• 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!

US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

Blackdog said:
Wow a Little full of yourself are we? I have not responded to much of anything for days.

The US is not in violation of any treaty which can be legally enforced on our soil as has already been shown.

Now as soon as you become a member of the SCOTUS you will have weight behind your argument. Until then the only legal body that agrees with you has no jurisdiction here.

So I take your silence in other threads like the one you tried to say LSD is toxic as an admission it is not? :lol:
Click to expand...

Are you a member of the SCOTUS? Does that mean your argument equally has zero weight? If the US can knowingly sign a treaty with full intention not to comply with all of its stipulations, why sign it except as a political gesture? Yes the guy broke the law on our soil. What does the law say we have to do though? We can't try the man as if he was a citizen if he wasn't. That's the claim right? He's an illegal alien, therefore does not pay taxes. Therefore he can't be tried as a citizen, therefore does not abide by our laws.
Of course he can't break them either, because then he gets deported or something else happens. But either way, you can't have it both ways.

Crazy Conservatives
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Are you a member of the SCOTUS? Does that mean your argument equally has zero weight?
Click to expand...

When it comes to interpreting the law, the SCOTUS is much more qualified to interpret than ludahai any day. So no. His opinion is not valid up against the SCOTUS.

[QUOTE='Smoke[MaxX] If the US can knowingly sign a treaty with full intention not to comply with all of its stipulations, why sign it except as a political gesture?[/quote]

Until it is accepted by the states and enforceable, the signature means little even according to the convention itself. But I am repeating myself, read the rest of the thread.

[QUOTE='Smoke[MaxX]Yes the guy broke the law on our soil. What does the law say we have to do though? We can't try the man as if he was a citizen if he wasn't. That's the claim right?[/quote]

No.

Please read the thread so I don't have to retype the whole argument again. If you had you would no my argument had nothing to do with him literally being a foreign national or not.

[QUOTE='Smoke[MaxX]He's an illegal alien, therefore does not pay taxes. Therefore he can't be tried as a citizen, therefore does not abide by our laws.[/quote]

So by that reasoning I can go to Mexico and kill people with impunity. Hell I could go anyplace and do whatever I wanted. What the hell am I still doing here? All I have to worry about is getting deported, I can live with that.

[QUOTE='Smoke[MaxX]Of course he can't break them either, because then he gets deported or something else happens. But either way, you can't have it both ways.[/quote]

We can and do. When on US soil you are subject to our laws unless you specifically have diplomatic immunity, period.

[QUOTE='Smoke[MaxX]Crazy Conservatives[/QUOTE]

Stupid liberals
 
Dynamic said:
Wow
I really just did that. haha.

I meant to respond saying how Mexico doesn't give too ****s if someone we want is down there. They won't return them to us. They won't do **** about it. I'm also sure that if it were reversed Mexico would play ignorant. To be frank, the guy killed people here. He needed to be tried here. He broke laws of this country and then should suffer the consequences of his actions held to standards of this country. I do not sympathize with Mexico about this. And I am against the death penalty.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with returning a suspect anywhere? That isn't what this is all about.
 
American said:
You can stupidly believe that if you like, or you can believe that some of us are tired of this thread. Don't be arrogant.
Click to expand...

After completely ignoring the conclusive proof that counters your false claim that the Senate never ratified the treaty.

FAIL!
 
Blackdog said:
Wow a Little full of yourself are we? I have not responded to much of anything for days.

The US is not in violation of any treaty which can be legally enforced on our soil as has already been shown.
Click to expand...

Moving the goalposts now?

Now as soon as you become a member of the SCOTUS you will have weight behind your argument. Until then the only legal body that agrees with you has no jurisdiction here.

So I take your silence in other threads like the one you tried to say LSD is toxic as an admission it is not? :lol:
Click to expand...

Nothing else has been posted there of any interest to me. Frankly, I wasn't terribly interested by that thread in the first place. This is a far more interesting topic, and I proved you were wrong about ratification. If the US ratifies a treaty, it is legally bound to uphold it. Otherwise, the US is in violation of its treaty committments, which is a violation of international law.
 
Blackdog said:
When it comes to interpreting the law, the SCOTUS is much more qualified to interpret than ludahai any day. So no. His opinion is not valid up against the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

So, I guess there is no need to debate this or any other topic that has been decided by SCOTUS, unless you are going to claim SCOTUS is NEVER wrong. Are you going to make that claim?

Until it is accepted by the states and enforceable, the signature means little even according to the convention itself. But I am repeating myself, read the rest of the thread.
Click to expand...

It was not only signed, it was ratified by an 81-0 vote in the Senate.

Please read the thread so I don't have to retype the whole argument again. If you had you would no my argument had nothing to do with him literally being a foreign national or not.
Click to expand...

If YOU had read the entire thread, you would NOT have repeated the now discredited claim that the convention was only signed.

So by that reasoning I can go to Mexico and kill people with impunity. Hell I could go anyplace and do whatever I wanted. What the hell am I still doing here? All I have to worry about is getting deported, I can live with that.
Click to expand...

I was not arguing deportation. However, he had the right to contact Mexican consul based on a treaty the US signed AND ratified.


We can and do. When on US soil you are subject to our laws unless you specifically have diplomatic immunity, period.



Stupid liberals[/QUOTE]
 
ludahai said:
Moving the goalposts now?
Click to expand...

What part of "already been said" did you have trouble understanding?

ludahai said:
Nothing else has been posted there of any interest to me. Frankly, I wasn't terribly interested by that thread in the first place.
Click to expand...

So in other words you were wrong. :roll:

ludahai said:
This is a far more interesting topic, and I proved you were wrong about ratification.
Click to expand...

Yes you did. I was talking about the added conventions, my bad.

ludahai said:
If the US ratifies a treaty, it is legally bound to uphold it. Otherwise, the US is in violation of its treaty committments, which is a violation of international law.
Click to expand...

If the treaty is not enforceable, as it is in this case there is no violation.

You keep wanting to ignore that we opted out of the protocols for this exact reason.
 
ludahai said:
So, I guess there is no need to debate this or any other topic that has been decided by SCOTUS, unless you are going to claim SCOTUS is NEVER wrong. Are you going to make that claim?
Click to expand...

they have not been wrong yet.

ludahai said:
It was not only signed, it was ratified by an 81-0 vote in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Again means nothing if not enforceable.

ludahai said:
If YOU had read the entire thread, you would NOT have repeated the now discredited claim that the convention was only signed.
Click to expand...

If you had read you would have seen I did not say anything about it. :doh


ludahai said:
I was not arguing deportation. However, he had the right to contact Mexican consul based on a treaty the US signed AND ratified.
Click to expand...

He cannot use that right to overturn a conviction in a US court, period.
 
Blackdog said:
So in other words you were wrong. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, I only read "poll" topics when I have the time to. Breaking News is always my top priority on here. And no, I do not admit to being wrong there. However, this is Debate Politics, not Debate Drugs.

Yes you did. I was talking about the added conventions, my bad.
Click to expand...

The US had also ratified the Optional Protocols as well.

If the treaty is not enforceable, as it is in this case there is no violation.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not a violation of US domestic law, but most certainly a violation of the treaty and of international treaty law.

You keep wanting to ignore that we opted out of the protocols for this exact reason.
Click to expand...

The U.S. opted out of the Optional Protocal on compulsory ICJ jurisdiction AFTER the case was decided. You can't opt out AFTER the case was decided and then apply that withdrawal to the case already decided. Besides, it is irrelevant for two reasons. 1. The US is a party to the ICJ and this clearly follows under ICJ jurisdiction. and 2. this has been elevated to the status of customary international law that even non-signatories to the convention are generally expected to follow. As the U.S. is a party to the treaty and it itself uses the customary international law argument, it most certainly is subject to its provisions.

Like it or not, its ignoring of its treaty obligations lessons its moral high ground and places US citizens overseas in unnecessary danger.
 
Blackdog said:
they have not been wrong yet.
Click to expand...

Plessy v. Fergeson?

Again means nothing if not enforceable.
Click to expand...

The U.S. is still obligated to follow the treaty. If it does not, it is in violation of the treaty.

He cannot use that right to overturn a conviction in a US court, period.
Click to expand...

If you read the decision of the ICJ, it wasn't necessarily saying that the convictions had to be overturned.
 
American said:
Read what donsutherland wrote, then come back and talk.
Click to expand...
I did. I even thanked him for it, if you notice.
donsutherland1 said:
I made no suggestion that the U.S. was not in violation of the Vienna Convention. The failure to provide consular access was a violation of Article 36.
Click to expand...
Can't get much more clear than that. Now, why don't you UNDERSTAND what donsutherland wrote and then come back, k?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom