• 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:
That doesn't contradict me at all. He had already been convicted and sentenced to death. All that quote from you does is show that Texas gave a middle finger to the UN. I give a middle finger to the UN too on that.
Click to expand...

He was convicted, but the accused was not accorded his rights under agreements that the United States has signed with the international community.
 
Ikari said:
The UN doesn't hold any soveriegnty over the US, it can go suck a toad. I don't agree with the death penalty in general, but the UN has no say here. This was Texas' business, don't rape and kill little girls there I guess is the moral of the story.
Click to expand...

However, the United States is a party to international convenents regarding the right of suspects to have access to their country's consular officials. If that was denied, then the United States was in violation of international law. It isn't a matter of the UN. It is a matter of following international agreements to which the United States is a party.
 
Goobieman said:
If an American raped and murdered 2 little girls in come country, would you oppose that country, according to its laws, executing that American?
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the issue. THe issue is NOT the execution of a scumbag. The issue is that scumbag did NOT have access to consular officials.

If an American committed a similar crime in another country, I would hope that he would be tried in accordance with the laws of that country, but I would also expect the host country to abide by their obligations and permit him access to U.S. consular personnel.
 
Breaking treaties and failing the respect the rights of the accused in unacceptable, even if the man is clearly guilty of terrible crimes. This man should have been granted access to his consulate, then tried convicted and sentenced. The system fouled up, and it put Americans abroad in danger.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I find it hard to believe that an administrative error in any way nullifies our obligation to abide by signed treaties in good faith, and I find it hard to believe that you would take such a position.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS made it clear that we were not in violation of the relevant treaties.

Medellín v. Texas

Optional Protocol Treaty:
"The Protocol says nothing about the effect of an ICJ decision and does not itself commit signatories to comply with an ICJ judgment. The Protocol is similarly silent as to any enforcement mechanism."

Article 94 of the United Nations Charter:
It reads: "[e]ach Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the [ICJ] in any case to which it is a party."

SCOTUS: "It does not provide that the United States 'shall' or 'must' comply with an ICJ decision, nor indicate that the Senate that ratified the U. N. Charter intended to vest ICJ decisions with immediate legal effect in domestic courts. Instead, '[t]he words of Article 94 . . . call upon governments to take certain action.' (Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan). In other words, the U. N. Charter reads like 'a compact between independent nations' that 'depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties to it.' (Head Money Cases.)"

"Second, as the President and Senate were undoubtedly aware in subscribing to the U. N. Charter and Optional Protocol, the United States retained the unqualified right to exercise its veto of any Security Council resolution."

"Given that ICJ judgments may interfere with state procedural rules, one would expect the ratifying parties to the relevant treaties to have clearly stated their intent to give those judgments domestic effect, if they had so intended. Here there is no statement in the Optional Protocol, the U. N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute that supports the notion that ICJ judgments displace state procedural rules."

Medellín v. Texas 552 U.*S. ____ -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Treaties are only good when Congress enacts legislation to fulfill the agreements, or when the treaty itself is self-executing. The relevant treaties, Optional Protocol, U.N. Charter, and the ICJ Statute, were not self-executing and no legislation was implemented.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, it does. When the suspect was first arrested, he never told authorities he wanted Mexico notified. It was after sentencing that the UN asked Texas to review this case, amongst others, and demanded that the execution NOT be carried out. Texas said no. It is really a matter of Sovereignty at this point. Which laws do I consider most important? The laws of the United States, or the laws of the UN? The answer here is a no-brainer.

In Texas, we execute those who rape and kill children, so non-citizens who might be contemplating such an act are now advised that the UN won't be able to pull their asses out of the fire, should they do that and get caught.
Click to expand...

However, the Mexican was apparently never notified of his right to contact Mexican consular officials. That being the case, the State of Texas violated his rights in accordance with accords that the United States is a party to.
 
danarhea said:
I have no problem with that. However, the UN does not have the right to demand that we stop the wheels of justice in order to correct an administrative error.
Click to expand...

Umm, yes it does is the rights of the accused were clearly violated - which they were. What is wrong with following the law, THEN frying the guy?
 
ludahai said:
But the US has an obligation to adhere to its own international obligations and agreements.
Click to expand...

Exactly what international obligation or agreement did we violate?
 
rathi said:
Breaking treaties and failing the respect the rights of the accused in unacceptable, even if the man is clearly guilty of terrible crimes. This man should have been granted access to his consulate, then tried convicted and sentenced. The system fouled up, and it put Americans abroad in danger.
Click to expand...

Exactly. How can the U.S. accuse others of not meeting their international obligations when the U.S. itself doesn't?
 
Alex said:
Treaties are only good when Congress enacts legislation to fulfill the agreements, or when the treaty itself is self-executing. The relevant treaties, Optional Protocol, U.N. Charter, and the ICJ Statute, were not self-executing and no legislation was implemented.
Click to expand...

The U.S. is in clear violation of the Vienna Convention. If the U.S. ratifies a treaty, it is obligated to follow it. If it does not, it is in violation of the agreement it made, which is a clear violation of international law.

How can the U.S. expect OTHERS to maintain their international responsibilities and agreements when the U.S. itself won't?
 
ludahai said:
Umm, yes it does is the rights of the accused were clearly violated - which they were. What is wrong with following the law, THEN frying the guy?
Click to expand...

I refer you back to Alex's post (#83 - About the Supreme Court decision), which explains why no rights were violated.
 
Good he is dead, justice has been served and one less child rapist/killer is in the US.

I have no problem with other country's jailing Americans if they break the laws. The only issue would be that they get a fair trial.
 
danarhea said:
I refer you back to Alex's post (#83 - About the Supreme Court decision), which explains why no rights were violated.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the decision. It is a clear violation of U.S. international agreements and endangers the legitimate rights of Americans overseas.
 
Blackdog said:
Good he is dead, justice has been served and one less child rapist/killer is in the US.

I have no problem with other country's jailing Americans if they break the laws. The only issue would be that they get a fair trial.
Click to expand...

Should countries fulfill their international obligations? I also have no problem with executing such scumbags, but the correct procedures and (in this case) international obligations arising from agreements signed and ratified by the U.S. and other states should be followed.
 
Here is the exact text of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations with regard to this issue.

Section 36:

"With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State:

...if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner."

Do we have any evidence that Medellín asked for a consular officer? The Vienna Convention requires the accused to request it.

Also, even if the accused did ask for a consular officer, the the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations states this in the same section as above:

"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."

The document that outlines the rights of nationals in relation to consular privileges specifically states that the nation in question must have its own laws directly related to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in order for that part of the treaty to be effective.

Did the United States pass any laws related to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations? If SCOTUS found none, as I showed in a previous post, then they do not exist.

So what treaty did the United States violate?

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd have no problem with it. You break the law where ever you are, and there's a price to be paid. I was stationed on Okinawa when a 12 year old girl was abducted and raped by three American servicemen, and I didn't have any problem at all with their prosecution and prison sentences. If Japan could have sentenced them to death, that would have been fine, too.
 
Alex said:
Here is the exact text of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations with regard to this issue.

Section 36:

"With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State:

...if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner."

Do we have any evidence that Medellín asked for a consular officer? The Vienna Convention requires the accused to request it.

Also, even if the accused did ask for a consular officer, the the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations states this in the same section as above:

"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."

The document that outlines the rights of nationals in relation to consular privileges specifically states that the nation in question must have its own laws directly related to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in order for that part of the treaty to be effective.

Did the United States pass any laws related to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations? If SCOTUS found none, as I showed in a previous post, then they do not exist.

So what treaty did the United States violate?

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols
Click to expand...

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.
 
ludahai said:
Should countries fulfill their international obligations? I also have no problem with executing such scumbags, but the correct procedures and (in this case) international obligations arising from agreements signed and ratified by the U.S. and other states should be followed.
Click to expand...

If it involves the UN, no.

PS I am utterly anti-UN, and feel we should withdraw funding and support immediately.
 
Last edited:
SCOTUS said:
The ICJ held that the United States had violated Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention...
Click to expand...
Here is Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention:
Vienna Convention said:
if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph.

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
Click to expand...
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:
SCOTUS said:
No one disputes that the Avena decision -- a decision that flows from the treaties through which the United States submitted to ICJ jurisdiction with respect to Vienna Convention disputes -- constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States. But not all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in United States courts. The question we confront here is whether the Avena judgment has automatic domestic legal effect such that the judgment of its own force applies in state and federal courts.

This Court has long recognized the distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that, while they constitute international law commitments, do not by themselves function as binding federal law. The distinction was well explained by Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 315 (1829), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet. 51 (1833), which held that a treaty is "equivalent to an act of the legislature," and hence self-executing, when it "operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision." Foster, supra, at 314. When, in contrast, "[treaty] stipulations are not self-executing they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect." Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 194 (1888). In sum, while treaties "may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be 'self-executing' and is ratified on these terms."

Medellín v. Texas 552 U.*S. ____ -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Click to expand...
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:

a treaty may be either self-executing or non-self-executing, depending upon whether domestic legislation must be enacted in order for the treaty to enter into force.

self-executing treaty -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom