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.
My advice would be to you and all of those on this forum to educate yourselves. Go the the State Department website and choose a country....any country...and read up on your rights. The State Department lays it out quite bluntly what you can expect if you get in trouble in a foreign country. I can assure you that you don't have as many rights as you think you do.
As far as "smug" or "superior" goes....I have lived all over this world. And we're not talking Whiteville Europe. Some of the most dangerous places this planet has to offer. There is NO EXPECTATION of rights. It would be highly advisable for anyone without this same experience to catch up with reality.
I have no idea where you folks get your "rights" information, but it simply is not based on fact.
I've lived in African refugee camps, and I resent your baseless assumption that I'm only bringing up this issue out of naivete. Again, please stop making assumptions and assuming bad faith of others.
Anyway, I took your advice and went to the State Department website and looked up a few country sheets:
Based on the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, bilateral agreements with certain countries, and customary international law, if you are arrested in Laos, you have the option to request that the police, prison officials, or other authorities alert the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate of your arrest, and to have communications from you forwarded to the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate.
If you are arrested in Albania, Albanian authorities are required to notify the U.S. Embassy in Tirana of your arrest. If you are concerned that the Department of State may not be aware of your situation, you should ask the police or prison officials to notify the Embassy of your arrest.
Based on the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, bilateral agreements with certain countries, and customary international law, if you are arrested in Morocco, you have the option to request that the police, prison officials, or other authorities alert the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate of your arrest, and to have communications from you forwarded to the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate.
These were the first three countries I looked up; none of these countries are well developed, and they were on three different continents. In most countries, you should have the right to get in contact with the local US embassy or consulate if you are arrested. This is a right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty ratified by 172 countries around the world.
While these rights may not be respected in some party states, that does not give the US the right to ignore our own treaty obligations with impunity.
Quote:
2. In over 50% of the countries in the world, had either a U.S. Citizen or even a local citizen raped and murdered a 16 year old girl, they would have been put to death. (In fact if it WAS a U.S. citizen, many of OUR citizens would love to watch the piece of garbage PUT TO DEATH, on public display, for such a heinous crime.
I thought we were supposed to be the best country in the world. Why would you want to see us dragged down to the level of "50% of the countries in the world?" Our commitment to due process and rule of law has often been, and should continue to be, a beacon for other countries in the world, a template that could be proudly emulated in ensuring procedural fairness and substantial justice! Lynch mobs? We're supposed to be better than that!
I've lived in African refugee camps, and I resent your baseless assumption that I'm only bringing up this issue out of naivete. Again, please stop making assumptions and assuming bad faith of others.
Anyway, I took your advice and went to the State Department website and looked up a few country sheets:
These were the first three countries I looked up; none of these countries are well developed, and they were on three different continents. In most countries, you should have the right to get in contact with the local US embassy or consulate if you are arrested. This is a right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty ratified by 172 countries around the world.
While these rights may not be respected in some party states, that does not give the US the right to ignore our own treaty obligations with impunity.
I thought we were supposed to be the best country in the world. Why would you want to see us dragged down to the level of "50% of the countries in the world?" Our commitment to due process and rule of law has often been, and should continue to be, a beacon for other countries in the world, a template that could be proudly emulated in ensuring procedural fairness and substantial justice! Lynch mobs? We're supposed to be better than that!
I respect your genuine interest in this subject. On the surface, I don't disagree with you believe it or not. But I do believe there is a certain naivete in your position. I don't mean to be derogatory, but it seems you feel that the USA is the bad guy here, while the rest of the world is a shining example of adherence to international rights obligations. My position is that this is not reality. We can agree to disagree, and that's fine.
My bottom line opinion is that Barack Obama was not genuinely interested in international rights and treaties. He was coerced by Mexico, who has the proverbial gun to his head over "Fast and Furious." That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. The guy is pandering because he's up sh*t creek without a paddle. And it doesn't hurt that it happens to be election season and he needs the Hispanic vote.
I respect your genuine interest in this subject. On the surface, I don't disagree with you believe it or not. But I do believe there is a certain naivete in your position. I don't mean to be derogatory, but it seems you feel that the USA is the bad guy here, while the rest of the world is a shining example of adherence to international rights obligations. My position is that this is not reality. We can agree to disagree, and that's fine.
I understand why you may believe that my belief here is that the US "is the bad guy here," but I assure you that's no how I feel. The bad guy here is Humberto Leal, who raped and murdered a young girl. The failure to notify him of his right to contact his local consulate was almost certainly not one of bad faith. Given what was clear precedent in Medellin, I can't blame the Supreme Court for refusing to stay this execution. Congress screwed up by not enacting legislation at any point in the past few years to make our treaty obligations domestic law.
And yeah, other countries violate their obligations all the time. There are many places in the world that just don't care. However, I think we should be better. We should be the world's leading example; the fact that other countries fall further short, and are more blatant in their violations does not mean that we should feel free to ignore our own obligations. It may not be strict reality, but it is an obligation we voluntarily undertook, and one we should strive to achieve.
Quote:
My bottom line opinion is that Barack Obama was not genuinely interested in international rights and treaties. He was coerced by Mexico, who has the proverbial gun to his head over "Fast and Furious." That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. The guy is pandering because he's up sh*t creek without a paddle. And it doesn't hurt that it happens to be election season and he needs the Hispanic vote.
It's possible, but it's speculation. I think the Obama admin may be in trouble over "Fast and Furious" regardless of what the Mexican government does. And my opinion is that if Obama really wanted to pander to the Hispanic vote, there'd be better ways of doing it than advocating the stay of an execution of a man who raped and murdered a teenager.
I don't see how this is a liberal/conservative issue. It's about respecting international law. The man had a right to have a member of the Mexican consulate present and wasn't informed of this. This puts Americans jailed in other nations in danger.
For example...
There's a lot of people, myself included, who think Amanda Knox isn't getting a fair shake in Italy. I don't think it's just liberals either.
I agree it's not a liberal / conservative issue. I also don't agree with the death penalty.
However, if his rights were violated, why did the courts not rectify that?
I agree it's not a liberal / conservative issue. I also don't agree with the death penalty.
However, if his rights were violated, why did the courts not rectify that?
In 2008, the Supreme Court decided a case called Medellin, which also involved a Mexican national who was convicted of murder, and who also didn't get notified of his right under the Vienna Convention (as stated by the ICJ) to be able to contact his consulate.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that the ICJ treaty, which we ratified, is non-self-executing. This means that even though we are a party to the treaty and bound by it, that the rulings of the ICJ are not domestic law without legislation by Congress specifically saying so. The US has always considered at least some treaties to be non-self-executing, but the Supreme Court's ruling in this case is probably going to have the effect of making a lot more treaties depending on subsequent legislative action to become effective domestically. However, since we are a party, we are still bound by our obligations that we incurred when we ratified.
Basically, the courts did rectify it, just in a way that shifted the burden to Congress, who proceeded to do what they usually do: nothing.
I don't see how this is a liberal/conservative issue. It's about respecting international law. The man had a right to have a member of the Mexican consulate present and wasn't informed of this. This puts Americans jailed in other nations in danger.
For example...
There's a lot of people, myself included, who think Amanda Knox isn't getting a fair shake in Italy. I don't think it's just liberals either.
Oh please, Texas didn't violate anything and you know it, stop with the emotions. This has happened many times before and nobody has been in danger over seas because of it. Obama just loves to fear monger and you guys by it hook line and sinker. Also, Amanda Knox has nothing to do with this.
Juppiter makes a good point. We require law enforcement to tell us our rights when we are arrested.
Nobody should rely on someone else to tell us our rights, you should know them. If ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, ignorance is no excuse to not know your rights.
I don't see how this is a liberal/conservative issue. It's about respecting international law. The man had a right to have a member of the Mexican consulate present and wasn't informed of this. This puts Americans jailed in other nations in danger.
For example...
There's a lot of people, myself included, who think Amanda Knox isn't getting a fair shake in Italy. I don't think it's just liberals either.
So you support the AZ law, then? That when you arrest someone, you need to determine citizenship?
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.
Murderer shouts "Viva Mexico! before death
