- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,606
- Reaction score
- 32,218
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So in other words you are just fear mongering.
Any opportunity to bash the US.
So in other words you are just fear mongering.
So in other words you are just fear mongering.
His rights were not "denied". This is from the article.
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 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.
Any opportunity to bash the US.
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
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?
I'm saying this was not an international incident. It was a trial for capital murder. Criminal laws apply.
What exactly do you have against allowing foreign nationals to seek legal counsel from their country?
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.
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.
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.
Yes, your posts in this thread prove that you are quite correct.Thank you for that obvious clarification! :roll:
I can make useless statements too:
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.
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.
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.
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.
No it does not. Do you know anything about law at all? Because you are doing a great job displaying that you don't.
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?
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?
No, it's a bad thing to require all residents to have proof of their citizenship at all times.
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.