• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.N. asks Texas to commute Mexican's death sentence

A sweeping generalization that is not relevant. The U.S. is under no obligation to honor treaties with other parties who do not honor them themselves. If you don't deal honestly and abide by your own word of honor, then most Americans don't give a rat's ass about keeping up their ends of these deals, it's that simple.

1. Not true. The U.S. is bound to abide by its treaty obligations.
2. Do you have any evidence that Mexico does NOT live up to its treaty obligations?

Of course it is; if we hold our end and the other party or parties don't, it is they who broke the agreements, and neither us nor any other party is obligated to keep upholding the agreement. It's just ridiculous to do so, and defies common sense.

Once again, any evidence that Mexico is not meeting its commitments under this treaty?

Like we care if some crooks charge us with 'hypocrisy'. Most adults know who the major hypocrites around the world are, and it isn't the U.S., which is why most countries still expect the U.S. to arbitrate disputes around the globe; they certainly don't rely on Europe, or Taiwan, to get anything done. Nobody ever asks the Russians, either.

It doesn't change the fact that if the U.S. expects other states to abide by a treaty that it itself does not abide by, that most certainly is hypocrisy. If the US wants to leave by example (and it should) then it needs to live up to its treaty obligations and abide by generally accepted international law, whether or not others do so. Just because someone else does something wrong, doesn't mean you should. As an American, I want the U.S. to hold itself to a higher standard.

Actually you're just promoting a double standard and engaging in the usual America Bashing tripe, hiding behind silly semantics and pseudo-intellectual 'legalisms' in the hope nobody notices, but that's okay, we know jealousy and inferiority complexes when we see them.

What, insisting that the US abide by the treaties that it voluntary signed and ratified is "America Bashing"? You are barking up the wrong tree with that comment, and other users of DP know this.

Our dirty laundry is pretty much out in the open, unlike most of the world, where the 'press' is government controlled and censored, so it's easy for other countries, and our own media, to sit around tossing spitballs at the U.S while ignoring far worse from nearly everybody else. We're used to it.

You make it sound like the US is the only country with a free and open media. Once again, nothing you said changes the fact that the U.S. did not adhere to its treaty commitments.
 
1. Article VI does not compel the Texas court to review, reconsider or otherwise halt the execution.
2. If you don't like what happened in Texas, you can go through the legal process of moving jurisdiction of these cases to the Federal Court and hope they handle things differently.

Article VI Clause 2 said:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Looks pretty clear to me...
 
Its over, no longer a current event, and therefore people will go back to not giving a **** about this in 6, 5, 4,...
 
Its over, no longer a current event, and therefore people will go back to not giving a **** about this in 6, 5, 4,...

I care because the US is supposed to be an example. The US is an example by following up on the solemn agreements it makes with other states in the international system. That was not done in this case.
 
I care because the US is supposed to be an example. The US is an example by following up on the solemn agreements it makes with other states in the international system. That was not done in this case.

'This case has happened at LEAST 51 times int he past. It isnt an issue because 1-the individuals received a fair trial, adequate legal representation, due process and 2-this isnt a case of some poor Juan Valdez type wandering the streets and not knowing what the legal system is or what crime he committed. Dood came here as an INFANT...lived here for a few decades, raped and murdered a 16 year old, and then almost 2 decades later we are suddenly worried that somehow things should have been different because he was born in mejico.

Pin your outrage and hat to a relevant case and you likely will have more credibility. This is nothing more than a protest against the death penalty and a chance for mejico to express a little outrage. God knows they have enough routinely ****ed up goings on happeneing every day in their little cesspool of a country that they really could stand to not bother with a bunch of rapists and murderers that were 'nationals' by virtue of being born and leaving there over 3 decades ago.

The SCOTUS has ruled. COnsidering the case...it was the right ruling. And why is it that suddenly everyone is all happy and quiet in the past when the death sentence is commuted to life?
 
I think they should go ahead a commute his sentence now. ;)
 
I think they should go ahead a commute his sentence now. ;)

Ah...the saudi way...execute the sentence...and if he survives, three days later they can claim his body and/or he is a free man...
 
I care because the US is supposed to be an example. The US is an example by following up on the solemn agreements it makes with other states in the international system. That was not done in this case.

The US is an example of what? And to whom?

You are overstating the case here, and your own importance in it. While this might be a big deal to you the international indifference to this case is more telling.
 
'This case has happened at LEAST 51 times int he past. It isnt an issue because 1-the individuals received a fair trial, adequate legal representation, due process and 2-this isnt a case of some poor Juan Valdez type wandering the streets and not knowing what the legal system is or what crime he committed. Dood came here as an INFANT...lived here for a few decades, raped and murdered a 16 year old, and then almost 2 decades later we are suddenly worried that somehow things should have been different because he was born in mejico.

Pin your outrage and hat to a relevant case and you likely will have more credibility. This is nothing more than a protest against the death penalty and a chance for mejico to express a little outrage. God knows they have enough routinely ****ed up goings on happeneing every day in their little cesspool of a country that they really could stand to not bother with a bunch of rapists and murderers that were 'nationals' by virtue of being born and leaving there over 3 decades ago.

The SCOTUS has ruled. COnsidering the case...it was the right ruling. And why is it that suddenly everyone is all happy and quiet in the past when the death sentence is commuted to life?

Reading the Constitution and the Vienna Convention, how can you even imagine that the right decision was made by SCOTUS. "Conservative" judicial activism is just as bad as liberal judicial activism. They ignored a basic provision of the Constitution to come to the ruling they did... and it was a 5-4 decision if I am not mistaken...
 
do you see a difference between someone in another nation legally versus an illegal who has lived here most of his life?

oh joy. we get a "legal opinion"
from someone who cannot understand that one does not have to be a citizen to be entitled to due process
 
Back
Top Bottom