• 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:
Actually, it does appear that the treaty was ratified. However, Medellin had to ask for the Mexican consul to be notified. He claims he did, only it was more than 4 years after his sentencing before he made that claim. The police say he never asked, and transcripts of the trial appear to back the police.

Another fact - Medellin claimed to be a Mexican national (after he was convicted and sentenced), and although technically he was, he was brought to the United States when he was only 3 years old, could speak and write English fluently, and never showed any desire to go back to Mexico and live as a citizen there.

This issue was brought up for only 2 reasons:

1) Medellin was clearly attempting to game the system and save his own life.

2) Europe and Mexico, which do not have the death penalty, were using this case to prevent a lawful execution in Texas, which of course, does support the death penalty.

If you go to the last link I posted, you can read it all there.
Click to expand...

Thank you for acknowledging that it is a valid treaty.

Did the authorities in Texas inform him of his right to speak with the Mexican consuls? That is part of the treaty.

The sad thing is, Texas could have followed the rules, allow him to have consular access, have the trial, convict and execute the scumbag and there would be no international issues and no dangerous precedent that could come to haunt Americans living and/or travelling overseas.
 
Blackdog said:
"on 7 March, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations." - VCCR - Foreign Nationals - the International Justice Project//quote]

Withdrew from the Optional Protocol, NOT the Convention itself. It was his convention rights that were violated.

"Although the United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention, US officials have often indicated that they accept at least much of the Convention as reflecting binding customary international law." - The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty
Click to expand...

Then explain how the Convention came into force in the US in 1969.

Now lets see what dwells a little deeper...

"While the policy merits of the Bush Administration's announcement are of course open to debate, the announcement appears to be consistent with international law. There is nothing in international law that obligates a signatory to a treaty to become a party to the treaty, [6] and the Rome Statute itself (in Article 125) states that it is "subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States." In addition, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that, upon signing a treaty, a nation is "obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty "until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty." The Vienna Convention thus contemplates that nations may announce an intent not to ratify a treaty after signing it. - The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty

We are under no such obligation to Mexico or the UN court.

The End
Click to expand...

First, the Law of Treaties specifically states it can't be applied to treaties that pre-date it, as the Vienna Convention does.

Second, the U.S. is obligated to abide by customary international law if it has shown by its own actions that it accepts its provisions, even if it were not a party to the convention, which it clearly is.
Click to expand...
 
American said:
On top of this, no treaty can conflict with the Constitution or the laws of the United States, as I stated earlier. People try to put the US in some international bind with the Constitutional clause, but fail to acknowledge the entire clause. Sorry folks, the Founders weren't that stupid.
Click to expand...

It still places the US in violation of its treaty obligations and international laws that it has clearly accepted.
 
The treaty was ratified by the United States, but the process of putting a treaty in effect does not stop there. A participating nation must enact legislation in their own country that instructs the nation to abide by the treaty.

The United States passed no legislation related to Consular Privilege, specifically the Vienna Optional Protocols, so the treaty is not valid on our soil.
 
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...

If evidence could be shown in a court of law they committed a crime that merits execution the answer is YES.
 
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'm glad they gave the bandito the needle. NOW send him back to Meh-he-co. Adios amigo! :2wave:

But, now that you mention it, I remember a story about a young American man ( I THINK he was American) being sentenced to be "caned," across the back, for some petty crime, in some foreign country, and the pundits went ape-sh** over it. :mrgreen:

But this dude needed to fry.
 
ludahai said:
Thank you for acknowledging that it is a valid treaty.

Did the authorities in Texas inform him of his right to speak with the Mexican consuls? That is part of the treaty.

The sad thing is, Texas could have followed the rules, allow him to have consular access, have the trial, convict and execute the scumbag and there would be no international issues and no dangerous precedent that could come to haunt Americans living and/or travelling overseas.
Click to expand...

According to the police, he did not ask. He claims he asked. However, court records support the police version. Once more, he did not even raise the issue until 4 years after he was sentenced. He was just trying to game the system to save his own worthless life. He had been in the US since he was 3 years old, spoke English fluently, and had shown no desire in his entire life to move back to Mexico and be a Mexican citizen. He is also not going to be raping and murdering any more innocent kids either, is he?

In Texas, if you rape and murder kids, you die. If Mexico doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass.
 
Last edited:
Listen, if these guys did what they did, then they should be punished to the full extent of the law. I have no issue with that at all.

However being a non citizen, then they should have had access to consulate period. It is a very dangerous precedent the US is setting for it self and its citizens abroad.... very dangerous. In principle as it stands now, I have more protection as a Danish citizen in Spain than my American neighbour because of this arrogant act by Texas. That I fully expect Spain to comply with international agreements, unlike the US/Texas but Spain (and others) have precedent to ignore international agreements just because it is an American.

Not to mention it is a totally xenophobic and arrogant attitude the state of Texas have. Texas was wrong and it is time to admit it. The UN is totally correct in most of its assessment, but that does not mean that the convictions would have been any different or even thrown out just because of this **** up by the State of Texas or even that these guys would have been spared.

It means that the international agreements that the US on behalf of Texas has signed up to must be lived up too and any non compliance either rectified or apologized for and not be repeated. The problem is here, that the arrogance of Texas and the Bush administration has not provided any thing near this. Instead their clear xenophobic racist attitudes towards Hispanics has shown their ugly head and they have used classic avoidance tactics by screaming "child molesters and killers" in every second line of any text or document and hence making any civilized discussion on the subject impossible.. and I expect it also in the reply to my comments, because these boards are just slightly more civilized than the state of Texas.

Again, before people rip of my head, I am talking about the principle of ignoring international agreements and in this case access to consular representatives. There should be no difference if you are Mexican, Danish, Russian or Chinese, but this case has clearly shown that there was difference and that is shameful. Not long ago, there was a Danish boat captain that was busted with several tons of cocaine on his ship.. even he got access to the Danish consulate and later got convicted. Why did these Mexicans not get access?`.. because they were Mexican or because the State of Texas screwed up big time? I hope it is the later, else... shameful.

But as I have stated, if they did it then they should have been punished to the fullest extent of the law period.
 
Alex said:
The treaty was ratified by the United States, but the process of putting a treaty in effect does not stop there. A participating nation must enact legislation in their own country that instructs the nation to abide by the treaty.

The United States passed no legislation related to Consular Privilege, specifically the Vienna Optional Protocols, so the treaty is not valid on our soil.
Click to expand...

According to international treaty law, is a state signs and ratifies a treaty or acceeds to an international convention, it is bound by the provisions of that document.

Furthermore, even if the state HASN'T acceeded to that document, if it becomes considered customary international law and the state in question did not show through its words and/or deeds that it did NOT accept this development, it is still bound by this as international law in accordance with the ICJ Statute and the history of customary international law.
 
Captain America said:
I'm glad they gave the bandito the needle. NOW send him back to Meh-he-co. Adios amigo! :2wave:

But, now that you mention it, I remember a story about a young American man ( I THINK he was American) being sentenced to be "caned," across the back, for some petty crime, in some foreign country, and the pundits went ape-sh** over it. :mrgreen:

But this dude needed to fry.
Click to expand...

Michael Fay in Singapore. And I believe he was given consular access as required by international law.
 
danarhea said:
According to the police, he did not ask. He claims he asked. However, court records support the police version. Once more, he did not even raise the issue until 4 years after he was sentenced. He was just trying to game the system to save his own worthless life. He had been in the US since he was 3 years old, spoke English fluently, and had shown no desire in his entire life to move back to Mexico and be a Mexican citizen. He is also not going to be raping and murdering any more innocent kids either, is he?

In Texas, if you rape and murder kids, you die. If Mexico doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...

The treaty required him to be informed of his rights and to be asked if he would like consular access. I have seen no evidence this was done. THis is not dissimilar to the Miranda Warning that is now standard in the United States. All suspects who are arrested are required to be informed of their rights. Why should this be any different.

I am not arguing that this guy should fry. However, the US should have followed its obligations under international law. It can not now take the high road and expect others to follow international law when it was violated by the US in this case.
 
PeteEU said:
The problem is here, that the arrogance of Texas and the Bush administration has not provided any thing near this.
Click to expand...

I was all with you except for this statement. The Bush adminstration actually tried to get the law to be followed. The State of Texas and SCOTUS refused to live up to the international committments made by the US.
 
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...

Anyone who commits first degree murder no matter where, or where from should have swift capital punishment.

Like I've stated before...the death penalty should be put in place where it is a "given" that if you commit first degree murder you are also comitting suicide!

Pure Logic.
 
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...

Simply put, its their country, its their rules.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Simply put, its their country, its their rules.
Click to expand...

But when you adhere to an international convention, you have to follow those rules as well. The US expects other countries to abide by the rules of the Consular Convention, the US needs to abide by it as well.
 
ludahai said:
Withdrew from the Optional Protocol, NOT the Convention itself. It was his convention rights that were violated.
Click to expand...

"Vienna Convention on Consular Relations" Which is EXACTLY what we are talking about.

Bob and weave a little more why don't you.

ludahai said:
Then explain how the Convention came into force in the US in 1969.
Click to expand...

It never "came into force" it was recognized by our government "US officials have often indicated that they accept at least much of the Convention as reflecting binding customary international law."

Are you reading what people are posting or just skimming?

ludahai said:
First, the Law of Treaties specifically states it can't be applied to treaties that pre-date it, as the Vienna Convention does.
Click to expand...

What part of "In March 2005, the United States pulled out of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which allows the International Court of Justice to have compulsory jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Convention. 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[1]). In March 2008, the Supreme Court further ruled that the decision of the International Court of Justice directing the United States to give "review and reconsideration" to the cases of 51 Mexican convicts on death row was not a binding domestic law and therefore could not be used to overcome state procedural default rules that barred further post-conviction challenges" are you having problems with?

ludahai said:
Second, the U.S. is obligated to abide by customary international law if it has shown by its own actions that it accepts its provisions, even if it were not a party to the convention, which it clearly is.
Click to expand...

As it has been shown numerous times, you are wrong. The US opted out of the "Vienna Convention on Consular Relations."

You have no leg to stand on.
 
Jessica said:
They make their own rules in Texas. That goes with the saying "don't mess with Texas". Bush is from Texas.
Click to expand...

Actually, Bush is originally from Connecticut.
 
Blackdog said:
"Vienna Convention on Consular Relations" Which is EXACTLY what we are talking about.

Bob and weave a little more why don't you.



It never "came into force" it was recognized by our government "US officials have often indicated that they accept at least much of the Convention as reflecting binding customary international law."

Are you reading what people are posting or just skimming?



What part of "In March 2005, the United States pulled out of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which allows the International Court of Justice to have compulsory jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Convention. 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[1]). In March 2008, the Supreme Court further ruled that the decision of the International Court of Justice directing the United States to give "review and reconsideration" to the cases of 51 Mexican convicts on death row was not a binding domestic law and therefore could not be used to overcome state procedural default rules that barred further post-conviction challenges" are you having problems with?



As it has been shown numerous times, you are wrong. The US opted out of the "Vienna Convention on Consular Relations."

You have no leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
I say duhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! I think we're done here.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
The point is not whether he is guilty or not. THe point is that his rights were NOT respected and the law was NOT followed.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with the question I responded to, or my response.
 
ludahai said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- your response here is completely out of context.
 
ludahai said:
However, his rights to consular access were DENIED him, contrary to a treaty signed and adhered to by the United States - and used by the US itself to insist on access to its own nationals.
Click to expand...




Screw his "consular rights", MExico, The UN, and anyone else that has a problem with this execution. No offense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom