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.
And other posters have brought up very good points; this isn't about the murderer himself, it's about what will happen to our own nationals when they are arrested in other countries. Why should any other country recognize Americans' rights under international treaties if we don't recognize the rights of others under the treaties we signed and ratified in good faith?
This guy was given a fair trial for the brutal crime he committed. And if an American living in some other country viciously rapes and bashes in the head of a 16 year old girl, I'd be glad if that other country gave him the death penalty.
Who are you quoting? Nobody in the other thread said either of the things you're quoting. Please stop making quotes up out of thin air.
A desire to see America abide by the terms of treaties that it has ratified = hating America and supporting murderers? But hey, I guess it's easier to rant and rave and assume bad faith from those who disagree with you instead of trying to understand what somebody is actually talking about and to have a rational debate.
As if i'm supposed to give credence to someone who doesn't understand the use of paraphrasing to make a point. Grammar 101 my friend. LOL
Yes, you embarrassed yourself by flubbing the simple stuff. Which gives me zero reason to dignify any of the rest of your post.
As if i'm supposed to give credence to someone who doesn't understand the use of paraphrasing to make a point. Grammar 101 my friend. LOL
Grammar 101: when you put something in quotation marks, it generally means that you are actually quoting someone!
Besides that, did anybody say, even in paraphrasing, that the state had a weak case against Leal? I may have missed it somewhere, but I didnt see it anywhere.
Quote:
Yes, you embarrassed yourself by flubbing the simple stuff. Which gives me zero reason to dignify any of the rest of your post.
Grammar 101: when you put something in quotation marks, it generally means that you are actually quoting someone!
Besides that, did anybody say, even in paraphrasing, that the state had a weak case against Leal? I may have missed it somewhere, but I didnt see it anywhere.
Mindless deflection.
Absolutely. The user's name is Strel. If you feel inclined, then go look it up.
My memory is rock solid. I don't make claims I can't back up.
As to the other paraphrased quote, I was referencing the general attitude that Barack Obama is exercising his executive obligations instead of executive pandering. Barack Obama is cowering to Mexico. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with his understanding of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the ICJ...or any other crap thrown out by the Left. He has all of you snookered. It's funny to watch. It really is. And to top it all off....the Supreme Court put you all in your place.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 07-08-2011 at 05:30 AM..
Reason: Link added
Will someone explain why the said treaty would have changed the outcome? The treaty only says the accused has a right to speak to the consulate of their national origin. The tready is not a "Get Out Of Jail" card.
Very good and fair question. Most likely the most that could happen would be to afford Leal a hearing to have him attempt to prove how the denial of being notified that he could contact the Mexican consulate prejudiced him. None of it would change his factual guilt. At most, he might have been able to convince an appellate court to vacate that sentence and get a new sentencing hearing (where he very well might have received the death penalty again).
Quote:
As with any citizen of any country, a citizen is under the jurisdiction and laws of another country, unless they are diplomats. Was Leal a diplomat for Mexico? If so, I missed that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, if a US citizen commits a crime in another country, they should not be spared punishment just because they are US citizens, and did not get to speak to a US diplomat.
Absolutely right. I don't think anybody, including me, has suggested that Leal should not be punished for his barbaric acts. However, rule of law can't be set aside even where factual guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. The Vienna Convention, which we have ratified, obliged us to inform a foreign national in Leal's position that he could notify his hone country's consulate. Imposing a capital punishment on Leal without regard to this convention IS a breach of our obligation under it. If you don't care (as the Texas state government has made clear), then very well. But there is an international obligation that we voluntarily took on and failed to obey here.
My memory is rock solid. I don't make claims I can't back up.
Fair enough, you're right there. I have no idea what Strel is talking about there, because I have never read anything that would throw Leal's factual guilt into the slightest doubt.
Quote:
As to the other paraphrased quote, I was referencing the general attitude that Barack Obama is exercising his executive obligations instead of executive pandering. Barack Obama is cowering to Mexico. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with his understanding of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the ICJ...or any other crap thrown out by the Left. He has all of you snookered. It's funny to watch. It really is. And to top it all off....the Supreme Court put you all in your place.
Yep, the Supreme Court in Medellin changed a lot about how the US treats treaties. As I've said, I think that case was wrongly decided, and I think the execution may have an impact on our own citizens when accused of a crime abroad. And again, accusing somebody like me of bad faith, as you have several times in this thread now, doesn't help anything. It may make it easier for you to dismiss somebody else and feel smug and superior, but it does absolutely nothing to advance any debate or discussion.
Very good and fair question. Most likely the most that could happen would be to afford Leal a hearing to have him attempt to prove how the denial of being notified that he could contact the Mexican consulate prejudiced him. None of it would change his factual guilt. At most, he might have been able to convince an appellate court to vacate that sentence and get a new sentencing hearing (where he very well might have received the death penalty again).
Absolutely right. I don't think anybody, including me, has suggested that Leal should not be punished for his barbaric acts. However, rule of law can't be set aside even where factual guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. The Vienna Convention, which we have ratified, obliged us to inform a foreign national in Leal's position that he could notify his hone country's consulate. Imposing a capital punishment on Leal without regard to this convention IS a breach of our obligation under it. If you don't care (as the Texas state government has made clear), then very well. But there is an international obligation that we voluntarily took on and failed to obey here.
Well put, bc42gb43. You know what I find interesting here is that in this case, much effort was made to note that Leal was a Mexican citizen. If the dynamics of this case made it better for him not to be a Mexican citizen, how much effort would have been expended to say that he lived most of his life in the US, and just because he was born and spent 1.5 years of his life in Mexico, he should not be seen as a Mexican citizen?
What happened is in the books now, the US needs to move on, and I doubt this will have much of an impact on many cases for US citizens abroad. Most US citizens incarcerated in foreign countries are there for reasons other than murder, but I know cases exist; Knox for example. The SCOTUS said it like it is, you cannot apply laws that don't exist yet, or make a legal decision on what 'may be' in the future. The rule of law was followed in this case.
Fair enough, you're right there. I have no idea what Strel is talking about there, because I have never read anything that would throw Leal's factual guilt into the slightest doubt.
Yep, the Supreme Court in Medellin changed a lot about how the US treats treaties. As I've said, I think that case was wrongly decided, and I think the execution may have an impact on our own citizens when accused of a crime abroad. And again, accusing somebody like me of bad faith, as you have several times in this thread now, doesn't help anything. It may make it easier for you to dismiss somebody else and feel smug and superior, but it does absolutely nothing to advance any debate or discussion.
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 am upset with Congress for not acting on this. I'm also upset with Texas for not recognizing that their acts can have impact on our nationals abroad.
1. If you were in Mexico, and you raped and murdered a 16 year old mexican girl, you probably wouldn't MAKE it to trial, they would have found you strung up, either on the side of the road, or in your jail cell, EVEN IF you were in solitary confinement.
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.
This monster lived MANY years longer than he should have, and more than deserved his punishment. My ONLY complaint is his death was probably painless. He should have died by the same method he killed this young girl, raped and beaten.
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.
No different than Iran's policies.
Agree..
