• 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

Yes, I have read the entire treaty, the SCOTUS opinion, the ICJ opinion on the matter, and the United States Constitution...

Any more questions?

Well...yes actually. Bravo-right off the top...not a question but welll done. My guess is that if you can honestly state that you are one of the few. Now. Since you have read all those things and there are opinions (emphasis on 'opinions' because hey...here we are with Texas still proceeding, so obviously their 'opinion differs') on the subject of treaties relative to the Geneva Convention, then 1-did you read them because of this thread, and 2-do youside with 'opinions' based solely on your pre-existing beliefs? Oh...Im sure there are other questions (since from what I have read there appears to be significant differing opinions from people that are actually legal scholars) but we can start there. Again..Kudos for actually reading the article.
 
The United States signed and ratified the treaty. Thus, the United States, under international law, is required to abide by the provisions of that. This tenant of international law PRECEDES by centuries the existance of the United Nations. As for the 'self-execution' doctrine, it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. is bound to abide by the terms of the treaty and thus, the US is CLEARLY in violation of its treaty obligations. Also, this 'self-execution' doctrine is idiotic. The Constitution is VERY CLEAR on the supremacy of treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. A nonsensical decision by SCOTUS.

To my earlier point.

YOU have the expertise and legal backing to declare the SCOTUS was wrong. You SURE there isnt at least a LITTLE bit of bias there?
 
Letting him see the consulate will potentially get an innocent American out of a bad situation in another country. It's kind of hard to call upon the enforcing of an international treaty when you don't follow said treaty.
 
Just out of curiousity...beyond reading a few lines in a newspaper article (if people actually bothered to read the article) does anyone actually KNOW what the treaty entails, how it applies...or even IF it applies?

Dood raped and killed a 16 year old. You REALLY need more than that?

yes, i do
that criminal is going to be incarcerated/killed in my name as an American citizen
and i really need to know that the due processes of law were followed to assure he - or anyone else - received a fair trial
our nation agreed to an international treaty asserting that aliens would be entitled to counsel from their home nation
there is no good reason why such counsel should be denied to those indicted aliens
just as there is no good reason why Americans arrested abroad should not be accorded access to American counsel
but this action by tejas could, by its precedent, undermine that American right to American representation abroad
 
The U.S. is under no obligation to honor any treaty involving countries that routinely ignore said treaties.

If the guy were Dutch or English or someone from a country deserving of such considerations, I would say yeah, why not let them see their consulate Go Fers?

That is not the case with Mexico or a hundred or so other countries. They do not rate considerations like these, especially re their illegal alien criminals.
 
Bla h blah blah let the killer go cause oh some murdering rapist Mexican didn't get told he could call the Mexican Consulate after being arrested.

NEVER MIND the devastated family, the dead girl or the fact said killer entered another country without tally or clue of his rights and decided to commit murder...

I say you enter another country, commit murder and have no clue what your "rights" are, you get what's coming to you.

That's pretty much the opposite of how we do it here. All people are informed of their rights, it's the correct way to do it. You can't arrest people, violate their rights and claim later "Oh well, you should have known better". It probably should be investigated to make sure the rules were followed. We have them for reasons you know. I'm not sure what difference it would have made in this case, but emotional arguments like yours are not the best to go off of when trying to decide if the government acted properly and within the rules prescribed to it.
 
yes, i do
that criminal is going to be incarcerated/killed in my name as an American citizen
and i really need to know that the due processes of law were followed to assure he - or anyone else - received a fair trial
our nation agreed to an international treaty asserting that aliens would be entitled to counsel from their home nation
there is no good reason why such counsel should be denied to those indicted aliens
just as there is no good reason why Americans arrested abroad should not be accorded access to American counsel
but this action by tejas could, by its precedent, undermine that American right to American representation abroad

Horse****. If it wasnt for the death penalty attachment this wouldnt be a story and you wouldnt know his name. If/when they commute his sentence to life no one is going to care or give him a second thought.

BTW...how does mejico treat their illegals? Do they follow treaties? Ever read anything on their southern border and how others are treated there? Do they get to meet their consulate?

Dood came to America, lived as a citizen, raped and killed a 16 year old. No indication he wasnt mirandized or given the same rights as any US citizen.
 
Well...yes actually. Bravo-right off the top...not a question but welll done. My guess is that if you can honestly state that you are one of the few. Now. Since you have read all those things and there are opinions (emphasis on 'opinions' because hey...here we are with Texas still proceeding, so obviously their 'opinion differs') on the subject of treaties relative to the Geneva Convention, then 1-did you read them because of this thread, and 2-do youside with 'opinions' based solely on your pre-existing beliefs? Oh...Im sure there are other questions (since from what I have read there appears to be significant differing opinions from people that are actually legal scholars) but we can start there. Again..Kudos for actually reading the article.

Actually, it is the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a document I am very familiar with and have been for years. I also read the ICJ opinion when it initially came out years ago. The SCOTUS case I read more recently -- I think last year, but I don't remember it. My "pre-existing" beliefs are that the US should abide by the rule of law and its treaty commitments. The U.S. is a signatory to the Convention and thus is obligated as a matter of international law to abide by it. The benefits the U.S. gains from the treaty is significant and it does allow the U.S. to gain access to and advocate for its citizens being treated unfairly in other countries around the world. It also provides the modern framework in which international diplomacy is conducted.
 
To my earlier point.

YOU have the expertise and legal backing to declare the SCOTUS was wrong. You SURE there isnt at least a LITTLE bit of bias there?

Did you read Article VI of the Constitution? It is VERY clear as to its meaning and intent.
 
The U.S. is under no obligation to honor any treaty involving countries that routinely ignore said treaties.

If the guy were Dutch or English or someone from a country deserving of such considerations, I would say yeah, why not let them see their consulate Go Fers?

That is not the case with Mexico or a hundred or so other countries. They do not rate considerations like these, especially re their illegal alien criminals.

Do you have any evidence that Mexico denies U.S. Citizens consular acces or are you blowing smoke?
 
Do you have any evidence that Mexico denies U.S. Citizens consular acces or are you blowing smoke?

I thought most every country abides by the Vienna Convention of 1969. I know of no specific case where an American was not provided consulate contact in Mexico. It's probably happened at one time or another in history... but Oberon seems to insinuate this happens all the time. That's confusing...
 
Horse****. If it wasnt for the death penalty attachment this wouldnt be a story and you wouldnt know his name. If/when they commute his sentence to life no one is going to care or give him a second thought.
that they seek a commutation of sentence is not a request which has to be abided
that we failed to provide him with the same rights we would want accorded an American citizen in mexico (or elsewhere) is something we should recognize

BTW...how does mejico treat their illegals? Do they follow treaties? Ever read anything on their southern border and how others are treated there? Do they get to meet their consulate?
but for the intervention of the American consulate - which representation and actions were excellent - my friend would still be down there wasting away in some dreary mexican prison
that is why i find this matter of such importance. i can envision mexican authorities denying American consulate intervention in matters affecting American citizens in their jails because we have ended the practice of comity

Dood came to America, lived as a citizen, raped and killed a 16 year old. No indication he wasnt mirandized or given the same rights as any US citizen.
and he should be properly tried under American law ... which provides for his access to mexican counsel. process which was denied to him
i don't care who the criminal was or what their crime consisted of, they deserve due process. because that guarantee then extends to each of us. just as depriving him of due process with our sanction might later result in the deprivation of our due process rights when we need them
 
The United States signed and ratified the treaty. Thus, the United States, under international law, is required to abide by the provisions of that. This tenant of international law PRECEDES by centuries the existance of the United Nations. As for the 'self-execution' doctrine, it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. is bound to abide by the terms of the treaty and thus, the US is CLEARLY in violation of its treaty obligations. Also, this 'self-execution' doctrine is idiotic. The Constitution is VERY CLEAR on the supremacy of treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. A nonsensical decision by SCOTUS.

Apparently the SC thinks differently than you do. And Apparently those in DC do not see this as big enough issue to make a law implementing the treaty so that the states would have to allow consular visits for scumbags who break the law. SO if you want to blame anyone for Texas executing scumbag illegals who rape and murder then you should blame congress for not implementing this treaty or the assholes who drafted this treaty for not making it self executing.If you want Texas to allow consular visits to illegal alien scumbags then petition your elected officials.

The illegal alien scumbag on death row will be executed just like the illegal alien scumbag who was executed on 08.
 
Horse****. If it wasnt for the death penalty attachment this wouldnt be a story and you wouldnt know his name.

I agree that the only reason this is even an issue is because it involves the death penalty, just like the one almost 3 years ago did.

If/when they commute his sentence to life no one is going to care or give him a second thought.

Texas didn't commute the last illegal alien convicted of murder, they won't for this one either.
 
Was he informed of his right? U.S. citizens are required to be informed of their rights via the Miranda Warning. This treaty provides such rights for foreign nationals. Nice try though...

Answering questions with more questions? Please show me the requirement in the Vienna Convention that he be informed? I read the Vienna Convention and didn't see any requirement to inform, only to comply when asked. Maybe I missed it so please quote it with a link.
 
Did you read Article VI of the Constitution? It is VERY clear as to its meaning and intent.

I dont pretend to be a constitutional scholar because I have read a few peoples opinions...certainly not because I have read the minority (or for that matter majority) court opinions that coincides what I want the legal definitions to be. My degree fields dont go near consitutional law. However we DO have appeals court and supreme court opinions on treaties...yes? Even 'opinions' that you disagree with. Im relatively certain they probably trump a blogged opinion.

Again...I respect that you have read them. One has to assume that if Texas is indeed behaving in an unconstitutional manner the SCOTUS will in fact intercede. If they dont...well...
 
that they seek a commutation of sentence is not a request which has to be abided
that we failed to provide him with the same rights we would want accorded an American citizen in mexico (or elsewhere) is something we should recognize


but for the intervention of the American consulate - which representation and actions were excellent - my friend would still be down there wasting away in some dreary mexican prison
that is why i find this matter of such importance. i can envision mexican authorities denying American consulate intervention in matters affecting American citizens in their jails because we have ended the practice of comity


and he should be properly tried under American law ... which provides for his access to mexican counsel. process which was denied to him
i don't care who the criminal was or what their crime consisted of, they deserve due process. because that guarantee then extends to each of us. just as depriving him of due process with our sanction might later result in the deprivation of our due process rights when we need them
He was properly tried under US law. I dont see that as being in question. What is questioned is if he was allowed to talk to a mejican counsel, not if he recieved appropriate counsel. Your friend...was he guilty of raping and murdering a 16 year old mejican citizen? If so, he should still be there rotting. Did he recieve a fair trial? By all accounts THIS rapist/murderer in question DID.
 
Do you have any evidence that Mexico denies U.S. Citizens consular acces or are you blowing smoke?

For the sake of satisfying the challenge would that apply to Guatemalen and other central American citizens detained in mejico and denied rights? Im betting that would make for some dramatic reading...

Apparently the supreme court has ruled 5/4 that the state is within its right to enact state law. Something about a cat named Jose Medina raping and murdering a couple folks and trying to avoid the same justice any US citizen would be subject to by virtue of his nationality.
 
Intriguing. I read the synopsis on all 51 cases ordered reviewed due to concerns over failure to foreign consul. A couple of things jump out...like 1-WTF are people defending these scumbags for? 2-MOST of those sentences were commuted to life without the possibility of parole, sort of confirming my suspicions...all people really care about is their political ideals regarding the death penalty, and once that is waived those suckers are out of sight, out of mind, and good freakin riddance. 3-The SCOTUS has ruled on this...more than once...determining that if the individual recieved a fair trial and the conulsar notification didnt negatively impact their fair trial, then the states may proceed.
 
Did the guy ask and was denied? I haven't read anywhere that he did. I looked over the Vienna Treaty and I couldn't find anywhere it saying a person must be informed, only they must do so if asked. I agree with you, they are simply attempting to get his sentence commuted. Which it should NOT. LWOP is not a real punishment as after a few years they become institutionalized and comfortable with their surroundings. Everything is provided FOR them and they have no worries where their next meal is coming from.
 
Did the guy ask and was denied? I haven't read anywhere that he did. I looked over the Vienna Treaty and I couldn't find anywhere it saying a person must be informed, only they must do so if asked. I agree with you, they are simply attempting to get his sentence commuted. Which it should NOT. LWOP is not a real punishment as after a few years they become institutionalized and comfortable with their surroundings. Everything is provided FOR them and they have no worries where their next meal is coming from.

Meh...for reasons totally unrelated, Im fine with a life without parole sentence. Im not a fan of the death penalty. But that shouldnt be what this is about and frankly I find it repulsive when people couch their 'concern' for their fellow man in all these other bull**** 'reasons.'
 
Obama Administration seeks to halt Texas execution of Mexican national, Humberto Leal Garcia

BY Aliyah Shahid
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Saturday, July 2nd 2011, 11:43 AM

The Obama Administration is taking the unusual step of trying to halt the execution of a Mexican citizen who has been sentenced to die for the brutal kidnapping, rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl more than 16 years ago.

Obama Administration seeks to halt Texas execution of Mexican national, Humberto Leal Garcia

They won't secure the border so guys like this won't simply walk across, now they seek to intervene in a trial where the man was duly convicted by a jury?
 
Did the guy ask and was denied? I haven't read anywhere that he did. I looked over the Vienna Treaty and I couldn't find anywhere it saying a person must be informed, only they must do so if asked. I agree with you, they are simply attempting to get his sentence commuted. Which it should NOT. LWOP is not a real punishment as after a few years they become institutionalized and comfortable with their surroundings. Everything is provided FOR them and they have no worries where their next meal is coming from.

That's a rather naive argument I think. You're saying if I threw you in jail with no hope for parole, that you'd be cool with that. After a couple years, you'd be comfortable and wouldn't want to be outside prison? Even if that were the case, so what? You're in prison and that means not on the streets where others could be subjected to your crime. You've been removed.
 
Last edited:
That's a rather naive argument I think. You're saying if I threw you in jail with no hope for parole, that you'd be cool with that. After a couple years, you'd be comfortable and wouldn't want to be outside prison? Even if that were the case, so what? You're in prison and that means not on the streets where others could be subjected to your crime. You've been removed.

Do a little reading on being institutionalized. Then come back and I'll discuss it with you.
 
Do a little reading on being institutionalized. Then come back and I'll discuss it with you.

I know about it, but it's still punishment. Jail is not a nice place, it's not fun to be there. Even if you've been there long enough to come to terms with your incarceration. It's still jail, you're still not free. I think it's foolish to state that it's not a punishment because people can become institutionalized. Particularly in some argument in which you use such unproven statements like "it's not a punishment" to excuse greater punishment such as the death penalty. More so in the light that the DP system has grave failure states, is expensive, and for the most part in today's society...pointless.
 
Back
Top Bottom