• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Texas still plans to execute killer despite U.N. order

SgtRock said:
Its funny you should say this. I was arrested in Germany. I was treated fairly and was released to my commanding officer.
Click to expand...

Not talking about military personnel as they have special status for the most part depending on what country we are talking in.. talking about normal person with no immunity or anything.

If however I murdered 2 girls and was found guilty of the crime under German law I would expect to be punished according to said law. I do not believe it to be necessary to contact my consulate. When you go to a forgein country you should be expected to abide by the local laws. If you do not, to bad for you. Keep your ass out of countries where you don't belong.
Click to expand...

Maybe you believe that, but that's not what the US has been advocating for since before WW2. Consular rights for ones citizens has been a corner stone of international law for decades.

And again, we are talking about contacting the embassy of your country, and that has ZERO to do with being punished for what ever crime you have committed.

Of course you should be punished for crimes committed in your host country, that has never ever been at doubt, and is not at doubt with these Mexicans. The problem is pure and simple that the US is not living up to its international obligations (yet again one could say) based purely on some warped idea (or lack of idea) of a state or people on how to conduct international affairs.

And because they are not living up to their international obligations, not only are you risking the treatment of Americans in other countries, but you are also risking the total collapse of international law and treaties, which the US has fought wars to protect over the last 100 years.

Why should the rest of the world follow treaties and laws if the bastion of "law and order" cant be bothered to do it either? Ever heard of the moral high ground? And its even worse when the US quotes international laws and treaties against others, when it cant be bothered to follow others. Either you are part of the world community like everyone else, or you can isolate yourself like Burma.... no wait, even the Burmese follow this treaty..

And again no one is saying to not punish or try these men, not even the UN court.
 
SgtRock said:
What about the victims and there families? Don't they deserve justice? Do you suggest Texas turn the murderer over to Mexico? What happens when Mexico decides to purge there prison system and let this animal out on early parol? Something they do quite often. What if he murders again?

All people like you care about are the rights of criminals with no concern for the victims.

Medellin was givin a fare trial and found guilty. He took the life of two innocent girls. He should pay for his crime. To hell with the U.N. I am for abolising the U.N. all together.
Click to expand...

What tickles me about sentiments like this is that they have no basis in fact whatsoever and are brought on by some mad sense that an emotional explosion will somehow win an argument on a subject in which emotion has no legitimate place whatsoever.

I defy you to point to any post in this thread where anybody said:
  1. The victims and their families don't deserve justice
  2. Texas should turn the murderer over to Mexico
  3. The accused should be given leave to murder anyone else
  4. Medellin wasn't given a fair trial
  5. Medellin wasn't guilty
  6. Medellin shouldn't pay for his crime
The fact is that you can't, because nobody said anything of the sort. Of course, that doesn't stop you from trumpeting your straw-man argument at the (figurative) top of your (proverbial) lungs, does it?

In fact, even among those who aren't bitching and moaning about the Court's decision, I don't see a single person saying the UN "has jurisdiction" per se only that the UN is right to ask us to take a moment to respect international law as we have demanded others do for the past few decades.

Why do you feel it is appropriate and necessary to cheapen a legitimate argument about rights and treaties and so forth with some second-rate emotional drum-beating? Why do you consider it a legitimate debate tactic to demonize your opponent simply because they disagree with you? How do you feel that either practice, in any way shape or form, lends credibility to a single solitary word that you say?

Since when did the rights of victims and the rights of the accused become mutually exclusive? They aren't, and never have been. That is the sole purpose for which any legitimate court exists -- to make sure that the rights of all parties involved in any dispute are respected and upheld.

Could you please, please do everybody involved in this discussion a favor and base your arguments on logic and respond to what people are actually saying rather than resorting to cheap ploys, emotional appeals and straw-men?

Kthxbai.
 
Tashah said:
Source: US Department of State


Source: US Bureau of Consular Affairs
Click to expand...


That's all well and good but Mexico cannot be trusted to punish these animals.

I am no supporter of the corrupt, blood thristy redneck government of Texas; however, I am NOT in favor of doing ANYTHING that would possibly allow two baby killers to be freed in their homeland.

**** THAT ****!!!

Texas has long been a corrupt murderous state that would still be executing mentally retarded people if not for a federal law that prevents it.

That being said .... allowing these animals to go home and get a pat on the head and quick release ... IS UNACCEPTABLE!

:mrgreen:
 
Vader said:
That's all well and good but Mexico cannot be trusted to punish these animals.

I am no supporter of the corrupt, blood thristy redneck government of Texas; however, I am NOT in favor of doing ANYTHING that would possibly allow two baby killers to be freed in their homeland.

**** THAT ****!!!

Texas has long been a corrupt murderous state that would still be executing mentally retarded people if not for a federal law that prevents it.

That being said .... allowing these animals to go home and get a pat on the head and quick release ... IS UNACCEPTABLE!

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Please point out any poster in this thread who said either that Mexico should be entrusted with the punishment of this man, or that he should be returned to his homeland.

:mrgreen:
 
Sol

"SOL"
Tashah said:
Source: US Department of State
Source: US Bureau of Consular Affairs
Click to expand...
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (ln)
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 (Medellín v. Texas [2]).
Click to expand...

AFP, via Tribune de Geneve en ligne, Mar. 10, 2005 - WASHINGTON, March 10 (AFP) - The United States has withdrawn from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights ... (ln)
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Please point out any poster in this thread who said either that Mexico should be entrusted with the punishment of this man, or that he should be returned to his homeland.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...


What you fail to realize is that if he is returned to his country ... the corrupt mexican government WILL set him free. They will do it just to piss off the American government.

On that you may rely.... Therefore, what I said not only applies ... but is relevent and on point.

:mrgreen:
 
quatrotritikali said:
The U.S. is NOT in breach of any intl. obligations in this matter. Anyone visiting the U.S. from abroad is protected by U.S. law...and also must abide by U.S. laws. However, foreign citizens are not protected by any intl. laws or UN or World Courts
Click to expand...
The US is not party to any treaty regarding the World court, the ICJ or the ICC. Thus, their pronouncements mean nothing to the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom