• 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!

Mexican national executed in Texas

Temporal said:
If a treaty was ignored, then so was due process. This is the case because the U.S. congress ratified the Vienna Convention... so we didn't just break UN law, we broke our own that we agreed to uphold. :shrug:
Click to expand...


And for this the United States should suffer a heavy penalty, one that should make them pay for years.

How about re-electing Barrack Obama? That oughtta do it.
 
Degreez said:
Texas Urged To Stop Mexican National's Execution : NPR

He found out it was his right to seek legal counsel from Mexico at the time of his arrest from a prison inmate.
Click to expand...

not quite true the way you present this ....

The state argued that Leal -- who has lived in the United States since age 2 -- never revealed his Mexican citizenship at the time of arrest, and his defense team never raised the consular access issue at or before trial.
Leal claimed he did not learn of his consular access right until two years after his capital conviction. He said he learned of the right not from any official, but from a fellow prisoner
 
bicycleman said:
Americans never could expect good treatment in Mexico. You forget about the Federales, the most corrupt military police force in Mexico, the whole world. They have been brutalizing Americans who find their way down in Mexico for years, and when they don't have Americans to roust, they are busy beating up their own citizens. Where have you been? Also Mexico doesn't provide English translations on the products they sell in their stores, nor do they cater to non-Spanish speakers. Why don't you know this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see why we don't just throw out our rule of law and principles in order to nail those scumbags. I mean everybody else is doing it. Pakistan executes blasphemers; why not us? China has nothing close to a what could be called fair trials, and they execute more people than us. Come on, everybody, we need to step it up! Don't forget about Myanmar. Hell, they're even more corrupt than Mexico. I think that our police can beat em'.

Or we could stick to our treaty obligations, give the accused due process, and not copy the mistakes of other governments just because the defendant comes from there as an accident of birth.
 
ludahai said:
The Constitution states that all judges are to regard treaties as the law of the land. Given that fact, how does this NOT become judicially enforceable?
Click to expand...
When the treaty itself doesn't create a judicially enforceable right.

This one has as its only mode of enforcement referral of one nation by another to the UN the security council. That's what we agreed to. That's what was signed. That's what was ratified. If you want the treaty committments to be enforced in our domestic courts, you need to get Congress to address that issue.
 
WI Crippler said:
Didn't we allow that one kid to get caned in the Phillipene's or somewhere like that some years ago for vandalizing cars?

If the situations were reversed and an American citizen did this in another country, to one of their citizens, you bet your ass I'm ok with them carrying out an execution.
Click to expand...

Try following along Here. I know it's difficult because the execution has got your blood lust up -it happens. The point is not whether the crime he committed was worthy of execution. The point is that we violated international law by not allowing him access to the Mexican Consulate. We could have done that and still tried and executed him. INTERNATIONAL LAW. It's what American citizens benefit from when they get arrested overseas. The kid in Singapore got to do it. The people 'hiking' in Iran got to do it.

It's not that complicated, unless of course you don't believe that countries reciprocate on this stuff. Oh wait, since most of you don't give a damn what happens anywhere else in the world and have never traveled beyond the borders of your own probably red-neck state, I can see why you don't care.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Yeah, I don't see why we don't just throw out our rule of law and principles in order to nail those scumbags. I mean everybody else is doing it. Pakistan executes blasphemers; why not us? China has nothing close to a what could be called fair trials, and they execute more people than us. Come on, everybody, we need to step it up! Don't forget about Myanmar. Hell, they're even more corrupt than Mexico. I think that our police can beat em'.

Or we could stick to our treaty obligations, give the accused due process, and not copy the mistakes of other governments just because the defendant comes from there as an accident of birth.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that, during his trial, the accused was not given due process?
 
Grant said:
Do you have any evidence that, during his trial, the accused was not given due process?
Click to expand...

the absence of mexican counsel intervention in his case is evidence of it
unless you can offer proof that he waived such right
 
Wiggen said:
Try following along Here. I know it's difficult because the execution has got your blood lust up -it happens. The point is not whether the crime he committed was worthy of execution. The point is that we violated international law by not allowing him access to the Mexican Consulate. We could have done that and still tried and executed him. INTERNATIONAL LAW. It's what American citizens benefit from when they get arrested overseas. The kid in Singapore got to do it. The people 'hiking' in Iran got to do it.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is untrue, and a little research will set you right.

He was not denied access to the Mexican Consulate. No one at the time of his trial knew he was Mexican. Because he had lived in America since he was two it was assumed by everyone that he was American. Unless you can demonstrate clearly that he was ever denied access to the Mexican Consulate before or during his trial, you should cease making these charges.

It's not that complicated, unless of course you don't believe that countries reciprocate on this stuff. Oh wait, since most of you don't give a damn what happens anywhere else in the world and have never traveled beyond the borders of your own probably red-neck state, I can see why you don't care.
Click to expand...

But you're from a more sophisticated part of the world, are you? Where might that be?
 
justabubba said:
the absence of mexican counsel intervention in his case is evidence of it
unless you can offer proof that he waived such right
Click to expand...

You want me to prove a negative?

Why would anyone involved the Mexican Consulate if no one knew, including the defendant himself, that he was Mexican?

Do you think countries should send notices to consulates throughout the world to be on the alert in case they have arrested a non-American, despite no claims being made that such is the case?
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Do you have any evidence that, during his trial, the accused was not given due process?
Click to expand...

Look, I don't know how many times this has to be stated. When the US signs a treaty and the Senate ratifies said treaty, that document becomes law. I don't mean like those non-binding UN resolutions. I mean bona-fide, American-as-mom-and-apple-pie US law. We signed and ratified a treaty stipulating that all foreigners accused of a crime would be given access to their home country's consul. If you were accused of a crime in a foreign country where you did not understand the proceedings, your rights, or much else about the system, would you consider that a fair trial? No, you would want American consul, and as long as that country signed and ratified the same treaty that we did, they are obligated to meet this demand. This man was not given the protection afforded to him in court by the law. This is denial of due process.
 
Temporal said:
If a treaty was ignored, then so was due process. This is the case because the U.S. congress ratified the Vienna Convention... so we didn't just break UN law, we broke our own that we agreed to uphold. :shrug:
Click to expand...

He was given access to Mexican Consulates......as soon the authorities found out he was a Mexican National.

As for breaking laws, that is done all the time by our government. Obama just told the Justice Department to stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act. He is also breaking, or ignoring which is the same thing, a federal law.
 
Gill said:
He was given access to Mexican Consulates......as soon the authorities found out he was a Mexican National.

As for breaking laws, that is done all the time by our government. Obama just told the Justice Department to stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act. He is also breaking, or ignoring which is the same thing, a federal law.
Click to expand...

he was given access to mexican counsel? then what was all that hubbub about?
please offer us a cite evidencing his receipt of mexican counsel and make this (and its companion) thread go away
 
justabubba said:
he was given access to mexican counsel? then what was all that hubbub about?
please offer us a cite evidencing his receipt of mexican counsel and make this (and its companion) thread go away
Click to expand...

It was in the story linked in the OP:

Leal claimed he did not learn of his consular access right until two years after his capital conviction. He said he learned of the right not from any official, but from a fellow prisoner.

Eventually, between 2010 and 2011, Leal was visited by a representative of the Mexican government more than 10 times, said Judy Garces, press relations spokeswoman with the Mexican Consulate in San Antonio
Click to expand...
.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Look, I don't know how many times this has to be stated. When the US signs a treaty and the Senate ratifies said treaty, that document becomes law. I don't mean like those non-binding UN resolutions. I mean bona-fide, American-as-mom-and-apple-pie US law. We signed and ratified a treaty stipulating that all foreigners accused of a crime would be given access to their home country's consul. If you were accused of a crime in a foreign country where you did not understand the proceedings, your rights, or much else about the system, would you consider that a fair trial? No, you would want American consul, and as long as that country signed and ratified the same treaty that we did, they are obligated to meet this demand. This man was not given the protection afforded to him in court by the law. This is denial of due process.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you haven't read the original article or the responses to your pointless posts but before, during, and after the trial, no one was aware of this treaty or that this guy was even a Mexican. If the Mexican, as he was, had known, he could certainly have called the Mexican Consulate, as his lawyers might alsso have done.

Certainly there was a treaty but no one, including his lawyers, were aware that their defendant was Mexican and they quite likely never heard of this treaty either.

The Supreme Court has ruled that while the treaty was ignored, unwittingly, it really made no difference to the case.

Ultimately more defense lawyers, and illegals, will hear of this case and demand to call their Consulate, which is their right. And this could be good for the United States as well because the Consulates could end up paying for the defense, and jail bills, rather than the American taxpayer.
 
I'm somewhat torn on this .. The state's concern would be to follow the laws of the state . . prosecute the person based on the evidence. It would seem to me that it's up to the defense to bring this up during the trial .. while some here keep blaming the state saying they should have known, why is it that they aren't asking why this killer didn't inform his attorney, or for that matter the police when they were questioning him? What makes it the responsibility of the state, more then of the individual or his defense team?

As for concerns over this effecting our citizens going to another country, I'm not sure I could feel sorry for them if they waited two years to tell anyone that they were American. Just taking a guess here .. but I'm pretty sure that 99% of them that are arrested in another country, that is probably one of the first things they tell everyone ..

Another thing that I'm confused about … it's being said that we broke some sort of international law... yet our very own SC said we didn't .. While I agree we are a nation that should obey our laws, I'm confused as to where we are suppose to go beyond the Supreme Court to find out if we are. They refused to deny the execution, so by their judgment we did in fact obey all the laws.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
No, you would want American consul, and as long as that country signed and ratified the same treaty that we did, they are obligated to meet this demand.
Click to expand...
Yes. The US has obligations under the treaty.

DrunkenAsparagus said:
This man was not given the protection afforded to him in court by the law. This is denial of due process.
Click to expand...
No. The treaty does not grant a legally binding individual right to consul access. No such right is part of the treaty we signed.
 
First of all, I really don't think access to the Mexican consulate will change this man's final outcome which he deserved. I bet in mexico he'd be shot just as well. But the fact is that we gone ahead w/o giving his the due process. This is damaging to our legal system in the long run. We cannot bypass the law as we see fit, even if we say the outcome will be the same, it's still the law and must be respected. Especially we are talking about foreign national here. People from US will have to go to other countries, if we cannot follow the international accords we signed, how can we expect other to honor their words. This man does not deserve my pity or sympathy, but the law and international accords needs to be respected and followed.
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
It was in the story linked in the OP:

.
Click to expand...

so, you believe he had access to counsel even if it was after he had already been convicted and sentenced
that would be funny if you had intended it to be so
 
The Barbarian said:
I'm somewhat torn on this .. The state's concern would be to follow the laws of the state . . prosecute the person based on the evidence. It would seem to me that it's up to the defense to bring this up during the trial .. while some here keep blaming the state saying they should have known, why is it that they aren't asking why this killer didn't inform his attorney, or for that matter the police when they were questioning him? What makes it the responsibility of the state, more then of the individual or his defense team?

As for concerns over this effecting our citizens going to another country, I'm not sure I could feel sorry for them if they waited two years to tell anyone that they were American. Just taking a guess here .. but I'm pretty sure that 99% of them that are arrested in another country, that is probably one of the first things they tell everyone ..

Another thing that I'm confused about … it's being said that we broke some sort of international law... yet our very own SC said we didn't .. While I agree we are a nation that should obey our laws, I'm confused as to where we are suppose to go beyond the Supreme Court to find out if we are. They refused to deny the execution, so by their judgment we did in fact obey all the laws.
Click to expand...

You've asked some basic and important questions here, The Barbarian, such as where does the State's responsibility end and the accused, and his defense attorneys, begin. Is it the job of the Federal Government to investigate every person charged with a crime to be sure they are American? Will there be a new law requiring that people's nationality be questioned whenever they are arrested? This has already been disputed by the ACLU.

What seems apparent in these cases is that there are those who are eager to find fault with the American justice system, the American people, and even Texans, and will make any sort of dubious arguments to support their biases. These same people might start looking at Mexican justice if they want a real eye-opener, but chances are they know nothing about it.
 
justabubba said:
so, you believe he had access to counsel even if it was after he had already been convicted and sentenced
that would be funny if you had intended it to be so
Click to expand...

He obviously had access to COUNSEL before, during, and after his conviction.

He had access to his CONSULATE only after authorities found out he was a Mexican national.

Your post IS funny, whether intended or not.
 
justabubba said:
so, you believe he had access to counsel even if it was after he had already been convicted and sentenced
that would be funny if you had intended it to be so
Click to expand...

He had access to counsel during his trial. That is not under dispute. You appear to be confusing the terms.
 
Taylor said:
When the treaty itself doesn't create a judicially enforceable right.

This one has as its only mode of enforcement referral of one nation by another to the UN the security council. That's what we agreed to. That's what was signed. That's what was ratified. If you want the treaty committments to be enforced in our domestic courts, you need to get Congress to address that issue.
Click to expand...

Where do you get that from the text of the treaty?
 
Gill said:
He obviously had access to COUNSEL before, during, and after his conviction.

He had access to his CONSULATE only after authorities found out he was a Mexican national.

Your post IS funny, whether intended or not.
Click to expand...

his trial was in the 90's
now let's see when you insist he benefited from mexican counsel:
Eventually, between 2010 and 2011, Leal was visited by a representative of the Mexican government more than 10 times, said Judy Garces, press relations spokeswoman with the Mexican Consulate in San Antonio
Click to expand...
gotta time machine or what
how did mexican counsel in 2010 assist him in his trial in the mid 90's?
 
ludahai said:
Where do you get that from the text of the treaty?
Click to expand...
Not sure which part of my post you're referring to, so I'll answer both:
1) The text of treaty never confers rights to individuals.
2) Enforcement is not discussed anywhere in the treaty. But... at the time we had ratified (now rescinded) the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes requiring us to settle matters in the ICJ. Enforcement of ICJ decisions: Article 94 of the UN Charter:

"any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment."
Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XIV: The International Court of Justice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom