Obama calls for halt to Texas execution Mexican was convicted of raping, killing San Antonio girl (prison, working)

[TRUEGRITT]

Originally Posted by Bagger

For this case, my understanding is that an American citizen could be arrested in a foreign country, request assistance from the American Consulate and be denied since we didn't follow the treaty. If we don't follow it, why should another country. Unfortunately, I think the consequences will be paid by American citizens.

If you or anyone can point to where the ability to speak to a diplomat from your home Country (the only part of the treaty that anyone is saying we broke) made a difference in the outcome of their criminal activity, I might have to agree with you.

[Jaggy001]

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

If you or anyone can point to where the ability to speak to a diplomat from your home Country (the only part of the treaty that anyone is saying we broke) made a difference in the outcome of their criminal activity, I might have to agree with you.

I think the issue is broader than that. If States are not bound by treaties signed by the US government then are those treaties worth the paper they are written on? Why would a foreign government sign a treaty with the US when we cannot guarantee it will be respected by the States? Not just this treaty, all treaties.

[EricGold]

Originally Posted by Lakewooder

Suddenly the Feds are interested in enforcing immigration? (For a rapist)

before it was they "deserve to be here and you're just being a racist" or something whenever immigration laws was asked to be enforced...now you people want to follow the law to the "letter"...for this guy?...or do you just arbitrarily take this up because "obama/bush, no real difference" said so?....it so obvious that this is a political maneuvering B.S. but some people are just too "smart" to see it

he is here illegally...get it?...what rights do you have after you came to another country illegally, been there, living there, for nearly 20 years and then proceed to commit a crime and somehow think you can still invoke legal protections of your place you haven't even lived in?

my point is that how can you claim he is a "Mexican national" after living in America, soaking up years worth of American resources and then turn around and claim to be "Mexican"?....

I don't know how they are comparing these to those who legally go to a foreign land with papers, documents and passports, the whole nine yards, who are just visiting....to someone who has been here illegally since he was 2, made this place his home, been here for nearly 2 decades before he committed the crime...

how can he have a "right" to a "Mexican consulate" after crossing the border illegally, spending nearly two decades here and then raping and killing someone?...

how can you claim to be an "Mexican National" after leaving Mexico, coming here illegally, and living a life here?...does he have a dual-citizenship?...did he come here through the proper channels to get here?..did he pay any taxes in Mexico?....how can he have a right to a "Mexican" anything?

sorry, he's been here in America a-lot longer, used American resources alot longer, all he knows is being in America....How can he claim to be a "National" of a place he hasn't lived in since he was 2?...how does that work?...

Saoirse Ronan was born in the Bronx (I think?) but moved to Ireland when she was like 3 and grow up there....she considers herself Irish not an "American National" because she was "born" here...

You see?...that is how the real world works....I don't know why libs must always fight logic and reality all the damn time....he's an "Mexican National" even though he hasn't been to the damn place since he was 2?

and to top it all off he's here illegally....come on people, that alone doesn't compare to those who legally travel and move...

I mean was they really going to ask Mexico for anything when he as been here since he was 2?...why would they even stop to ask such a pointless thing? why even think they had to ask Mexico for anything when he's been in America all his life?...

so let me see if I have this straight....asking for immigration laws to be enforced...you're a racist, They are just as "American" as you or I....but when putting down a rapist, murdering scum, all of a sudden the law needs to be followed to the letter besides, he's actually a "Mexican National"?...what?.

this is well beyond hypocrisy, something down-right disgusting...

and one final note :

A U.S. consular officer cannot demand your release, represent you at trial, or pay legal fees with U.S. government funds. Much of what the officer can do is controlled by the country you are arrested in. He or she can provide a list of attorneys, notify family, and monitor your health and welfare as permitted. Depending on what country you're in, the ongoing support provided includes arranging dietary supplements and examinations by an independent physician.

Obey Local Laws When Traveling!

I can't beleive I had to post that....but its pretty common knowledge that when Americans get arrested Abroad its a horrific experience with little hope of a fair hearing...

and the Mexican Consular would have pretty much no use anyway...

I don't know why you people thought that doing this would put Americans in harm when Americans are already in harm by just visiting a foreign land..

I don't know why you people thought that having a "Mexican Consular" would have made any difference when the "Mexican Consular" wouldn't have been much use anyway...I mean, no offense but Mexico can barely take care of its own Citizens, let alone those in Foreign lands..

Maybe, just maybe if these people would just remove their heads from their collective as*...they wouldn't be on the wrong side of every freaking issue...

arguing for the suppose "rights" of a murdering rapist over the most miniscule and trivial things would have surprised me a few years ago...but today?...not so much..

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

If you or anyone can point to where the ability to speak to a diplomat from your home Country (the only part of the treaty that anyone is saying we broke) made a difference in the outcome of their criminal activity, I might have to agree with you.

It is a major part of the job description for US consulate offices. Trivial stuff - like having a list of local lawyers who speak English, or being able to provide communication to family in the US - can take on some pretty serious proportions when you're in a cell.

[antarez]

Originally Posted by odanny

Maybe you should concern yourself with the law, and not those who stand accused. The law is more important than any crime the accused may, or may not have, committed. Without it you can not properly ascertain ones innocence or guilt. Once it has examined the case in detail, to everyone's satisfaction, then Texas can get on with it's execution.

Politics. Unlike the last President, who could not do this, it sometimes involves listening to others.

Maybe YOU should concern yourself with the LAW and REALITY.

Last time I checked RAPE , MURDER AND TORTURE were against International Law.

Your lack of reasoning, common sense and understanding = PRICELESS !!!

Even the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

[EricGold]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

It is a major part of the job description for US consulate offices. Trivial stuff - like having a list of local lawyers who speak English, or being able to provide communication to family in the US - can take on some pretty serious proportions when you're in a cell.

You are right...

But how is that the same as this case?...would the Mexican Consular need to translate for someone who's been here all his life?...would he need to relay information to his family when they are in the same city and can see him for themselves?...

the Mexican Consular would have made little impact on the case and what he is needed for (translation, relaying info to family, etc) isn't necessary for this case.... what use would the Mexican Consular serve then?...

[Bagger]

Originally Posted by EricGold

You are right...

But how is that the same as this case?...would the Mexican Consular need to translate for someone who's been here all his life?...would he need to relay information to his family when they are in the same city and can see him for themselves?...

the Mexican Consular would have made little impact on the case and what he is needed for (translation, relaying info to family, etc) isn't necessary for this case.... what use would the Mexican Consular serve then?...

We don't know what impact it would've had since he was not given the opportunity to contact the Consulate. I tend to agree with you that it probably wouldn't have had much impact but that makes it even more odd that Texas didn't allow him to do so.

For what it's worth, I have no sympathy for this guy but I do think what Texas did in this case wasn't the smartest thing to do.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

I believe that you have in the past criticized SCOTUS decisions. Are you now saying that the Supreme Court is always correct in the way it reads the law? Because I have four Supreme Court justices today who carefully explained, in much the same phrasing that I've used, why this decision and the 2008 decision were WRONG.

The federal government incurs an obligation when it signs treaties. To then say that the individual states don't incur that obligation when such obligations affect ALL Americans in terms of the repricocity of the agreement is a ludicrous position. The court erred in the Medellin ruling, and chosen to dig in rather than correct its error.

No single state, be it Texas or Minnesota, should have the right to violate international treaties that the United States' federal government has signed and ratified.

Well, I have 5 Supreme Court Justices that disagree. They carefully explained their reasoning, but I doubt you've read that.

How can they accept an appeal from the president on legislation that "might" be passed in the future?

[TRUEGRITT]

Originally Posted by Jaggy001

I think the issue is broader than that. If States are not bound by treaties signed by the US government then are those treaties worth the paper they are written on? Why would a foreign government sign a treaty with the US when we cannot guarantee it will be respected by the States? Not just this treaty, all treaties.

If this were a federal matter I am sure it would have been honored but the SCOTUS spoke...twice. He had 17 years to talk to a Mexican diplomat and Mexico knew about his fate because they were part of a group who asked for a temporary stay, they just waited too long.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by EricGold

You are right...

But how is that the same as this case?...would the Mexican Consular need to translate for someone who's been here all his life?...would he need to relay information to his family when they are in the same city and can see him for themselves?...

the Mexican Consular would have made little impact on the case and what he is needed for (translation, relaying info to family, etc) isn't necessary for this case.... what use would the Mexican Consular serve then?...

I have no idea of the case and the strength of the evidence, nor do I care overly much - my guess is that it wouldn't have made a lick of difference. It's not about this specific case.

For pragmatic reasons, I don't see the reason to thumb one's nose at a an agreement that's so clearly beneficial to tons of US citizens in trouble abroad. And for reasons of principle, I'm sad to see the value of the US' signature on a treaty devalue.