Page 13 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 238

Thread: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

  1. #121
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,305

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    And again, Congress did NOT ratify the treaty, so it was not in effect. This has already been vetted by the Supreme Court itself. That scum should not get more rights than the American scum who also were in on the act.
    Even if it had, see my post above.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #122
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,747

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Source for this? How did the treaty become in force in the US in 1969 then?

    The State Department uses not only this treaty but customary international law. Even if Congress didn't pass it, the fact the State department uses it indicates the US accepts this as customary international law and is thus bound by it.
    In 2005, President Bush called for the hearings to be held. Texas challenged the decision, and the Supreme Court determined that only Congress could mandate such action. In July, the world court ordered Medellin's execution be stayed.
    Actually, it does appear that the treaty was ratified. However, Medellin had to ask for the Mexican consul to be notified. He claims he did, only it was more than 4 years after his sentencing before he made that claim. The police say he never asked, and transcripts of the trial appear to back the police.

    Another fact - Medellin claimed to be a Mexican national (after he was convicted and sentenced), and although technically he was, he was brought to the United States when he was only 3 years old, could speak and write English fluently, and never showed any desire to go back to Mexico and live as a citizen there.

    This issue was brought up for only 2 reasons:

    1) Medellin was clearly attempting to game the system and save his own life.

    2) Europe and Mexico, which do not have the death penalty, were using this case to prevent a lawful execution in Texas, which of course, does support the death penalty.

    If you go to the last link I posted, you can read it all there.
    Last edited by danarhea; 01-19-09 at 11:27 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  3. #123
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    It is a treaty that was signed by the United States. It has an international obligation to uphold to its international agreements.
    "on 7 March, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations." - VCCR - Foreign Nationals - the International Justice Project

    "Although the United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention, US officials have often indicated that they accept at least much of the Convention as reflecting binding customary international law." - The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty

    Now lets see what dwells a little deeper...

    "While the policy merits of the Bush Administration's announcement are of course open to debate, the announcement appears to be consistent with international law. There is nothing in international law that obligates a signatory to a treaty to become a party to the treaty, [6] and the Rome Statute itself (in Article 125) states that it is "subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States." In addition, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that, upon signing a treaty, a nation is "obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty "until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty." The Vienna Convention thus contemplates that nations may announce an intent not to ratify a treaty after signing it. - The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty

    We are under no such obligation to Mexico or the UN court.

    The End

  4. #124
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,305

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    "on 7 March, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations." - VCCR - Foreign Nationals - the International Justice Project

    "Although the United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention, US officials have often indicated that they accept at least much of the Convention as reflecting binding customary international law." - The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty

    Now lets see what dwells a little deeper...

    "While the policy merits of the Bush Administration's announcement are of course open to debate, the announcement appears to be consistent with international law. There is nothing in international law that obligates a signatory to a treaty to become a party to the treaty, [6] and the Rome Statute itself (in Article 125) states that it is "subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States." In addition, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that, upon signing a treaty, a nation is "obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty "until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty." The Vienna Convention thus contemplates that nations may announce an intent not to ratify a treaty after signing it. - The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty

    We are under no such obligation to Mexico or the UN court.

    The End
    On top of this, no treaty can conflict with the Constitution or the laws of the United States, as I stated earlier. People try to put the US in some international bind with the Constitutional clause, but fail to acknowledge the entire clause. Sorry folks, the Founders weren't that stupid.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #125
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    The Constitution clearly states that a treaty cannot conflict with the Constitution or laws of the United States.
    How does this treaty conflict with either the constitution or the laws of the US?

    So, you are saying that the US can selectively adhere to only the parts of treaties and other elements of international law it chooses to while it expects others to uphold their own obligations under international law?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  6. #126
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, it does appear that the treaty was ratified. However, Medellin had to ask for the Mexican consul to be notified. He claims he did, only it was more than 4 years after his sentencing before he made that claim. The police say he never asked, and transcripts of the trial appear to back the police.

    Another fact - Medellin claimed to be a Mexican national (after he was convicted and sentenced), and although technically he was, he was brought to the United States when he was only 3 years old, could speak and write English fluently, and never showed any desire to go back to Mexico and live as a citizen there.

    This issue was brought up for only 2 reasons:

    1) Medellin was clearly attempting to game the system and save his own life.

    2) Europe and Mexico, which do not have the death penalty, were using this case to prevent a lawful execution in Texas, which of course, does support the death penalty.

    If you go to the last link I posted, you can read it all there.
    Thank you for acknowledging that it is a valid treaty.

    Did the authorities in Texas inform him of his right to speak with the Mexican consuls? That is part of the treaty.

    The sad thing is, Texas could have followed the rules, allow him to have consular access, have the trial, convict and execute the scumbag and there would be no international issues and no dangerous precedent that could come to haunt Americans living and/or travelling overseas.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #127
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    [QUOTE=Blackdog;1057891777]"on 7 March, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations." - VCCR - Foreign Nationals - the International Justice Project//quote]

    Withdrew from the Optional Protocol, NOT the Convention itself. It was his convention rights that were violated.

    "Although the United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention, US officials have often indicated that they accept at least much of the Convention as reflecting binding customary international law." - The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty
    Then explain how the Convention came into force in the US in 1969.

    Now lets see what dwells a little deeper...

    "While the policy merits of the Bush Administration's announcement are of course open to debate, the announcement appears to be consistent with international law. There is nothing in international law that obligates a signatory to a treaty to become a party to the treaty, [6] and the Rome Statute itself (in Article 125) states that it is "subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States." In addition, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that, upon signing a treaty, a nation is "obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty "until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty." The Vienna Convention thus contemplates that nations may announce an intent not to ratify a treaty after signing it. - The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty

    We are under no such obligation to Mexico or the UN court.

    The End
    First, the Law of Treaties specifically states it can't be applied to treaties that pre-date it, as the Vienna Convention does.

    Second, the U.S. is obligated to abide by customary international law if it has shown by its own actions that it accepts its provisions, even if it were not a party to the convention, which it clearly is.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  8. #128
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    On top of this, no treaty can conflict with the Constitution or the laws of the United States, as I stated earlier. People try to put the US in some international bind with the Constitutional clause, but fail to acknowledge the entire clause. Sorry folks, the Founders weren't that stupid.
    It still places the US in violation of its treaty obligations and international laws that it has clearly accepted.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  9. #129
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    02-13-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    The treaty was ratified by the United States, but the process of putting a treaty in effect does not stop there. A participating nation must enact legislation in their own country that instructs the nation to abide by the treaty.

    The United States passed no legislation related to Consular Privilege, specifically the Vienna Optional Protocols, so the treaty is not valid on our soil.

  10. #130
    Devil Dog cherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Last Seen
    09-11-09 @ 11:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,486

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Would you be in favor of Americans being executed in other countries for breaking their laws? Just a question. I know the yelling and screaming when some Australian kid in Singapore got caught with weed in her bag. I can't really imagine the American outrage if something like this was done to our citizens.
    If evidence could be shown in a court of law they committed a crime that merits execution the answer is YES.

Page 13 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •