• 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

The fact that he screamed “Viva Mexico, Viva Mexico” just as he was getting juiced just makes me more opposed to the dream act. The guy has lived here since he was 2, commits this horrible crime and then makes it clear that his real loyalty has always been to Mexico rather than the US.
 
...review what about the case? What purpose would the review have served? Texas never denied the fact that the man never got his consular rights.

What would that review have unearthed?

Why postpone the execution to review what you already know? Why not review it after you execute him?

The ordered review was to assess whether the lack of consular access affected the proceedings. Obviously, you can't do that after you kill him...
 
article

For those who don't think the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (to make sure some people aren't confused which multi-lateral treaty we are talking about) is important.

In 2009, while on assignment for Current TV, my colleague Laura Ling and I were arrested by North Korean soldiers for crossing the frozen Tumen River, which separates the Republic of China (sic) and North Korea. We were imprisoned and isolated from each other for four and a half months. We were repeatedly interrogated, eventually put on trial and sentenced to 12 years’ hard labor. It was only through the extraordinary efforts of the State Department and former President Bill Clinton that we were pardoned and allowed to return home.

It is difficult to describe the fear that comes with being arrested and detained in a foreign country. The sense of darkness in that first week of North Korean captivity was unbearable. My biggest fear was nobody knowing where I was or what had happened to me. The strained relations between the United States and North Korea only increased my despair.

In the middle of the second week, though, I was handed a lifeline: a meeting with the Swedish ambassador, who represented U.S. interests and pointed out to North Korea its responsibilities under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. His hard work yielded a meeting no longer than 10 minutes, but the significance is hard to express. I can only mention the sense of security I now had — that someone outside of North Korea was monitoring my case. The prompt consular access, I believe, protected me from any physical mistreatment by my captors. I was allowed to meet with the ambassador three more times. The meetings were my only communication with the U.S. government — the only way for me to ask for help and to deliver messages to my family. I know the importance of what the Vienna Convention provides.
 
You know - I'm with those who feel it wrong for this to have happened PURELY on the basis that he's not OUR citizen - we cannot do as we please.

The reason why I feel this way is because I loath when non-citizens are granted rights, permissions and leniency that I am granted being a citizen - If I feel that others who are not citizens don't fall under our judicial and constitutional umbrella then that should apply to all things: including such an extreme as the death penalty.

Per the death penalty itself: I oppose it unless it's for mass murder - red handed mass murder.
 
you want us to believe that tejas did not know that he was a mexican national at any time
absurd

without him giving us this information, we could only know he wasn't here legally. Do we just guess on which foreign consulate to give him access to?
 
without him giving us this information, we could only know he wasn't here legally. Do we just guess on which foreign consulate to give him access to?
?

The point is moot according to the Supreme Court - Texas didn't even have to provide him access to his consul. So what is the argument
 
article

For those who don't think the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (to make sure some people aren't confused which multi-lateral treaty we are talking about) is important.

It seems these people were carrying passports, identified themselves as Americans, and were treated accordingly. No one, as far as I can tell, has yet said this treaty does not have merit but these people you mentioned were obviously foreigners in a foreign country and immediately identified themselves as such. The Mexican who murdered that girl did nothing of the kind.
 
Who said that this is a "get out of jail free" card? This isn't Monopoly!

Tell that to the people who trying to make a huge case out of the fact he was told he could call a consulate.
 
Tell that to the people who trying to make a huge case out of the fact he was told he could call a consulate.

I haven't seen a single person say that he should be released from jail. The Mexican government didn't call for it nor did the ICJ decision. Perhaps a few Aztlan or La Raza yahoos called for it, but since when do any of us take THEM seriously?
 
You know, the stupid assumption here is that the rapist had no clue he had the right to a lawyer and that a lawyer from another country would some how know better than a lawyer from this country as to his rights. Does anyone really doubt the outcome would have been different? He raped and killed a child. He got much better than he deserved.

I just don't get how this man's rights are violated. We have more rights for suspects than any country in the world...probably combined. What could have possibly been different if he knew he had the right to a Mexican lawyer?
 
Ah, c'mon Ludahai! A blog post?

In fact you're much brighter than he is.

Except that he is in Beijing and he knows what he is talking about in this instance... it will happen sooner or later... and I hope the person they will do it to is from Texas... it WOULD be fitting...
 
You know, the stupid assumption here is that the rapist had no clue he had the right to a lawyer and that a lawyer from another country would some how know better than a lawyer from this country as to his rights. Does anyone really doubt the outcome would have been different? He raped and killed a child. He got much better than he deserved.

I just don't get how this man's rights are violated. We have more rights for suspects than any country in the world...probably combined. What could have possibly been different if he knew he had the right to a Mexican lawyer?

He did NOT have a right to a Mexican lawyer and no one here is saying the end result for him would have been any different. He had the right to consult the Consulate/embassy of his country in the US (I believe there is a Mexican consulate in Houston) and they could have provided assistance, but NOT do anything to circumvent U.S. law. Mexican lawyers are not licensed to practice in Texas.

The reality is that a right that any foreign national in any country has WAS violated. Even China and the DPRK abide by this treaty ... sad the U.S. (at least the State of Texas) doesn't...
 
Except that he is in Beijing and he knows what he is talking about in this instance... it will happen sooner or later... and I hope the person they will do it to is from Texas... it WOULD be fitting...

Pretty sure the main thrust about that writers opinion is that the Texas decision to follow through with the sentence given to a rapist/murderer following due process and appeals will give China another excuse to continue doing what China already does. It doesnt mean China would suddenly stop doing what it does...just that they would have another thing to throw back in our face. Id take that comparison any day of the week if China were to actually give people rights, fair trials, and an open book on appeals.

And Ludahai...you yourself have said it...if the sentence was commuted to life...who would care? Would this have ever even come up? The fact is that the rapist/murderer has been in America since he was TWO. The consul notification argument is nothing but a dodge to avoid the death penalty.
 
He did NOT have a right to a Mexican lawyer and no one here is saying the end result for him would have been any different. He had the right to consult the Consulate/embassy of his country in the US (I believe there is a Mexican consulate in Houston) and they could have provided assistance, but NOT do anything to circumvent U.S. law. Mexican lawyers are not licensed to practice in Texas.

The reality is that a right that any foreign national in any country has WAS violated. Even China and the DPRK abide by this treaty ... sad the U.S. (at least the State of Texas) doesn't...

What is this constant "no one here is saying" ****? What do you think this thread is about, agreeing that the bastard should die? No, it's not. It's about whiners wanting to cling to a notion that he wasn't given the chance to call the Mexican Embassy for help, cause he's Mexican. And what do you think that means? It means these whiners think he could have gotten off easier, somehow with their help. It's the same old **** from the anti-death penalty crowd.
 
What is this constant "no one here is saying" ****? What do you think this thread is about, agreeing that the bastard should die? No, it's not. It's about whiners wanting to cling to a notion that he wasn't given the chance to call the Mexican Embassy for help, cause he's Mexican. And what do you think that means? It means these whiners think he could have gotten off easier, somehow with their help. It's the same old **** from the anti-death penalty crowd.

Put the shoe on the other foot, though. Let's say an American citizen was sentenced to death in Russia, but was not allowed to contact the US Embassy. The Right-wing (maybe not you, but Conservatives in general) would be shouting the loudest about his legal rights being trampled on, etc.
 
here is a blog entry explaining further the danger caused by the continuing illegal actions on the part of the State of Texas

BS......it's been pointed out multiple times by me and others that Texas did nothing wrong or illegal. The SC has ruled multiple times that the killers failure to ask for his rights did not change the outcome of the trial and Texas was under no obligation to retry him.
 
Put the shoe on the other foot, though. Let's say an American citizen was sentenced to death in Russia, but was not allowed to contact the US Embassy. The Right-wing (maybe not you, but Conservatives in general) would be shouting the loudest about his legal rights being trampled on, etc.

Wasn't the guy here since he was two?
 
Pretty sure the main thrust about that writers opinion is that the Texas decision to follow through with the sentence given to a rapist/murderer following due process and appeals will give China another excuse to continue doing what China already does. It doesnt mean China would suddenly stop doing what it does...just that they would have another thing to throw back in our face. Id take that comparison any day of the week if China were to actually give people rights, fair trials, and an open book on appeals.

Except that due process in accordance with his rights was NOT provided. China actually DOES provide consular access, as does Burma and the DPRK.

And Ludahai...you yourself have said it...if the sentence was commuted to life...who would care? Would this have ever even come up? The fact is that the rapist/murderer has been in America since he was TWO. The consul notification argument is nothing but a dodge to avoid the death penalty.

Except that the US is in violation of a treaty it signed and ratified and expects others to follow. How can the U.S. now expect others to follow this (or any other treaty) when the US has just ignored it?
 
What is this constant "no one here is saying" ****? What do you think this thread is about, agreeing that the bastard should die? No, it's not. It's about whiners wanting to cling to a notion that he wasn't given the chance to call the Mexican Embassy for help, cause he's Mexican. And what do you think that means? It means these whiners think he could have gotten off easier, somehow with their help. It's the same old **** from the anti-death penalty crowd.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not anti-death penalty. The US is in violation of a treaty - that is what I am concerned about. If Texas had followed the correct procedures and found him guilty and the evidence was overwhelming, I would have no problem with frying the guy...
 
BS......it's been pointed out multiple times by me and others that Texas did nothing wrong or illegal. The SC has ruled multiple times that the killers failure to ask for his rights did not change the outcome of the trial and Texas was under no obligation to retry him.

And you think SCOTUS is ALWAYS right? I hate so-called 'conservative' judicial activism as much as liberal...
 
Except that due process in accordance with his rights was NOT provided. China actually DOES provide consular access, as does Burma and the DPRK.

Except that the US is in violation of a treaty it signed and ratified and expects others to follow. How can the U.S. now expect others to follow this (or any other treaty) when the US has just ignored it?
Due process was afforded to this individual identical to ANY US citizen. What wasnt done was a man that raped and murdered a 16 year old child that had been in the US since he was 2 years old was not identified as a foreign national and told he could meet with the mejican consul. Blame his attorney. The state of Texas arrested a criminal...Mirandized him, provided him a lawyer, tried him, convicted him, and sentenced him to death. The absolute reality is that if he had been sentenced to life imprisonment you wouldnt even know his name nor give half a squirt about him OR his rights.
 
And you think SCOTUS is ALWAYS right? I hate so-called 'conservative' judicial activism as much as liberal...

When it comes to the final say on legal matters in this country, then yes...the SCOTUS is ALWAYS right. And that 'judical activism' simply states that the sentence and trial is not invalidated if lack of consul notification adversely impacted the outcome of the trial.
 
Back
Top Bottom