saying to not punish or try these men, not even the UN court.

TacticalEvilDan · 07-20-08, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

What tickles me about sentiments like this is that they have no basis in fact whatsoever and are brought on by some mad sense that an emotional explosion will somehow win an argument on a subject in which emotion has no legitimate place whatsoever.

I defy you to point to any post in this thread where anybody said:

The victims and their families don't deserve justice
Texas should turn the murderer over to Mexico
The accused should be given leave to murder anyone else
Medellin wasn't given a fair trial
Medellin wasn't guilty
Medellin shouldn't pay for his crime

The fact is that you can't, because nobody said anything of the sort. Of course, that doesn't stop you from trumpeting your straw-man argument at the (figurative) top of your (proverbial) lungs, does it?

In fact, even among those who aren't bitching and moaning about the Court's decision, I don't see a single person saying the UN "has jurisdiction" per se only that the UN is right to ask us to take a moment to respect international law as we have demanded others do for the past few decades.

Why do you feel it is appropriate and necessary to cheapen a legitimate argument about rights and treaties and so forth with some second-rate emotional drum-beating? Why do you consider it a legitimate debate tactic to demonize your opponent simply because they disagree with you? How do you feel that either practice, in any way shape or form, lends credibility to a single solitary word that you say?

Since when did the rights of victims and the rights of the accused become mutually exclusive? They aren't, and never have been. That is the sole purpose for which any legitimate court exists -- to make sure that the rights of all parties involved in any dispute are respected and upheld.

Could you please, please do everybody involved in this discussion a favor and base your arguments on logic and respond to what people are actually saying rather than resorting to cheap ploys, emotional appeals and straw-men?

Kthxbai.

Vader · 07-20-08, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Source: US Department of State

Source: US Bureau of Consular Affairs

That's all well and good but Mexico cannot be trusted to punish these animals.

I am no supporter of the corrupt, blood thristy redneck government of Texas; however, I am NOT in favor of doing ANYTHING that would possibly allow two baby killers to be freed in their homeland.

**** THAT ****!!!

Texas has long been a corrupt murderous state that would still be executing mentally retarded people if not for a federal law that prevents it.

That being said .... allowing these animals to go home and get a pat on the head and quick release ... IS UNACCEPTABLE!

TacticalEvilDan · 07-20-08, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

That's all well and good but Mexico cannot be trusted to punish these animals.

I am no supporter of the corrupt, blood thristy redneck government of Texas; however, I am NOT in favor of doing ANYTHING that would possibly allow two baby killers to be freed in their homeland.

**** THAT ****!!!

Texas has long been a corrupt murderous state that would still be executing mentally retarded people if not for a federal law that prevents it.

That being said .... allowing these animals to go home and get a pat on the head and quick release ... IS UNACCEPTABLE!

Please point out any poster in this thread who said either that Mexico should be entrusted with the punishment of this man, or that he should be returned to his homeland.

Monk-Eye · 07-20-08, 10:15 PM

"SOL"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Source: US Department of State
Source: US Bureau of Consular Affairs

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (ln)

Quote:

In March 2005, the United States pulled out of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which allows the International Court of Justice to have compulsory jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Convention. In June 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals who were not notified of their right to consular notification and access after an arrest may not use the treaty violation to suppress evidence obtained in police interrogation or belatedly raise legal challenges after trial (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon[1]). In March 2008, the Supreme Court further ruled that the decision of the International Court of Justice directing the United States to give "review and reconsideration" to the cases of 51 Mexican convicts on death row was not a binding domestic law and therefore could not be used to overcome state procedural default rules that barred further post-conviction challenges (Medellín v. Texas [2]).

AFP, via Tribune de Geneve en ligne, Mar. 10, 2005 - WASHINGTON, March 10 (AFP) - The United States has withdrawn from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights ... (ln)