• 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

scourge99 said:
That's not the issue. The innocent or guilt of the men isn't in question. Its the intentional or unintentional violation of international treaties regarding due process for foreigners that's in question.
Click to expand...
He got due process. Check out what due process is in Turkey or Venezuela.
 
danarhea said:
OK, this is my final response to those who would have treated with kid gloves the scumbag who raped, tortured, and murdered 2 little girls.

I have seen your arguments. I believe they are wrong, but even if they are right, I don't give a damn. You want to say we took away his rights? OK, fine with me. We took the scumbag to the death house, we stuck a needle in his arm, and we proceeded to kill him. I completely support this killing. Call me a murderer, call me a criminal, call me a ham and cheese sandwich on rye. Again, I don't give a damn. Whatever you call me I will wear with pride, as a badge of honor.

In Texas, if you rape, torture, and murder little girls, you are going to die, the UN is not going to save you, a consulate is not going to save you, and bleeding hearts who believe we have taken your rights away are not going to save you. We are going to execute the living crap out of you. Period. End of discussion. Don't like my answer? That's just too damn bad.

And I don't give 2 craps about who I just offended in posting this.
Click to expand...

And once again, we are not talking the consulate saving anyone. Texas could have abided by the rules and still executed the scumbag. The implication that those of us who are arguing that the US should have adhered to its international responsibilities is defending the scumbag is wrong and offensive.
 
Blackdog said:
Ludahai, you have got this all wrong still. We opted out because it was never ratified, so it does count.

For the most part the US recognizes the VC but we never ratified it, so we do not have to recognize it at all. I have shown this before in this thread, but you chose to ignore.
Click to expand...

You have NOT shown that the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention.

The Supreme court of the United States, not the UN court (which we give no authority to as of 2005) decides what happens in this country. And they made the choice known:
Click to expand...

The Optional Protocol only referred to the Vienna COnvention. The US is a party to the Statute of the ICJ and on matters of international law, the ICJ is the supreme authority. If the US does not abide by its decisions, it is in violation of international law.

" In June 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals who were not notified of their right to consular notification and access after an arrest may not use the treaty violation to suppress evidence obtained in police interrogation or belatedly raise legal challenges after trial (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon)."

So the US was justified and legal in it's actions in the treatment of the murderers.
Click to expand...

And this decision is a violation of US obligations both based on treaties it adheres to as well as to customary international law which the United States accepts and uses.

The US has no basis to complain about others not respecting international law because the US is now on record as ignoring it.
 
Rodney said:
This sounds like ,"you didn`t read me my rights after I raped and killed those two children ,therefore I am inocent". If that is the finer point in this matter ,the justice system just expended a damned fine use of some lethal drugs. See you in hell dude.
Click to expand...

We are not saying that. Ever heard of the Miranda Warning? What is wrong with following international law and giving him the notice of his right to contact consul?

If you actually read the original 2004 ICJ decision, it does not call for his release, it calls for rectification of the mistake and make sure all of his legal rights are protected. Then, following the proper prodedures, Texas can fry the guy.

That's all for now. Without further ado, it is 80 degrees and sunny outside. Time to go to Baisha Beach to swim and watch my kids play in the white sand. :)
 
We don't owe him more than that. We do not adhere to the optional convention. Enjoy your red herring?
 
ludahai said:
You have NOT shown that the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention.
Click to expand...

Ummm yes I have. Go back and actually look at the links I posted. :doh

ludahai said:
The Optional Protocol only referred to the Vienna COnvention. The US is a party to the Statute of the ICJ and on matters of international law, the ICJ is the supreme authority. If the US does not abide by its decisions, it is in violation of international law.
Click to expand...

No it is not. The only people who think we are in violation is a court that has no jurisdiction over the US at all.

ludahai said:
And this decision is a violation of US obligations both based on treaties it adheres to as well as to customary international law which the United States accepts and uses.
Click to expand...

It was not ratified or voted on by the states. End of story.

ludahai said:
The US has no basis to complain about others not respecting international law because the US is now on record as ignoring it.
Click to expand...

This is true. It does not change the fact we are not bound by it according to the convention itself, as I have shown in another link you obviously did not read.
 
Blackdog said:
Ummm yes I have. Go back and actually look at the links I posted. :doh
Click to expand...

The only thing I have seen from links you have posted is that Congress did not pass enabling legislation. I didn't see anything regarding the Senate and ratification.

No it is not. The only people who think we are in violation is a court that has no jurisdiction over the US at all.
Click to expand...

The US is in clear violation of its treaty obligations. Nothing you say is going to change that.

It was not ratified or voted on by the states. End of story.
Click to expand...

The links I have see you post referred to laws by Congress, NOT ratification by the Senate. Regardless, you think this is an excuse for the US to not follow international law? This puts the US in the untenable position of not being able to insist on other states to follow thier international obligations and opens up the possibility that other states will refuse to allow the US access to US citizens in their custody. This is GRADE A STUPID!

This is true. It does not change the fact we are not bound by it according to the convention itself, as I have shown in another link you obviously did not read.
Click to expand...

Not bound to what? We are bound by the Vienna Convention as well as to any decision of the ICJ on which it makes a ruling within its jurisdiction as the US is a party to the ICJ statue.
 
Blackdog said:
I am beginning to wonder.
Click to expand...

What, to be on kool aid for expecting the US to live up to its own international obligations and agreements?

I could easily say you are on kool aid for excusing a blantant ignoring of its obligations under the Vienna Convention.
 
ludahai said:
The only thing I have seen from links you have posted is that Congress did not pass enabling legislation. I didn't see anything regarding the Senate and ratification.
Click to expand...

It states it pretty clearly in the first or second link.

ludahai said:
The US is in clear violation of its treaty obligations. Nothing you say is going to change that.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and that is great, but don't expect that to make it true.

ludahai said:
The links I have see you post referred to laws by Congress, NOT ratification by the Senate. Regardless, you think this is an excuse for the US to not follow international law? This puts the US in the untenable position of not being able to insist on other states to follow thier international obligations and opens up the possibility that other states will refuse to allow the US access to US citizens in their custody. This is GRADE A STUPID!
Click to expand...

International law cannot and should not carry more weight than our own laws, period. This is the just of the ruling as laid down by the SCOTUS. If this were the case, we mite as well turn our government over to the UN right now.

ludahai said:
Not bound to what? We are bound by the Vienna Convention as well as to any decision of the ICJ on which it makes a ruling within its jurisdiction as the US is a party to the ICJ statue.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
ludahai said:
What, to be on kool aid for expecting the US to live up to its own international obligations and agreements?

I could easily say you are on kool aid for excusing a blantant ignoring of its obligations under the Vienna Convention.
Click to expand...

Ludahai, you are far too capable of far sighted, subtle and/or complex thought to be a true conservative. Are you sure you don't want to join us liberals?
 
There are very few things in this world that I would be willing to break a law for. Very few. And for those same things are about the only things that I'd get really pissed for. But I would happily flay, pull finger nails, slice open and pour hot coals into the scrotum sac and seal it up anyone that beat, raped and killed children. I would happily take any rap that I got for doing so.

So when it comes to the UN and Mexico on this subject they can just lick my butthole and stuff a hot poker up their butts for all I care on their rules for this subject. This ahole was an illegal in our country from what I understand. If Mexico didn't want them getting executed for these crimes then they should have kept them on their side of the border so that they wouldn't commit these crimes over here.

And yes I would be willing to go to war to defend my country if anyone wants to make that big a deal about it.

And yes I would expect any country that caught these types of people to do the same thing. IMO perferably worse than a simple painless leathal injection.
 
Dezaad said:
Ludahai, you are far too capable of far sighted, subtle and/or complex thought to be a true conservative. Are you sure you don't want to join us liberals?
Click to expand...

I am just not bogged down by political dogma to prevent me from seeing what is right.
 
Blackdog said:
It states it pretty clearly in the first or second link.
Click to expand...

Which is contradicted by the State Department website I posted.

That is your opinion and that is great, but don't expect that to make it true.
Click to expand...

What part of Article 36 of the Vienna COnvention do you not comprehend?

International law cannot and should not carry more weight than our own laws, period. This is the just of the ruling as laid down by the SCOTUS. If this were the case, we mite as well turn our government over to the UN right now.
Click to expand...

Sure it can when it arises out of a treaty the US has signed and implemented. Sorry to say for those who think America is the world, it is not. It has to share the world with 200 some odd other states. Over the centuries, a body of international law has developed to help those states to live with one another. For the past 200 years, the US has been one of the chief architects in the development of a body of law that does far more to progress U.S. ideas and interest than to hinder them. Informing people and ensuring people have their rights is a fundamental American value. Informing a suspect and ensuring that they have consular access is a MINOR point, one that would not have changed the ultimate verdict in this case. However, denial of this nearly universally recognized right (one that is now a matter of customary law more than treaty law) now potentially puts the US in an untenable position when it wants access to US citizens being legally persecuted in other countries or any other situation where the United States insists other states abide by their international responsiblities.

Please answer this. How can the US insist other states abide by international law when it itself does not?


:roll:[/QUOTE]
 
ludahai said:
Which is contradicted by the State Department website I posted.



What part of Article 36 of the Vienna COnvention do you not comprehend?



Sure it can when it arises out of a treaty the US has signed and implemented. Sorry to say for those who think America is the world, it is not. It has to share the world with 200 some odd other states. Over the centuries, a body of international law has developed to help those states to live with one another. For the past 200 years, the US has been one of the chief architects in the development of a body of law that does far more to progress U.S. ideas and interest than to hinder them. Informing people and ensuring people have their rights is a fundamental American value. Informing a suspect and ensuring that they have consular access is a MINOR point, one that would not have changed the ultimate verdict in this case. However, denial of this nearly universally recognized right (one that is now a matter of customary law more than treaty law) now potentially puts the US in an untenable position when it wants access to US citizens being legally persecuted in other countries or any other situation where the United States insists other states abide by their international responsiblities.

Please answer this. How can the US insist other states abide by international law when it itself does not?


:roll:
Click to expand...
[/quote]
What do you think about Hamas firing rockets into Israel?
 
Blackdog said:
It states it pretty clearly in the first or second link.
Click to expand...

Page 37 of the US Department of State listing treaties in force lists the Consular Convention as one such treaty in force.

It was approved by the Senate by a 81-0 vote on May 5, 1969.

Face it, you are WRONG. It was properly ratified by the US Senate and as such, the US is bound to abide by it.
 
American said:
What do you think about Hamas firing rockets into Israel?
Click to expand...

You know exactly what I think about Hamas firing rockets into Israel. I clear breach of international law and if you have read the relevant threads, you would know that I have been one of the most forceful defenders of Israel's inherent sovereign rights affirmed by Article 51 of the UN Charter to defend itself.
 
ludahai said:
You know exactly what I think about Hamas firing rockets into Israel. I clear breach of international law and if you have read the relevant threads, you would know that I have been one of the most forceful defenders of Israel's inherent sovereign rights affirmed by Article 51 of the UN Charter to defend itself.
Click to expand...
The last portion of Art VI:
"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Is this clear enough for you?
 
American said:
The last portion of Art VI:
"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Is this clear enough for you?
Click to expand...
Exactly which Texas state law is contrary to the VC's provision that sending states must be notified when a receiving state arrests one of their citizens? Unless you can show a Texas state law that prohibits notifying the sending state, you have failed.

Let's review:

1.) The VC has two relevant provisions:

a. Receiving states must notify sending states when a citizen of the sending state is arrested. Receiving states must notify the suspect of his rights to Consular relations with his/her home state without delay.

b. (optional) The ICJ shall have jurisdiction on matters where a disagreement arises.

2.) The U.S. ratified the VC in 1969.

3.) The U.S. withdrew from the optional provision b in 2005. It did not withdraw from the VC as a whole.

4.) The U.S. plainly and obviously did not notify this suspect of his Consular rights under the VC. Since the U.S. ratified the VC in 1969, and only withdrew from ONE of the optional provisions, the U.S. is in clear violation of a treaty that it ratified.

5.) The ICJ ruled that the U.S. violated its obligations under the VC. But since the U.S. withdrew from the optional protocol, this ruling is non-binding. That does not change the fact that the U.S. is in violation of the VC. It only changes what can be done about it, which, from the ICJ's point of view, is nothing.

It is ridiculous on its face to claim that the U.S. is not in violation of the VC simply because the ICJ's ruling is non-binding. That's like stealing something, and then claiming you never stole anything because you simply weren't caught or there can be no punishment. Fallacious and dishonest to the core!

It's also a red-herring and a strawman to claim that recognizing the U.S.'s failure to abide by its treaty obligations consitutes any sort of dismissal of the crimes that were committed. Fallacious and dishonest again!

And to let emotions toward this piece of **** scumbag cloud and distort the plain and obvious fact that a treaty was broken is a significant and alarming disregard for the law of the land. You don't get to make up the law as you go, based on how you feel about a person. That is also fallacious and dishonest!

I can't believe the shameless inability and/or flat out refusal to keep separate issues separate in this thread. It blows my mind.
 
I'm not the attorney here, it's not my job to find the state law. I'm merely pointing out that Art VI is not what many around here want it to say. Treaties and the Supreme law of the Land are not cut and dry as some may think. Nothing international nullifies the US Constitution and State laws.
 
American said:
The last portion of Art VI:
"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Is this clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

What about notifying a person of his right to have access to Mexican consuls contravenes the laws of the State of TExas or any other state.

This does not change the fact that the US violated its treaty obligations and is in violation of international law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom