• 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!

U.N. asks Texas to commute Mexican's death sentence

jamesrage said:
See Medellín v. Texas
Click to expand...

Saw it... inexplicable decision given the clarity of Article VI of the US Constitution.

The same Conservatives who insisted Pakistan abide by the Vienna Convention are now excusing its violation by the US. The US is in violation of its treaty obligations and potentially puts Americans overseas at risk...
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Did the convicted man ask? Can he prove it? What about his lawyer? Did he ask? If he did ask or told his lawyer he did, why didn't his lawyer go public with the request when it wasn't filled?
Click to expand...

Was he informed of his right? U.S. citizens are required to be informed of their rights via the Miranda Warning. This treaty provides such rights for foreign nationals. Nice try though...
 
krickitt said:
ExCUSE me??? I'm from Texas. We are tough on crime. Want to rape and murder?? Don't do it in Texas. Don't like the laws? Change them, then, if you can. The "blood thirsty monkeys" in Texas will kill you if you kill our children. Best to pass through CA, with cheers, don't do it in TX. I live in AZ now, and we don't like rapists or murderers or drug and human smugglers from foreign countries, either. Don't want to pay the price, pass right on through and find some really liberal place to rape and murder.
Click to expand...

So, Texas doesn't have to follow the laws, but expects people within the state to follow the laws. Hypocrisy much...
 
krickitt said:
Medellin v TX. Take it up with them, not me.
Click to expand...

But you seem to support texas in this case... based on Article VI of the Constitution, it seems like a horrible ruling. Still, Texas COULD take the high road and abide by the provisions of the treaty anyhow... US looks like hypocrites...
 
You could say that... or you could say there is SCOTUS precedent for killing this bad guy, if I read it right. If it was my kid murdered I would not want delays. But I'm a Texan.
 
krickitt said:
You could say that... or you could say there is SCOTUS precedent for killing this bad guy, if I read it right. If it was my kid murdered I would not want delays. But I'm a Texan.
Click to expand...

Hey, I am not defending this cretin, I am defending the rule of law and the international obligations the US voluntarily entered into and uses to protect the rights of Americans overseas...
 
MrVicchio said:
U.N. asks Texas to commute Mexican's death sentence | Reuters

On several fronts this is an interesting story. First we have the UN, and Mexico bitterly complaining this murderer was not aware of his "rights" nor told about them. I fail to grasp what talking to the Mexican consulate would do to change the fact. I'd say this is a failure of Mexico to educate their citizens as to their "rights" and they should look to changing their Education system.

While his death will not return the life of his victim, it will be Justice served.
Click to expand...

nope. **** him. this ain't even close to the miranda case. all rapists should eat **** and die.
 
Hatuey said:
No, Texans are like blood thirsty monkeys who will execute anybody simply on emotion..... and they smell bad. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So executing murders who have had a fair trial makes one a terrorist and a smelly blood thirsty monkey?

I would not call executing murders executing anybody simply on emotion.
 
ludahai said:
Saw it... inexplicable decision given the clarity of Article VI of the US Constitution.

The same Conservatives who insisted Pakistan abide by the Vienna Convention are now excusing its violation by the US.
Click to expand...

The people you should blame for this is the clowns in congress who did not create legislation to implement it. Since congress did not enact statutes to implement and nor was the treaty self executing it we are not in violation of it. Pakistan may have enacted laws to implement the treaty in their country, we do not know.

The US is in violation of its treaty obligations and potentially puts Americans overseas at risk...
Click to expand...

The only Americans overseas that are at risk are those retarded enough to visit countries that are dictatorships. And regardless of treaties are not going to give two ****s about some treaty.
 
jamesrage said:
The people you should blame for this is the clowns in congress who did not create legislation to implement it. Since congress did not enact statutes to implement and nor was the treaty self executing it we are not in violation of it. Pakistan may have enacted laws to implement the treaty in their country, we do not know.
Click to expand...

Yes, the U.S. IS in violation of it. The U.S. signed it, ratified it, and insists on other states to abide by it. Yes, the U.S. is in violation of the treaty and of international law. This is clear to anyone with even an inkling of understand of international law. Also, read article six of the Constitution. That is also crystal clear regardless of that inexplicable decision of the SCOTUS.


The only Americans overseas that are at risk are those retarded enough to visit countries that are dictatorships. And regardless of treaties are not going to give two ****s about some treaty.[/QUOTE]
 
jamesrage said:
It will fail miserably as a delaying tactic because of Medellín v. Texas.

The idea anyone should apologize to Mexico is laughable. The only one owed an apology is the victim's loved ones. The only one w ho owes the victim's loved ones an appology is the murderer for doing the deed and the US government for not doing its damn job to secure the border and crack down on illegals which resulted in this scumbag being able to be in the country in the first place. The only safeguard that should be in place is the government actually doing its damn job to secure the border and get rid of illegals.
Click to expand...

Your response highlights the problem I have with many conservatives when it comes to issues of justice and due process. The idea that because someone is concerned about a possible violation of due process doesn't mean they're soft on criminals or want to see the man set free (or even see his sentence commuted, if he's truly guilty of the crimes he was convicted of, I have no problem seeing him executed).

The concern is that the proper process was not respected. And that is troubling, because process is in place as a safeguard to help protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution. Plus, as others have pointed out, with this being a international matter, ignoring the treaty invites a similar response from other nations.

Now I don't know the specifics of the case you are citing, but it seems to be a poor ruling that allows a loophole for the states to ignore the federal government's constitutional authority to negotiate and sign treaties. I'll take a more in depth look at the ruling and how it may or may not apply here later, but I had to post this.

Being concerned about the due process of law, does not mean that we want to see murders and scumbags go free. It means want to make sure the government (the same government conservatives distrust in so many other areas) is respecting the rules and limitations that have been put in place to protect and preserve our rights.
 
Jetboogieman said:
So of all the murders that Mexican citizens will commit within mexicos borders today, whether it be petty criminals in mexico city, right up to gang runners in the north, does Mexico seriously have nothing better to do, then worry about this one guy?

I mean, it's up to a countries government to protect their citizens sure, but if the guys guilty of rape and murder... With all of mexicos problems, the government should really back down on this one.
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree. While Mexico has plenty of issues to deal with, any nation should be concerned with protecting the rights of its citizens while abroad that were granted by international treaties. The fact that the guy is a murdering rapist is irrelevant. No one here is trying to portray him as sympathetic or a victim. Yes, he deserves to be punished for his crimes, but that does not excuse America from its obligations to abide by the treaties it has signed.
 
Just out of curiousity...beyond reading a few lines in a newspaper article (if people actually bothered to read the article) does anyone actually KNOW what the treaty entails, how it applies...or even IF it applies?

Dood raped and killed a 16 year old. You REALLY need more than that?
 
danarhea said:
That's not necessarily true. Look, I totally agree that the Mexican Consulate should have been contacted, but this guy is a rapist and murderer. If he is executed, I won't lose any sleep over it. I only believe that we should do it right next time, for the sake of American citizens overseas. As for smelling bad, you got me dead to rights on that one. LOL.

Excuse me for a minute, while I go get a banana. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Bingo! I have no real problem with the idea of this guy being executed. Murdering rapists are pretty much the textbook definition of people who deserve the death penalty. The issue here is was it done properly and if not, how could it endanger Americans citizens when they are overseas? And I think those are very valid points. But so many so called conservatives (how claim to distrust "big government" on so many issues, but seem to have an unfailing faith in our legal system to be 100% correct all the time) just scream "murdering rapist" to cloud the issue and appeal to emotion.

Like Dana said, if Texas wants to execute this guy, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. But they should do it by the book so we don't put our citizens at risk when they are on foreign soil.
 
Last edited:
Bingo! I have no real problem with the idea of this guy being executed. Murdering rapists are pretty much the textbook definition of people who deserve the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Deserve, huh? So the justice system is not about protecting the public... it's about providing personal vengeance? The death penalty is wrong because it demonstrates that it is ok to kill helpless harmless people for revenge, and that encourages murder. It's state terrorism, and like other terrorism it is counter-productive to society.
 
ludahai said:
Yes, the U.S. IS in violation of it. The U.S. signed it, ratified it, and insists on other states to abide by it. Yes, the U.S. is in violation of the treaty and of international law. This is clear to anyone with even an inkling of understand of international law. Also, read article six of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Again there is no violation if the treaty is not self executing or if congress did not enact statutes to implement it. This case will happen the same way almost similar case in 08 did. If you want Texas to allow consular access of illegals and immigrants then complain to your congressmen and senators to enact statutes to implement it. Although that might be hard since blatantly being a globalist piece of **** is not really popular right now.
 
I bet you guys, MrV and james, would be the first people bitching if Mexico pulled something like this on an American. :roll:

Listen, no one is trying to set the guy free. This treaty does not set him free. It doesn't even prevent us from carrying out the sentence within the US. It's just due process of law which we agreed to and signed. And in civilized countries, that's what we do. It doesn't matter if the person we're affording due process to is scum. Two wrongs do not make a right. That's how barbarians act.
 
MistressNomad said:
I bet you guys, MrV and james, would be the first people bitching if Mexico pulled something like this on an American. :roll:

Listen, no one is trying to set the guy free. This treaty does not set him free. It doesn't even prevent us from carrying out the sentence within the US.

snip..

And in civilized countries, that's what we do. It doesn't matter if the person we're affording due process to is scum. Two wrongs do not make a right. That's how barbarians act.
Click to expand...

So you are saying the scumbag did not get a free lawyer and a fair trial? He got the same due process any other criminal got.

It's just due process of law which we agreed to and signed.
Click to expand...

It doesn't what was signed if the treaty if there are no statutes enacted to implement it or it if is not self executing.
 
...What on earth are you even talking about?
 
Texas loves tossing innocent people in prison; we have 'privatized' a lot of the system and they operate according to cherished libertarian and conservative principles: the state should guarantee them a profit and plenty of prisoners.

I'm opposed to the death penalty for many of the same reasons I oppose abortions; the state shouldn't have the power to kill it's citizens nor should it have the power to allow others to kill citizens. It is in fact cheaper to give them life sentences with no parole, if no other reason suffices, and this in turn increases the chances of correcting all too common mistakes and railroad jobs by the Court system. Chuck Colson's arguments as well as the conservative view of limiting state power.

Having said that, we shouldn't care much over the what the UN thinks; it's 'Human Rights Chairman' recently was Omar Khaddafi, after all, and Mexico is a corrupt country that doesn't give a **** about its citizens or their 'rights' in the first place, and should also be ignored just as they routinely ignore American rights; kidnapping Americans and shaking them down is a regular industry there.
 
Last edited:
Oberon said:
Texas loves tossing innocent people in prison; we have 'privatized' a lot of the system and they operate according to cherished libertarian and conservative principles: the state should guarantee them a profit and plenty of prisoners.

I'm opposed to the death penalty for many of the same reasons I oppose abortions; the state shouldn't have the power to kill it's citizens nor should it have the power to allow others to kill citizens. It is in fact cheaper to give them life sentences with no parole, if no other reason suffices, and this in turn increases the chances of correcting all too common mistakes and railroad jobs by the Court system. Chuck Colson's arguments as well as the conservative view of limiting state power.

Having said that, we shouldn't care much over the what the UN thinks; it's 'Human Rights Chairman' recently was Omar Khaddafi, after all, and Mexico is a corrupt country that doesn't give a **** about its citizens or their 'rights' in the first place, and should also be ignored just as they routinely ignore American rights; kidnapping Americans and shaking them down is a regular industry there.
Click to expand...

Finally someone that thinks the same way I do about the UN .. I don't think it would bother Me one bit if the US was to pull out of it ..

One question tho .. is it really cheaper to give a person a life sentence then the death penalty ?? from what I found it costs us an average of $1.5 million. per life sentence
 
MistressNomad said:
I bet you guys, MrV and james, would be the first people bitching if Mexico pulled something like this on an American. :roll:

Listen, no one is trying to set the guy free. This treaty does not set him free. It doesn't even prevent us from carrying out the sentence within the US. It's just due process of law which we agreed to and signed. And in civilized countries, that's what we do. It doesn't matter if the person we're affording due process to is scum. Two wrongs do not make a right. That's how barbarians act.
Click to expand...

- chuckles- okay ... then I guess it's okay for Me to slip on down to texas and stick that needle in him ??
 
VanceMack said:
Just out of curiousity...beyond reading a few lines in a newspaper article (if people actually bothered to read the article) does anyone actually KNOW what the treaty entails, how it applies...or even IF it applies?

Dood raped and killed a 16 year old. You REALLY need more than that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have read the entire treaty, the SCOTUS opinion, the ICJ opinion on the matter, and the United States Constitution...

Any more questions?
 
jamesrage said:
Again there is no violation if the treaty is not self executing or if congress did not enact statutes to implement it. This case will happen the same way almost similar case in 08 did. If you want Texas to allow consular access of illegals and immigrants then complain to your congressmen and senators to enact statutes to implement it. Although that might be hard since blatantly being a globalist piece of **** is not really popular right now.
Click to expand...

The United States signed and ratified the treaty. Thus, the United States, under international law, is required to abide by the provisions of that. This tenant of international law PRECEDES by centuries the existance of the United Nations. As for the 'self-execution' doctrine, it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. is bound to abide by the terms of the treaty and thus, the US is CLEARLY in violation of its treaty obligations. Also, this 'self-execution' doctrine is idiotic. The Constitution is VERY CLEAR on the supremacy of treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. A nonsensical decision by SCOTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom