• 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!

Mexican national executed in Texas

So in other words you are just fear mongering.

WTH are you talking about? What exactly is fear mongering about my post? Give details instead of vague responses that do nothing but show you have nothing substantial to add.
 
His rights were not "denied". This is from the article.

for this to be a valid justification for not providing the alien prisoner his counselor rights, we would have to believe tejas was never aware of his mexican citizenship
and we know that was not the case
thus, it is not a valid excuse for our nation's failure to allow due process
 
What the hell does an invasion have to do with this? Non sequitur much?

Of course you choose to ignore the main points of my post and instead make a silly comparison on how we are not as bad as other countries.

I'm saying this was not an international incident. It was a trial for capital murder. Criminal laws apply.
 
I'm sure in terms of many countries the risks they would take in terms of diplomatic relations and financial/military support would deter them from behaving in that manner.

Actually, I doubt that the U.S. will end diplomatic relations and financial/military support to a country over refusing to allow one American to talk with a consul.
 
for this to be a valid justification for not providing the alien prisoner his counselor rights, we would have to believe tejas was never aware of his mexican citizenship
and we know that was not the case
thus, it is not a valid excuse for our nation's failure to allow due process

It's not up to the state to assert his rights for him. He has to do it. People waive their rights all the time.
 
We signed and ratified a treaty. The Constitution says that is the law of the land. It's not a loss of sovereignty as many would claim, because our government chose to ratify it. He was denied due process as he would need his foreign consulate. If you were in another country and denied your country's legal support, would you consider that a fair trial?

The light green countries are ones that have signed but not ratified the treaty.

Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties_%28for_States%29.png



....aaand that's the end of that.
 
I'm saying this was not an international incident. It was a trial for capital murder. Criminal laws apply.

Thank you for that obvious clarification! :roll:

I can make useless statements too:

Federal law supersedes state laws.
 
What exactly do you have against allowing foreign nationals to seek legal counsel from their country?

I have nothing against it. This guy never asked to do it. It only came up when he was looking for a reason to save his miserable ass.
 
It's not up to the state to assert his rights for him. He has to do it. People waive their rights all the time.

ok, i missed the part where the prisoner waived his rights
would you provide a cite so i can understand why his attorney would allow him to do such a stupid thing
 
Thank you for that obvious clarification! :roll:

I can make useless statements too:
Yes, your posts in this thread prove that you are quite correct. ;)
 
Well, his case has been up on appeal for the last 17 years. Obviously, they were all denied so I'm guessing our courts did't see this as being important enough to remand for a new trial.

An injustice is not made right by repeating it over 17 years.
 
Funny you bring up Miranda. Miranda rights are waived all the time. Any time someone gives a confession, they've had to waive their Miranda rights to do it.

Yes, and they do that how? KNOWING AND WILLINGLY.

Did this guy waive his rights to legal counsel from Mexico? No. It was the fault of Texas for not knowing he was there illegally.
 
ok, i missed the part where the prisoner waived his rights
would you provide a cite so i can understand why his attorney would allow him to do such a stupid thing

Failing to exercise his rights has the effect of waiving them. It wasn't important enough for him to even bring it up it trial, so apparently, the defense was not all that concerned about it.
 
Failing to exercise his rights has the effect of waiving them. It wasn't important enough for him to even bring it up it trial, so apparently, the defense was not all that concerned about it.

No it does not. Do you know anything about law at all? Because you are doing a great job displaying that you don't.
 
Yes, and they do that how? KNOWING AND WILLINGLY.

Did this guy waive his rights to legal counsel from Mexico? No. It was the fault of Texas for not knowing he was there illegally.

Well that's bullsh!t. Besides, I thought it was a bad thing for law enforcement to look into someone's immigration status. Do you support the AZ immigration law now?
 
No it does not. Do you know anything about law at all? Because you are doing a great job displaying that you don't.

If he was warned he had the right to contact the consulate (and I don't know if he was or wasn't) but didn't, then he waived that right. Will you concede this?
 
Well that's bullsh!t. Besides, I thought it was a bad thing for law enforcement to look into someone's immigration status. Do you support the AZ immigration law now?

No, it's a bad thing to require all residents to have proof of their citizenship at all times.
 
If he was warned he had the right to contact the consulate (and I don't know if he was or wasn't) but didn't, then he waived that right. Will you concede this?

Yes, because he would have been informed of that right.

He was not informed of that right, and therefore did not waive his right to legal counsel from Mexico.
 
No, it's a bad thing to require all residents to have proof of their citizenship at all times.

Ok then. If he kept his immigration status to himself, that's on him.
 
Yes, because he would have been informed of that right.

He was not informed of that right, and therefore did not waive his right to legal counsel from Mexico.

Ok, now show me where he was not informed of his rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom