• 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

And again, Congress did NOT ratify the treaty, so it was not in effect. This has already been vetted by the Supreme Court itself. That scum should not get more rights than the American scum who also were in on the act.




If it was not ratified, there is no treaty.


Again UN FAIL
 
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.
If the US withdraws from a treaty, and/or the US did not ratify a treaty, then the US is nout bound by that treaty. Period.
 
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.

Please show us what specific law we are violating, with a link. Please show us where it states we are obligated to adhere to ICJ Statutes, with a link.
 
They make their own rules in Texas. That goes with the saying "don't mess with Texas". Bush is from Texas.

Jessica; overflowing with partisan goodness! :roll:
 
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.
This 'customary international law' does not carry the same force as a ratified treaty, and therefore does not have equal footing with the US Constitution.

Therefore, it does not superceede state laws and/or Constitutions.
 
Jessica; overflowing with partisan goodness! :roll:
Yes the Jessica has not exactly earned a reputation as "thoughtful" since her arrival at DP. Rather the opposite.
 
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.

The US withdrew from the Optional Protocol, NOT the Vienna Convention. Please learn to read.

I am about to go on vacation. I will address other points as time permits - or more likely in four days when I return from Kenting.
 
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.

Anyone that pays attention to foreign relations in this country knows that the UN issue any resolution they want at us and we will give them the finger. The UN holds no authority over the United States.
 
The US withdrew from the Optional Protocol, NOT the Vienna Convention. Please learn to read.

I am about to go on vacation. I will address other points as time permits - or more likely in four days when I return from Kenting.

Yes, the US signed the Vienna Convention, but the part Texas disregarded was the OPTIONAL part. Why? Because it was optional. Duhhhhh!!
 
The US withdrew from the Optional Protocol, NOT the Vienna Convention. Please learn to read.

"Vienna Convention on Consular Relations"

You are beating a dead horse here. You are wrong on all counts.

Here I am posting it AGAIN, please read it all the way through this time.

"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"

I am about to go on vacation. I will address other points as time permits - or more likely in four days when I return from Kenting.

OK.

Have a great holiday. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
The US withdrew from the Optional Protocol, NOT the Vienna Convention. Please learn to read.

I am about to go on vacation. I will address other points as time permits - or more likely in four days when I return from Kenting.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relation is Optional Protocol.
 
"Vienna Convention on Consular Relations"

You are beating a dead horse here. You are wrong on all counts.

Here I am posting it AGAIN, please read it all the way through this time.

"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"

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relation is Optional Protocol.
No. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations contains two Optional Protocols. The whole Convention is not optional.

On 24 April 1963, the Conference adopted and opened for signature the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Optional Protocol concerning Acquisition of Nationality and the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. The Convention and both Optional Protocols came into force on 19 March 1967.

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations - Main Page

Here is the Optional Protocol that the U.S. withdrew from:

OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS CONCERNING THE COMPULSORY SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. DONE AT VIENNA, ON 24 APRIL 1963

The States Parties to the present Protocol and to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, hereinafter referred to as "the Convention", adopted by the United Nations Conference held at Vienna from 4 March to 22 April 1963, Expressing their wish to resort in all matters concerning them in respect of any dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, unless some other form of settlement has been agreed upon by the parties within a reasonable period,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol.


http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH444.txt
All that means is that the ICJ doesn't have jurisdiction over the U.S. It does not mean that the ICJ's ruling is incorrect, nor does it mean we didn't fail to uphold our obligation under the (non-optional) Vienna Convention itself. Because we didn't withdraw from the entire treaty.
 
Last edited:
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relation is Optional Protocol.

The Optional Protocol is the mandatory jurisdiction of the ICJ on the case, NOT the convention itself. However, as the US has signed on to the ICJ statue and recognizes its jurisdiction, the point is moot.

Furthermore, the initial ruling was handed down in 2004, one year BEFORE the U.S. withdrew from the Optiona Protocal, so that is binding on the US. Even so, the US is still a party to the Convention AND a party to the statue of the ICJ, so the ruling is binding on the U.S. By a unanimous vote, the judges of the ICJ just two days ago ruled the US in violation of the Avena Case.

The US has NO standing now when it accuses others of violating international law when it has done so in this case. I am ashamed of the State of Texas and SCOTUS who so flippantly ignores international obligations voluntarily taken on by the United States of America. SHAME!
 
Last edited:
Article 36 Clause 1 Sub-clause B of the Vienna Convention provides:

(
b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the
consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or
committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication
addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded
by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without
delay of his rights under this subparagraph
;

WITHOUT DELAY. Was this done? Aparently not.

This is NOT part of the Optional Protocol which the United States withdrew from in 2005, but as this case was decided in 2004, that point is moot.

From the decision in the Avala case

“finds, by fourteen votes to one, that, by not informing, without delay upon their detention, the 51 Mexican nationals referred to in paragraph 106 (1) above of their rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, the United States of America breached the obligations incumbent upon it under that subparagraph;

finds, by fourteen votes to one, that, by not notifying the appropriate Mexican consular post without delay of the detention of the 49 Mexican nationals referred to in paragraph 106 (2) above and thereby depriving the United Mexican States of the right, in a timely fashion, to render the assistance provided for by the Vienna Convention to the individuals concerned, the United States of America breached the obligations incumbent upon it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b);

finds, by fourteen votes to one, that, in relation to the 49 Mexican nationals referred to in paragraph 106 (3) above, the United States of America deprived the United Mexican States of the right, in a timely fashion, to communicate with and have access to those nationals and to visit them in detention, and thereby breached the obligations incumbent upon it under
Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c), of the Convention;

finds, by fourteen votes to one, that, in relation to the 34 Mexican nationals referred to in paragraph 106 (4) above, the United States of America deprived the United Mexican States of the right, in a timely fashion, to arrange for legal representation of those nationals, and thereby breached the obligations incumbent upon it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (c), of the
Convention;

finds, by fourteen votes to one, that, by not permitting the review and reconsideration, in the light of the rights set forth in the Convention, of the conviction and sentences of Mr. César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, after the violations referred to in subparagraph (4) above had been established in respect of those individuals, the United States of America breached the obligations incumbent
upon it under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

finds, by fourteen votes to one, that the appropriate reparation in this case consists in the obligation of the United States of America to provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals referred to in subparagraphs (4), (5), (6) and (7) above, by taking account both of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Convention and of paragraphs 138 to 141 of this judgment;

unanimously takes note of the commitment undertaken by the United States of America to ensure implementation of the specific measures adopted in performance of its obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention; and finds that this commitment must be regarded as meeting the request by the United Mexican States for guarantees and assurances of non-repetition;

unanimously finds that, should Mexican nationals nonetheless be sentenced to severe penalties, without their rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention having been respected, the United States of America shall provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence, so as to allow full weight to be given to the
violation of the rights set forth in the Convention, taking account of paragraphs 138 to 141 of this Judgment.”

This is a pretty strong statement from the court and sad that the United States has chosen to ignore it when it so often claims to be the defender of international law.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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:

" 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.
 
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.

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:

" 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.
Don't bother debating Ludahai, he's high on koolaid.
 
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.

FAIL.

No one is arguing that murderers should be set free. We are arguing about whether due process was given. If it wasn't it doesn't mean the criminal goes free.

Stop whining about non-issues.
 
FAIL.

No one is arguing that murderers should be set free. We are arguing about whether due process was given. If it wasn't it doesn't mean the criminal goes free.

Stop whining about non-issues.

1) Response to part in bold - No reason for the ad-hom personal attack. Now let's continue the discussion.

2) He got just as much due process as any American citizen would get, and that works for me.

3) Back to the whining issue, since you accused me of doing that. I am not whining at all. I am celebrating. There is a DIFFERENCE. Would you like to join me in a toast?

I hereby raise my glass, and give a toast to the toasted. May he fry in hell. :mrgreen:
 
No. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations contains two Optional Protocols. The whole Convention is not optional.

On 24 April 1963, the Conference adopted and opened for signature the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Optional Protocol concerning Acquisition of Nationality and the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. The Convention and both Optional Protocols came into force on 19 March 1967.

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations - Main Page

Here is the Optional Protocol that the U.S. withdrew from:

All that means is that the ICJ doesn't have jurisdiction over the U.S. It does not mean that the ICJ's ruling is incorrect, nor does it mean we didn't fail to uphold our obligation under the (non-optional) Vienna Convention itself. Because we didn't withdraw from the entire treaty.

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.
 
1) Response to part in bold - No reason for the ad-hom personal attack. Now let's continue the discussion.
Sorry. :red:

2) He got just as much due process as any American citizen would get, and that works for me.
Exactly. He's not an American citizen but a citizen of another country whom we have a treaty with. Assuming the treaties are valid (this is currently being discussed) then apparently he wasn't afforded due process as we had agreed upon with other countries when dealing with their citizens.
 
This sounds like ,"you didn`t read me my rights after I raped and killed those two children ,therefore I am inocent".
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom