Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless the law protects everyone all excutions would be stopped why just this one?
Does Obama now have some new DNA evidence to free Leah or would other country citizens be returned. Or will Obama grant him full citizenship.
I think the only thing that OBama has ever gotten right was that we would suggest putting into a moat and alligators.
This treaty has nothing to do with anything. The guy killed someone and got caught. He can kiss his azz goodbye.
This treaty has everything to do with Obama's actions in this case. We ratified a treaty over forty years ago, where a particular article of that treaty required, REQUIRED, that when a foreign national of another country that was also party to this treaty, was taken into custody by authorities of our country, that the person arrested be advised of his rights, including access to his country's consul, and that his country's consulate be notified of the foreign national's arrest. If WE as Americans, want to be afforded the same courtesy (as we currently do receive this courtesy when we are arrested in Mexico), then we need to extend that courtesy. In this case, we are moving to execute a foreign national, whom we never provided with access to the Mexican consulate. In defiance of the treaty. There is pending legislation that would require states to comply with the treaty. It's expected to pass within six months. If it does, then Texas will be required to formally notify the Mexican consulate that it has this man, a Mexican national, in custody, has tried him and found him guilty, and has sentenced him to death. At which point the Mexican consulate can evaluate the case and determine if it has any grounds to appeal, and/or if it wishes to do so. The intent is not to free this man, or to undermine the Texas legal system. The intent is for the United States to comply with a treaty it ratified in 1969. Our compliance will allow us to rely on the treaty when American nationals are arrested or detained in other countries. If we don't comply, we can't rely on the treaty to protect American nationals.
Unless the law protects everyone all excutions would be stopped why just this one?
Does Obama now have some new DNA evidence to free Leah or would other country citizens be returned. Or will Obama grant him full citizenship.
I think the only thing that OBama has ever gotten right was that we would suggest putting into a moat and alligators.
I think we should!!!
Again, I don't think you understand the issues at play here.
The United States and Mexico are both parties to a treaty. We, the United States, are not honoring that treaty. If we don't abide by the provisions of the treaty, we cannot expect American nationals to be afforded the treaty's protections in other countries.
This treaty has everything to do with Obama's actions in this case. We ratified a treaty over forty years ago, where a particular article of that treaty required, REQUIRED, that when a foreign national of another country that was also party to this treaty, was taken into custody by authorities of our country, that the person arrested be advised of his rights, including access to his country's consul, and that his country's consulate be notified of the foreign national's arrest. If WE as Americans, want to be afforded the same courtesy (as we currently do receive this courtesy when we are arrested in Mexico), then we need to extend that courtesy. In this case, we are moving to execute a foreign national, whom we never provided with access to the Mexican consulate. In defiance of the treaty. There is pending legislation that would require states to comply with the treaty. It's expected to pass within six months. If it does, then Texas will be required to formally notify the Mexican consulate that it has this man, a Mexican national, in custody, has tried him and found him guilty, and has sentenced him to death. At which point the Mexican consulate can evaluate the case and determine if it has any grounds to appeal, and/or if it wishes to do so. The intent is not to free this man, or to undermine the Texas legal system. The intent is for the United States to comply with a treaty it ratified in 1969. Our compliance will allow us to rely on the treaty when American nationals are arrested or detained in other countries. If we don't comply, we can't rely on the treaty to protect American nationals.
This treaty has everything to do with Obama's actions in this case. We ratified a treaty over forty years ago, where a particular article of that treaty required, REQUIRED, that when a foreign national of another country that was also party to this treaty, was taken into custody by authorities of our country, that the person arrested be advised of his rights, including access to his country's consul, and that his country's consulate be notified of the foreign national's arrest. If WE as Americans, want to be afforded the same courtesy (as we currently do receive this courtesy when we are arrested in Mexico), then we need to extend that courtesy. In this case, we are moving to execute a foreign national, whom we never provided with access to the Mexican consulate. In defiance of the treaty. There is pending legislation that would require states to comply with the treaty. It's expected to pass within six months. If it does, then Texas will be required to formally notify the Mexican consulate that it has this man, a Mexican national, in custody, has tried him and found him guilty, and has sentenced him to death. At which point the Mexican consulate can evaluate the case and determine if it has any grounds to appeal, and/or if it wishes to do so. The intent is not to free this man, or to undermine the Texas legal system. The intent is for the United States to comply with a treaty it ratified in 1969. Our compliance will allow us to rely on the treaty when American nationals are arrested or detained in other countries. If we don't comply, we can't rely on the treaty to protect American nationals.
Look up Joe Medellin. The same exact thing happened in 2008 and Bush tried to get them to halt the execution. It went to the US Supreme Court and they ruled that neither the international courts OR the President can force Texas' hand in this. The ruling has been made. Deal with it.
Look up Joe Medellin. The same exact thing happened in 2008 and Bush tried to get them to halt the execution. It went to the US Supreme Court and they ruled that neither the international courts OR the President can force Texas' hand in this. The ruling has been made. Deal with it.
I'm familiar with the ruling. Are you?
Because one of the keypoints of the ruling was that Congress had not passed legislation compelling Texas to abide by this treaty, AND that no such legislation was forthcoming. Now such legislation is forthcoming, so the situation is meaningfully different than when Bush pursued his case.
Because one of the keypoints of the ruling was that Congress had not passed legislation compelling Texas to abide by this treaty, AND that no such legislation was forthcoming. Now such legislation is forthcoming, so the situation is meaningfully different than when Bush pursued his case.
Does NOT matter one bit. The legislation is NOT there now. You can NOT halt stuff on NEW legislation that might be coming out. That is absurd to even say so.
Does NOT matter one bit. The legislation is NOT there now. You can NOT halt stuff on NEW legislation that might be coming out. That is absurd to even say so.
Of course you CAN halt stuff, for whatever reason is deemed important enough to halt something. In this case, is the welfare of Americans abroad important enough to delay an execution six months? The United States ratified the treaty to protect the welfare of Americans abroad. We are not honoring the treaty, which could result in other countries refusing to honor the treaty when Americans are involved. Is the welfare of Americans abroad important to you?
Of course you CAN halt stuff, for whatever reason is deemed important enough to halt something. In this case, is the welfare of Americans abroad important enough to delay an execution six months? The United States ratified the treaty to protect the welfare of Americans abroad. We are not honoring the treaty, which could result in other countries refusing to honor the treaty when Americans are involved. Is the welfare of Americans abroad important to you?
You have no idea do you? The treaty was never ratified to say that ALL the states had to abide by it. They F'd up. They are trying to ram that through now. Not going to work, their F up caused all of this. Too bad, soo sad. They are a day late and a dollar short. This guy is a goner. If this was so important, how come this new legislation wasn't right after Obama got in or at the end of GWB's term? Is it because they didn't care too much about it until Obama was up for re-election? I think so.
Why six months? Why can't Congress just whip up something to stop the execution. Not like anybody has to read the legislation, you know, til after the guy is dead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
