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

ludahai said:

It depends on the terms of the treaty itself. Some treaties do have provision for withdrawal from the treaty with a stated amount of time of warning. Many do not. Generally speaking, you may not unilateraly alter an existing treaty. I hope you are not thinking the U.S. should withdraw from the Vienna Convention. It gives U.S. diplomats protection overseas as well as provides U.S. access to U.S. citizens in foreign states.

Click to expand...

No, no...I was just wondering. But the thing I do find interesting is that while other break their obligation, it seems only shiek to go after the US.

j-mac

ludahai said:

I hope you are comfortable with the possible ramifications of the United States violating its treaty comitments.

Click to expand...

What do you suppose those ramifications might be?

It seems the UN or the Mexican government should have sent notice a decade ago, otherwise they cannot be taken all that seriously. There should be a statute of limitations applied regarding any protests either of these corrupt groups might have.

j-mac said:

No, no...I was just wondering. But the thing I do find interesting is that while other break their obligation, it seems only shiek to go after the US.

j-mac

Click to expand...

Who has broken the provisions of this treaty with American citizens and consular access?

ludahai said:

I hope you are comfortable with the possible ramifications of the United States violating its treaty comitments.

Click to expand...

Ive been around the world more than a few times. I have worked with police forces in several different countries. I am no less concerned nor more based on this particular ruling. Frankly...I think it is a little goofy for people to run rampant expressing concern about a bunch of rapists and murderers and ESPECIALLY only when a death sentence is about to be executed. Its like so many other things...it only matters when it becomes a current event...translation...it REALLY doesnt matter.

Grant said:

What do you suppose those ramifications might be?

It seems the UN or the Mexican government should have sent notice a decade ago, otherwise they cannot be taken all that seriously. There should be a statute of limitations applied regarding any protests either of these corrupt groups might have.

Click to expand...

For starters, the provisions of the Vienna Convention protect U.S. diplomats in consular posts all around the world. It also allows U.S. Consular access to U.S. citizens in foreign states and in many cases allows them to put pressure on foreign states to release U.S. citizens who are being held for other than truly criminal reasons.

As for protests, this is not a new situation. This has been going on for nearly a decade now.

VanceMack said:

Ive been around the world more than a few times. I have worked with police forces in several different countries. I am no less concerned nor more based on this particular ruling. Frankly...I think it is a little goofy for people to run rampant expressing concern about a bunch of rapists and murderers and ESPECIALLY only when a death sentence is about to be executed. Its like so many other things...it only matters when it becomes a current event...translation...it REALLY doesnt matter.

Click to expand...

Once again, I am not worried about the rapists. I am concerned about the ramifications of the United States violating its treaty commitments. I believe I have made that clear in this thead. Now, please pay attention.

ludahai said:

Once again, I am not worried about the rapists. I am concerned about the ramifications of the United States violating its treaty commitments. I believe I have made that clear in this thead. Now, please pay attention.

Click to expand...

Ive heard you, and your comments echo all the other 'very concerned' voices...in the paper...today. I didnt hear too much about this yesterday...or a month ago...or a year ago. Neither did anyone else. A cause isnt really a cause unless it is actually a cause.

So.. I read what the SCOTUS said a few pages back. Has anyone come up with some proof since then that this murderer asked for help during the prosecution? SCOTUS said it should be brought up at trial. Was it?? Was he denied? Not that I have read. His TEETH marks are in the dead girl. Texas followed the precedent set by the SCOTUS. If you guys don't like it, can't you find a less horrific case to pursue This?? Looks like Obama is siding with Mexico, too. Big surprise that..

ludahai said:

For starters, the provisions of the Vienna Convention protect U.S. diplomats in consular posts all around the world. It also allows U.S. Consular access to U.S. citizens in foreign states and in many cases allows them to put pressure on foreign states to release U.S. citizens who are being held for other than truly criminal reasons.

As for protests, this is not a new situation. This has been going on for nearly a decade now.

Click to expand...

Protect Consuls from whom? Those determined to kill Americans will simply kill Americans, and I doubt that they'll be interested in any treaties when they do so. Civilized cultures will behave in a civilized manner and the more lawless cultures, where the laws are less predictable, will behave as they have always done.

It seems that these agreements, such as this treaty, the Geneva Conventions, and so on, are often ignored by those who most often cry foul.

They should be ignored until their words actually come to mean something.

krickitt said:

So.. I read what the SCOTUS said a few pages back. Has anyone come up with some proof since then that this murderer asked for help during the prosecution? SCOTUS said it should be brought up at trial. Was it?? Was he denied? Not that I have read. His TEETH marks are in the dead girl. Texas followed the precedent set by the SCOTUS. If you guys don't like it, can't you find a less horrific case to pursue This?? Looks like Obama is siding with Mexico, too. Big surprise that..

Click to expand...

President BUSH "sided with Mexico" on this. This has been going on for years. There is nothing new in this story. Also, the Vienna Convention states that the accused must be informed of his right to seek contact with his consular representatives. Look... Conservatives talk so much about the rule of law, but supports the US violating the rule of law and its treaty commitments...

Grant said:

Protect Consuls from whom? Those determined to kill Americans will simply kill Americans, and I doubt that they'll be interested in any treaties when they do so. Civilized cultures will behave in a civilized manner and the more lawless cultures, where the laws are less predictable, will behave as they have always done.

It seems that these agreements, such as this treaty, the Geneva Conventions, and so on, are often ignored by those who most often cry foul.

They should be ignored until their words actually come to mean something.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

This case is far more about jacking up a lot of billable hours for attorneys, and filing lucrative lawsuits. Lawyers are the problem, not the solution, to these sorts of non-issues. This is true even as far back as Shakespeare and the widely quoted 'First, kill all of the lawyers' joke.

And Mexico's faux 'concern' is even more ignorable than most. They are a corrupt narco state whose police routinely rob and murder their own citizens, foreigners, illegals, and of course look the other way at a large slave trade, and actively encourage daily the violation of U.S. law and sovereignty. Only the congenitally naive and clueless would even entertain the possibility of caring about their concern for 'rights'; they don't have any. It's about bucks and lawsuits for them.

This is all the 'Law' amounts to for lawyers, making a buck, and it's why so few people have any real access to their rights; most are priced out the system.

President BUSH "sided with Mexico" on this.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that's a real selling point ... and we're all sure his 'siding' has nothing at all to do with his family's personal financial interests in Mexico, or his oil company friends, right?

ludahai said:

President BUSH "sided with Mexico" on this. This has been going on for years. There is nothing new in this story.

Click to expand...

And the SC told that globalist piece of **** he couldn't do anything and Texas executed the last murdering scumbag who claimed his consular rights was violated.

Also, the Vienna Convention states that the accused must be informed of his right to seek contact with his consular representatives. Look... Conservatives talk so much about the rule of law, but supports the US violating the rule of law and its treaty commitments...

Click to expand...

Doesn't rule of law also have to do with court rulings? So if the highest court in the land says since congress did not enact statutes to implement it and that it was not self executing then Texas is obeying the law.

jamesrage said:

And the SC told that globalist piece of **** he couldn't do anything and Texas executed the last murdering scumbag who claimed his consular rights was violated.




Doesn't rule of law also have to do with court rulings? So if the highest court in the land says since congress did not enact statutes to implement it and that it was not self executing then Texas is obeying the law.

Click to expand...

So, the US violates international law and its treaty obligations. The US now has no position to insist others follow their own treaty obligations. If the US, that makes the US even more of a hypocrite than it already is. I would like to think the US would hold itself to the same standards it holds others to, but in this case, the US has not. Sad.

ludahai said:

Did you read the Constitution? Article Six binds the States and all judges in those states to any and all treaties that are signed and ratified. You did know that the Senate does have a hand in the Treaty process, I presume.

Click to expand...

No part of what was signed and ratified compels Texas to review, reconsider or otherwise halt this execution. The President cannot tell Texas what to do, SC cannot tell Texas what to do, and the ICJ can't tell Texas what to do. If you want to take away Texas' jurisdiction, you need to go through Congress.

Taylor said:

No part of what was signed and ratified compels Texas to review, reconsider or otherwise halt this execution. The President cannot tell Texas what to do, SC cannot tell Texas what to do, and the ICJ can't tell Texas what to do. If you want to take away Texas' jurisdiction, you need to go through Congress.

Click to expand...

1. Read Article 6 of the Constitution.
2. Doesn't change the fact that the US is not compliant with its treaty obligations and is in violation of international law.

ludahai said:

I would like to think the US would hold itself to the same standards it holds others to, but in this case, the US has not. Sad.

Click to expand...

Again, the only way to do this (make compliance compulsory) is to convince your legislators to make it law.

Taylor said:

Again, the only way to do this (make compliance compulsory) is to convince your legislators to make it law.

Click to expand...

It is law. Or are you incapable of reading the Constitution?

Go read up on the Treaty Clause.

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.

ludahai said:

So, the US violates international law and its treaty obligations.

Click to expand...

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.

The US now has no position to insist others follow their own treaty obligations.

Click to expand...

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.

If the US, that makes the US even more of a hypocrite than it already is.

Click to expand...

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.

I would like to think the US would hold itself to the same standards it holds others to, but in this case, the US has not. Sad.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

ludahai said:

1. Read Article 6 of the Constitution.
2. Doesn't change the fact that the US is not compliant with its treaty obligations and is in violation of international law.

Click to expand...

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.

Did the UN notify Gaddafi he had rights, before they said do get him?

They bitch about Human rights part time, like Liberals who say they are are all for Human rights, but not if it's the right of an Innocent unborn baby who did nothing wrong ever.

Hell some even say late term abortion if okay as long as some lying bastard says the mother is at risk.

The baby is 99% born when the baby is killed.

Not that's human rights for you.

I would like to see Rick Perry tell the UN kiss off. and that's the nicest thing I can say.

Leal was in the US from the age of 2. Committed the crime when he was about 22... death to the **** bag I say, and good riddance.

Degreez said:

It is law. Or are you incapable of reading the Constitution?

Go read up on the Treaty Clause.

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.

Click to expand...

LOL

I have a better idea, why don't you take your two sentence level of understanding to the Supreme Court (which has repeatedly held that treaties are NOT automatically law) and ask THEM why they're incapable of reading the Constitution.

:lamo

You people with your "its the law-read the constitution"...yer funny. Cuz...after all...lawyers...constitutional scholars...and yes...even the Supreme Court have ruled...but some wingnut anon internet blogger knows better. You crack me up...you really really do...

Now...heres the thing. For those NOT full of **** when they pretend they are all up in arms about this (because face it...most of you didnt know about it prior to it hitting the papers)...for those of you sincere types...DONT LET THIS CAUSE DIE! Since its all important and stuff. You should be protesting...daily updates...letter writing campaigns...seriously...this is IMPORTANT STUFF...that you...you know...just...heard about...

ludahai said:

No, it isn't a matter of letting him go free. It is a matter to ensure that all defendants are accorded all of the rights they have coming to them. The U.S. government insists that other states abide by international law, but why does the United States NOT have to abide by the same international laws it expects others to abide by. The State of Texas made a big blunder here. They should have allowed him access and THEN give him the trial and THEN execute him according to Texas law.

Click to expand...

do you see a difference between someone in another nation legally versus an illegal who has lived here most of his life?