• 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

danarhea said:
Exactly. AS HE REQUESTS....

Since he did not request it, he is screwed. He won't be raping and killing any more little girls either.
Click to expand...

But he was not notified. Nice how you selective quote from the treaty, but ignore the part that the ICJ actually ruled on.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Here is Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention:


They should have been notified of their Vienna rights. The fact that they didn't ask for them means nothing.

But SCOTUS is arguing that we don't have an obligation to abide by Vienna, because it's a "non-executing" treaty:

That's very interesting. I didn't realize that we don't have to follow treaties unless: A.) They are "self-executing," or B.) Congress enacts an "implementing statute" for them. So what would make a treaty "self-executing" then? I found this definition:

So if Vienna is non-self-executing, then what domestic legislation would need to be passed in order for the authorities to notify fellow signatory nations when they've arrested one of their citizens? I'm not following the SCOTUS' reasoning here.
Click to expand...

What they are saying is that the United States must pass legislation in order for the treaty to be valid on our soil. Example: the Vienna Convention created the treaty of Consulars, so for the treaty to be effective here, the United States government would have to create legislation putting that treaty into effect on our soil.
 
Alex said:
What they are saying is that the United States must pass legislation in order for the treaty to be valid on our soil. Example: the Vienna Convention created the treaty of Consulars, so for the treaty to be effective here, the United States government would have to create legislation putting that treaty into effect on our soil.
Click to expand...

The United States signed and ratified the treaty. That means the United States has the international obligation to abide by the treaty and make sure it is followed by subsidiary governments in the US. The United States is in clear breach of its treaty obligations and this puts Americans residing overseas in a potentially dangerous situation.
 
ludahai said:
But he was not notified. Nice how you selective quote from the treaty, but ignore the part that the ICJ actually ruled on.
Click to expand...

It does not matter if he was notified or not, the United States passed no legislation that put the treaty into effect on our soil.

Also, the United States withdrew itself from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention, so all of this is kind of moot.

washingtonpost.com: U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases
 
Alex said:
It does not matter if he was notified or not, the United States passed no legislation that put the treaty into effect on our soil.

Also, the United States withdrew itself from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention, so all of this is kind of moot.

washingtonpost.com: U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases
Click to expand...

So, it is ok for the US to sign and ratify a treaty, but then not follow it because no legislation was passed? That might satifsfy you, but that does not satisfy US obligations under international law.

Withdrawl from the protocol does NOT absolve the US of adhering to its responsibilities to make sure suspects receive the right to consular access. Furthermore, U.S. withdrawal occurred AFTER the original decision regarding the Mexicans. This means it was still in effect when the initial case was brought.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
The United States signed and ratified the treaty. That means the United States has the international obligation to abide by the treaty and make sure it is followed by subsidiary governments in the US. The United States is in clear breach of its treaty obligations and this puts Americans residing overseas in a potentially dangerous situation.
Click to expand...

See second part of post #95.

The treaty itself states, "The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended."

It was a requirement of the treaty itself that legislation is enacted to make the treaty effective on our soil. The United States passed no such legislation so the treaty means nothing on our soil.
 
ludahai said:
So, it is ok for the US to sign and ratify a treaty, but then not follow it because no legislation was passed? That might satifsfy you, but that does not satisfy US obligations under international law.
Click to expand...

The treaty ITSELF specifies this criteria, so no international law was broken.

What international law was broken?
 
Alex said:
See second part of post #95.

The treaty itself states, "The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended."

It was a requirement of the treaty itself that legislation is enacted to make the treaty effective on our soil. The United States passed no such legislation so the treaty means nothing on our soil.
Click to expand...

The US signed a treaty and ratified it. It has the responsibility to abide by it. It did not abide by it. The US is in violation of international law. I wish this were not true, but it is. The US now has done even more to lose the moral high road. It now can NOT claim to represent "international law" when it does not follow it itself.

The language in the treaty is clear. The State of Texas was obgliated to inform him of his rights - not unlike the Miranda Warning - and allow him to avail himself of it if he so desired.
 
ludahai said:
So, it is ok for the US to sign and ratify a treaty, but then not follow it because no legislation was passed? That might satifsfy you, but that does not satisfy US obligations under international law.

Withdrawl from the protocol does NOT absolve the US of adhering to its responsibilities to make sure suspects receive the right to consular access. Furthermore, U.S. withdrawal occurred AFTER the original decision regarding the Mexicans. This means it was still in effect when the initial case was brought.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that the treaty was ratified by Congress. It was NOT.
 
danarhea said:
The guy we executed here in Texas only raped and murdered 2 little girls.

Screw the UN. Justice has been served.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

**** the UN. It always amuses me when UN apologist whine about what if an American was arrested for some crime in some country. If they rape and murder some girls then **** them we do not want them back. If some other country wants to arrest Americans for measly **** and execute them then we cut off travel to that country , its that simple.
 
ludahai said:
I am not the UN's biggest fan either, but the treaty involved has nothing to do with the UN.
Click to expand...

"The UN's highest court Monday held the United States in breach of its July order not to execute a Mexican man sentenced to death in Texas after a flawed trial."

Sorry but the UN is involved.

Considering the travesty's Mexico perpetrates on the US, I say screw them and the UN.
 
Blackdog said:
"The UN's highest court Monday held the United States in breach of its July order not to execute a Mexican man sentenced to death in Texas after a flawed trial."

Sorry but the UN is involved.

Considering the travesty's Mexico perpetrates on the US, I say screw them and the UN.
Click to expand...

Flawed trial, my ass. I followed this case closely, and the evidence was overwhelmingly against him. His lawyer attempted to plead out to a lesser charge, but the prosecutor was not buying any of it. He wanted the death penalty and nothing less. Want to know how the girls died after they were raped? They were slowly strangled so this creep could get his rocks off by extracting every last ounce of fear and terror from them before they lost consciousness for the last time. This creep was even worse than Ted Bundy.

My only regret is that this creep was not killed the exact same way he killed those 2 little girls.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
"The UN's highest court Monday held the United States in breach of its July order not to execute a Mexican man sentenced to death in Texas after a flawed trial."

Sorry but the UN is involved.

Considering the travesty's Mexico perpetrates on the US, I say screw them and the UN.
Click to expand...

It is a treaty that was signed by the United States. It has an international obligation to uphold to its international agreements.
 
danarhea said:
Flawed trial, my ass. I followed this case closely, and the evidence was overwhelmingly against him. His lawyer attempted to plead out to a lesser charge, but the prosecutor was not buying any of it. He wanted the death penalty and nothing less. Want to know how the girls died after they were raped? They were slowly strangled so this creep could get his rocks off by extracting every last ounce of fear and terror from them before they lost consciousness for the last time. This creep was even worse than Ted Bundy.

My only regret is that this creep was not killed the exact same way he killed those 2 little girls.
Click to expand...

It is flawed if his rights are not fully protected. They obviously were not in this case, so it WAS flawed.
 
danarhea said:
You keep saying that the treaty was ratified by Congress. It was NOT.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this?

The Vienna Convention went into force in the United States in 1969.

source

From the Department of State website

Customary International Law

While the field of consular relations is now largely occupied by the treaties discussed above, the United States still looks to customary international law as a basis for insisting upon adherence to the right of consular notification, even in the case of countries not party to the VCCR or any relevant bilateral agreement. Consular notification is in our view a universally accepted, basic obligation that should be extended even to foreign nationals who do not benefit from the VCCR or from any other applicable bilateral agreement. Thus, in all cases, the minimum requirements are to notify a foreign national who is arrested or detained that the national's consular officials may be notified upon request; to so notify consular officials if requested; and to permit consular officials to provide consular assistance if they wish to do so.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
It is flawed if his rights are not fully protected. They obviously were not in this case, so it WAS flawed.
Click to expand...

He got all the rights he needed, and the same rights accorded any American citizen accused of the same crime.

When the rapes finally ended, the horror was not over. The gang members took Jenny and Elizabeth from the clearing into a wooded area, leaving the juvenile behind, saying he was "too little to watch". Jenny was strangled with the belt of Sean O'Brien, with two murderers pulling, one on each side, until the belt broke. Part of the belt was left at the murder scene, the rest was found in O'Brien's home. After the belt broke, the killers used her own shoelaces to finish their job. Medellin later complained that "the bitch wouldn't die" and that it would have been "easier with a gun". Elizabeth was also strangled with her shoelaces, after crying and begging the gang members not to kill them; bargaining, offering to give them her phone number so they could get together again.
Click to expand...

 
danarhea said:
He got all the rights he needed, and the same rights accorded any American citizen accused of the same crime.


[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...


However, his rights to consular access were DENIED him, contrary to a treaty signed and adhered to by the United States - and used by the US itself to insist on access to its own nationals.
 
ludahai said:
However, his rights to consular access were DENIED him, contrary to a treaty signed and adhered to by the United States - and used by the US itself to insist on access to its own nationals.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
And again, Congress did NOT ratify the treaty, so it was not in effect. This has already been vetted by the Supreme Court itself.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ludahai said:
It is a treaty that was signed by the United States. It has an international obligation to uphold to its international agreements.
Click to expand...
The Constitution clearly states that a treaty cannot conflict with the Constitution or laws of the United States.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even if it had, see my post above.
 
ludahai said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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:
ludahai said:
It is a treaty that was signed by the United States. It has an international obligation to uphold to its international agreements.
Click to expand...

"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
 
Blackdog said:
"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
Click to expand...
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.
 
American said:
The Constitution clearly states that a treaty cannot conflict with the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom