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

[quatrotritikali]

Texas still plans to execute killer despite U.N. order
July 17, 2008, 9:32AM
By ALLAN TURNER and ROSANNA RUIZ


Texas will go ahead with the scheduled Aug. 5 execution of Houston rapist-killer Jose Medellin despite Wednesday's United Nations world court order for a stay, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry said.

The U.N.'s International Court of Justice's call for stays in the cases of Medellin and four other Mexican nationals awaiting execution in Texas came in response to a petition filed last month by the Mexican government.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations stipulates that, upon request, an alien offender's national consulate must be notified of his arrest.

The Mexican government reasons that "the paramount interest in human life is at stake," according to the court's order. If Medellin and the other nationals are executed without additional court reviews, "Mexico would forever be deprived of the opportunity to vindicate its rights and those of the nationals concerned."

Perry's office dismissed the argument.

"The world court has no standing in Texas and Texas is not bound by a ruling or edict from a foreign court," Perry spokesman Robert Black said. "It is easy to get caught up in discussions of international law and justice and treaties. It's very important to remember that these individuals are on death row for killing our citizens."

But international law expert Sarah Cleveland, a professor of human and constitutional rights at New York City's Columbia Law School, said if the U.S. fails to act on the world court order, other countries may follow suit.

"This can only come back to hurt U.S. citizens when they are detained abroad," she wrote in an e-mail. " ... When a global leader like the U.S. refuses to comply with its clear international legal obligations (and everyone agrees that this is a clear legal obligation), it undermines the willingness of other states to comply with their own obligations and it inspires them not to trust us to obey ours."


Deadly gang initiation
Medellin, 33, was condemned for the 1993 killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 16, who stumbled into a drunken midnight gang initiation rite at T.C. Jester Park in northwest Houston.

One of Medellin's accomplices, Derrick O'Brien, was executed in July 2006. Also sentenced to die is gang leader Peter Anthony Cantu. Three other accomplices are serving prison sentences. Medellin was the only non-American involved in the murders.

Wednesday's U.N. court decision in The Hague, Netherlands, was the latest development in an ongoing legal wrangle that has involved President Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Mexican government.

In 2004, the U.N. court ordered a review of the cases of 51 Mexican nationals facing execution in the United States because they had not been allowed to speak with their nation's consular officials.

In February 2005, Bush directed state courts to abide by the U.N. court decision, specifically asking Texas to review Medellin's case.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush had overstepped his authority. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president cannot order such court reviews without congressional concurrence.

The United States, they wrote, continues to be bound by the world court's decision under international law.

Girls' fathers adamant

Meanwhile, Randy Ertman, father of Jennifer Ertman, hotly denounced the world court's order for stays.

"The world court don't mean diddly," he said. "This business belongs in the state of Texas. The people of the state of Texas support the execution. We thank them. The rest of them can go to hell."

Adolfo Peña, father of Elizabeth Peña, agreed.

"I believe we've been through all the red tape we can go through," he said. "It's time to rock and roll."
======================================================

CHRONOLOGY

• March 31, 2004: The United Nation's International Court of Justice issued an order that U.S. courts must review the cases of 51 condemned Mexican prisoners. The court ruled the prisoners' rights to speak with Mexican consular officials after their arrests had been violated.

• Feb. 28, 2005 : President Bush directed state courts to abide by the world court's decision. He also asked Texas specifically to review the case of Jose Medellin, now scheduled to die by lethal injection Aug. 5.

• March 25, 2008 : The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush could not compel Texas to review Medellin's case. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president cannot unilaterally carry out an international treaty without concurrence of the legislative branch.

• June 20: The Mexican government made an emergency appeal to the U.N.'s highest court to block the executions of its citizens on death row in the U.S.

• July 16 : The world court ordered the U.S. to halt the five pending executions of Mexican nationals on Texas' death row.

WORLD COURT

Some facts about the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court:
• Established: 1945

• Location: The Hague, Netherlands

• Role: Judicial arm of the United Nations.

• Decisions: Binding on member countries. No appeal, the court cannot enforce judgments.

• Justices: 15 justices, each elected to nine-year terms by the U.N. General Assembly or the U.N. Security Council.

• Lawsuits: Court acts on matters brought by member states; individuals cannot bring suits.

Source: New York Times Almanac====================================================

Great! The World Court "orders" the United States to halt the Texas executions? Orders us? WTF? Far too late in the game to order Texas.

 

[danarhea]

Texas still plans to execute killer despite U.N. order
July 17, 2008, 9:32AM
By ALLAN TURNER and ROSANNA RUIZ


Texas will go ahead with the scheduled Aug. 5 execution of Houston rapist-killer Jose Medellin despite Wednesday's United Nations world court order for a stay, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry said.

The U.N.'s International Court of Justice's call for stays in the cases of Medellin and four other Mexican nationals awaiting execution in Texas came in response to a petition filed last month by the Mexican government.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations stipulates that, upon request, an alien offender's national consulate must be notified of his arrest.

The Mexican government reasons that "the paramount interest in human life is at stake," according to the court's order. If Medellin and the other nationals are executed without additional court reviews, "Mexico would forever be deprived of the opportunity to vindicate its rights and those of the nationals concerned."

Perry's office dismissed the argument.

"The world court has no standing in Texas and Texas is not bound by a ruling or edict from a foreign court," Perry spokesman Robert Black said. "It is easy to get caught up in discussions of international law and justice and treaties. It's very important to remember that these individuals are on death row for killing our citizens."

But international law expert Sarah Cleveland, a professor of human and constitutional rights at New York City's Columbia Law School, said if the U.S. fails to act on the world court order, other countries may follow suit.

"This can only come back to hurt U.S. citizens when they are detained abroad," she wrote in an e-mail. " ... When a global leader like the U.S. refuses to comply with its clear international legal obligations (and everyone agrees that this is a clear legal obligation), it undermines the willingness of other states to comply with their own obligations and it inspires them not to trust us to obey ours."


Deadly gang initiation
Medellin, 33, was condemned for the 1993 killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 16, who stumbled into a drunken midnight gang initiation rite at T.C. Jester Park in northwest Houston.

One of Medellin's accomplices, Derrick O'Brien, was executed in July 2006. Also sentenced to die is gang leader Peter Anthony Cantu. Three other accomplices are serving prison sentences. Medellin was the only non-American involved in the murders.

Wednesday's U.N. court decision in The Hague, Netherlands, was the latest development in an ongoing legal wrangle that has involved President Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Mexican government.

In 2004, the U.N. court ordered a review of the cases of 51 Mexican nationals facing execution in the United States because they had not been allowed to speak with their nation's consular officials.

In February 2005, Bush directed state courts to abide by the U.N. court decision, specifically asking Texas to review Medellin's case.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush had overstepped his authority. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president cannot order such court reviews without congressional concurrence.

The United States, they wrote, continues to be bound by the world court's decision under international law.

Girls' fathers adamant

Meanwhile, Randy Ertman, father of Jennifer Ertman, hotly denounced the world court's order for stays.

"The world court don't mean diddly," he said. "This business belongs in the state of Texas. The people of the state of Texas support the execution. We thank them. The rest of them can go to hell."

Adolfo Peña, father of Elizabeth Peña, agreed.

"I believe we've been through all the red tape we can go through," he said. "It's time to rock and roll."
======================================================

CHRONOLOGY

• March 31, 2004: The United Nation's International Court of Justice issued an order that U.S. courts must review the cases of 51 condemned Mexican prisoners. The court ruled the prisoners' rights to speak with Mexican consular officials after their arrests had been violated.

• Feb. 28, 2005 : President Bush directed state courts to abide by the world court's decision. He also asked Texas specifically to review the case of Jose Medellin, now scheduled to die by lethal injection Aug. 5.

• March 25, 2008 : The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush could not compel Texas to review Medellin's case. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president cannot unilaterally carry out an international treaty without concurrence of the legislative branch.

• June 20: The Mexican government made an emergency appeal to the U.N.'s highest court to block the executions of its citizens on death row in the U.S.

• July 16 : The world court ordered the U.S. to halt the five pending executions of Mexican nationals on Texas' death row.

WORLD COURT

Some facts about the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court:
• Established: 1945

• Location: The Hague, Netherlands

• Role: Judicial arm of the United Nations.

• Decisions: Binding on member countries. No appeal, the court cannot enforce judgments.

• Justices: 15 justices, each elected to nine-year terms by the U.N. General Assembly or the U.N. Security Council.

• Lawsuits: Court acts on matters brought by member states; individuals cannot bring suits.

Source: New York Times Almanac====================================================

Great! The World Court "orders" the United States to halt the Texas executions? Orders us? WTF? Far too late in the game to order Texas.

Screw the UN. This punk raped and murdered two teenage girls.

 

[rathi]

This is an exercise in stupidity. Why didn't we just let these guys speak with their consular office? It costs us nothing, and its important for American citizens to have that right when they face criminal charges abroad. On the other hand, if you murder on American citizen you face the penalty for the crime. I'd rather not waste money on the death penalty, but these men were tried in a U.S. court and should face its verdict.

 

[Iriemon]

I'm on the fence. I guess the question is do we want other countries to permit US citizens accused of crimes to allow them to contact US consulates and have the UN Intl Nat'l court of justice have the ability to review. I'm sure if I was arrested in some podunk country I would.

What kind of review are they talking about and how would it take?

 

[jamesrage]

Texas still plans to execute killer despite U.N. order
July 17, 2008, 9:32AM
By ALLAN TURNER and ROSANNA RUIZ


Texas will go ahead with the scheduled Aug. 5 execution of Houston rapist-killer Jose Medellin despite Wednesday's United Nations world court order for a stay, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry said.

The U.N.'s International Court of Justice's call for stays in the cases of Medellin and four other Mexican nationals awaiting execution in Texas came in response to a petition filed last month by the Mexican government.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations stipulates that, upon request, an alien offender's national consulate must be notified of his arrest.

The Mexican government reasons that "the paramount interest in human life is at stake," according to the court's order. If Medellin and the other nationals are executed without additional court reviews, "Mexico would forever be deprived of the opportunity to vindicate its rights and those of the nationals concerned."

Perry's office dismissed the argument.

"The world court has no standing in Texas and Texas is not bound by a ruling or edict from a foreign court," Perry spokesman Robert Black said. "It is easy to get caught up in discussions of international law and justice and treaties. It's very important to remember that these individuals are on death row for killing our citizens."

But international law expert Sarah Cleveland, a professor of human and constitutional rights at New York City's Columbia Law School, said if the U.S. fails to act on the world court order, other countries may follow suit.

"This can only come back to hurt U.S. citizens when they are detained abroad," she wrote in an e-mail. " ... When a global leader like the U.S. refuses to comply with its clear international legal obligations (and everyone agrees that this is a clear legal obligation), it undermines the willingness of other states to comply with their own obligations and it inspires them not to trust us to obey ours."


Deadly gang initiation
Medellin, 33, was condemned for the 1993 killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 16, who stumbled into a drunken midnight gang initiation rite at T.C. Jester Park in northwest Houston.

One of Medellin's accomplices, Derrick O'Brien, was executed in July 2006. Also sentenced to die is gang leader Peter Anthony Cantu. Three other accomplices are serving prison sentences. Medellin was the only non-American involved in the murders.

Wednesday's U.N. court decision in The Hague, Netherlands, was the latest development in an ongoing legal wrangle that has involved President Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Mexican government.

In 2004, the U.N. court ordered a review of the cases of 51 Mexican nationals facing execution in the United States because they had not been allowed to speak with their nation's consular officials.

In February 2005, Bush directed state courts to abide by the U.N. court decision, specifically asking Texas to review Medellin's case.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush had overstepped his authority. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president cannot order such court reviews without congressional concurrence.

The United States, they wrote, continues to be bound by the world court's decision under international law.

Girls' fathers adamant

Meanwhile, Randy Ertman, father of Jennifer Ertman, hotly denounced the world court's order for stays.

"The world court don't mean diddly," he said. "This business belongs in the state of Texas. The people of the state of Texas support the execution. We thank them. The rest of them can go to hell."

Adolfo Peña, father of Elizabeth Peña, agreed.

"I believe we've been through all the red tape we can go through," he said. "It's time to rock and roll."
======================================================

CHRONOLOGY

• March 31, 2004: The United Nation's International Court of Justice issued an order that U.S. courts must review the cases of 51 condemned Mexican prisoners. The court ruled the prisoners' rights to speak with Mexican consular officials after their arrests had been violated.

• Feb. 28, 2005 : President Bush directed state courts to abide by the world court's decision. He also asked Texas specifically to review the case of Jose Medellin, now scheduled to die by lethal injection Aug. 5.

• March 25, 2008 : The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush could not compel Texas to review Medellin's case. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president cannot unilaterally carry out an international treaty without concurrence of the legislative branch.

• June 20: The Mexican government made an emergency appeal to the U.N.'s highest court to block the executions of its citizens on death row in the U.S.

• July 16 : The world court ordered the U.S. to halt the five pending executions of Mexican nationals on Texas' death row.

WORLD COURT

Some facts about the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court:
• Established: 1945

• Location: The Hague, Netherlands

• Role: Judicial arm of the United Nations.

• Decisions: Binding on member countries. No appeal, the court cannot enforce judgments.

• Justices: 15 justices, each elected to nine-year terms by the U.N. General Assembly or the U.N. Security Council.

• Lawsuits: Court acts on matters brought by member states; individuals cannot bring suits.

Source: New York Times Almanac====================================================

Great! The World Court "orders" the United States to halt the Texas executions? Orders us? WTF? Far too late in the game to order Texas.

Anyone who calls them self an American should support what Texas is doing no foreign court should have jurisdiction on US soil.

 

[jamesrage]

I'm on the fence. I guess the question is do we want other countries to permit US citizens accused of crimes to allow them to contact US consulates and have the UN Intl Nat'l court of justice have the ability to review. I'm sure if I was arrested in some podunk country I would.

What kind of review are they talking about and how would it take?

If the situation was revered and it was a bunch of Americans who raped and murdered some innocent people in some other country. I would support that country punishing those individual however they see fit regardless if they want to let them have access to a US consulate or not, especially if some of our citizens were over there illegally to begin with. If a country has a history of executing and jailing Americans for petty stuff then we can ban American travel to that country or require those going to that country to sign a enter at your own risk waiver.

 

[Goobieman]

"The world court has no standing in Texas and Texas is not bound by a ruling or edict from a foreign court," Perry spokesman Robert Black said. "It is easy to get caught up in discussions of international law and justice and treaties. It's very important to remember that these individuals are on death row for killing our citizens."

Exactly correct.
TX law is not subject to the whim of the UN and the World Court.

 

[obvious Child]

Since when did our law system become beholden to the UN?

 

[Ethereal]

This isn't about national sovereignty, it's about protecting the interests of Americans abroad. If we expect other countries to honor this stipulation then it makes no sense for us to ignore it. These men will be executed regardless, so I see no reason not to abide by the UN's request.

If the situation was revered and it was a bunch of Americans who raped and murdered some innocent people in some other country. I would support that country punishing those individual however they see fit regardless if they want to let them have access to a US consulate or not, especially if some of our citizens were over there illegally to begin with.

To consign Americans to the mercy of foreign justice systems, much of them which are bereft of objectivity, transparency, and competancy, is utter nonsense.

If a country has a history of executing and jailing Americans for petty stuff then we can ban American travel to that country or require those going to that country to sign a enter at your own risk waiver.

Unless these measures were taken before the fact I do not see a corrupt government's sovereignty as a valid excuse to murder one of our citizens.

 

[cherokee]

At first I wanted to say "Bring out the Electric Chair."




But if the father(s) of the girls are anything
like me I say turn them over to them.




Yes, yes I know I'll never win a Humanitarian Award.
I don't want one.

 

[PeteEU]

The US is in breach of its international obligations and should be ashamed. Every person visiting the US (legal or illegal) is protected by not only US law, but also international laws, that the US has signed and ratified. That is how civilization works.

What Texas is doing is not only pissing on long standing international laws and agreements, that the US have promoted time and time again to defend its own citizens in other countries, but also basicly pissing on the federal system of the US. What's the next international agreement that Texas intends to ignore? nuclear non-proliferation treaty? How about the agreement on human rights? Or the treaty for women's rights?

Or is it just that these Mexicans are in fact.. Mexicans and the current climate in the US is very anti Latino (especially among the right), that its okay? I know of a Dane years ago being held in Texas did have access to the Danish Embassy, so why the freaking difference all of a sudden?

The UN has no jurisdiction over Texas or anyone.. never had and never will. The UN is a place for countries settle international incidents and in this case the International Court was used and the ruling was 100% correct. Its up to the Bush Administration to slap Texas over the hands and make them behave to international law, but some how I doubt that they will.

But I am guessing no one here is willing to actually discuss the implications as the big boogy words "UN World Court" have been mentioned, and that this thread, like very other UN thread, will degenerate into an anti UN, anti World, anti Europe and probably labelling everyone not agreeing with the Texan stand point as terrorists.

In short Texas is wrong in what it has done, as it should have given these Mexicans access to their Embassy. Texas is 100% correct to charge and convict and punish them, but not giving access to Embassy official's was a breach of international agreements that the US has signed and promoted.

 

[winston53660]

Or is it just that these Mexicans are in fact.. Mexicans and the current climate in the US is very anti Latino (especially among the right), that its okay? I know of a Dane years ago being held in Texas did have access to the Danish Embassy, so why the freaking difference all of a sudden?

.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm posting from Texas BTW.

 

[DeeJayH]

texas ****ed up
should have let him see his consulate
but i am not among the nimrods who think it was denied because he was latino

btw Pete did the dane rape murder 2 kids?

 

[quatrotritikali]

This isn't about national sovereignty, it's about protecting the interests of Americans abroad. If we expect other countries to honor this stipulation then it makes no sense for us to ignore it. These men will be executed regardless, so I see no reason not to abide by the UN's request.

Oh, so you're an appeaser...a capitulator. :roll: It is just such people who are the most dangerous to freedom, independence, and democracy.

 

[PeteEU]

texas ****ed up
should have let him see his consulate
but i am not among the nimrods who think it was denied because he was latino

btw Pete did the dane rape murder 2 kids?

No smuggled a few tons of cocaine but as a principle the crime should not matter at all. Whether its a speeding ticket or mass murder, a non US citizen has per international treaties which the US has signed and defended the right to contact his embassy.

 

[quatrotritikali]

The US is in breach of its international obligations and should be ashamed. Every person visiting the US (legal or illegal) is protected by not only US law, but also international laws, that the US has signed and ratified. That is how civilization works.

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. The World Court/UN Court laws are reserved for those people charged with international crimes, such as genocide, mass murders, certain other war acts, etc. These "criminals" are then charged and brought up before the World Court to answer for their crimes against humanity....

The UN has no jurisdiction over Texas or anyone.. never had and never will. The UN is a place for countries settle international incidents and in this case the International Court was used and the ruling was 100% correct. Its up to the Bush Administration to slap Texas over the hands and make them behave to international law, but some how I doubt that they will.

Correct...the UN has no jurisdiction over Texas or any other state. The International Court was not used in this case. The American Justice System was used to try and convict these two men. Crimes they knew were illegal. Crimes carried out on U.S. soil and against U.S. citizens. If this had been Singapore...I doubt there would be any serious talk of the upcoming executions. Singapore is tough on crime and they don't play these games.

In short Texas is wrong in what it has done, as it should have given these Mexicans access to their Embassy. Texas is 100% correct to charge and convict and punish them, but not giving access to Embassy official's was a breach of international agreements that the US has signed and promoted.

The illegal Mexicans had plenty of opportunity of reaching the Mexican Embassy before they were apprehended for their crimes. They should have sought protection before their arrests, not after the fact.

 

[PeteEU]

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. The World Court/UN Court laws are reserved for those people charged with international crimes, such as genocide, mass murders, certain other war acts, etc. These "criminals" are then charged and brought up before the World Court to answer for their crimes against humanity....

You have zero clue about what you are talking about. The court has nothing to do with crimes against humanity. Its a court system put in place at the founding of the UN, to solve legal disputes between countries, legal disputes based on treaties and agreements made in the UN. You are thinking about the International Criminal Court.

The US has signed the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (in fact was one of its main backers), and it's in this that states that the US (and other countries) are required to inform the persons embassy about the persons arrest and charges. There is no if's or buts and the US has not pulled out of this part.

The only thing the US is not part off, as it pulled out of that part in 2005, is the part that states that the International Court of Justice has compulsory jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Convention. This has been a US tactic since the Reagan years, pulling out of any and all treaties that had methods to force the US to abide by said treaties. Basicly the US, from Reagan and now under Bush is trying to have its cake without gaining weight. But like it or not, the US and in this case Texas is in breach of the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations when they did not notify the Mexican Embassy of the arrests.

On top of that the US Supreme Court has ruled that evidence in a case, can not be thrown out due to not living up to this convention and that the US can only see rulings from the International Court of Justice as non binding, which is just fine. No one is disputing the rulings per say. At best they are disputing the death penalty, but that's another issue frankly which is long standing with most of the world and the US (Iran, Saudi Arabia and so). What the court has ruled is that the US is in breach of its obligations and that this breach could have had a negative impact on the out come of the trial and this should be put into consideration. And frankly they are right. Who knows what kind of lawyer they could have gotten if the Mexican embassy was notified about their arrests? We all know that the US court system is based on how good your lawyer is and how much money you have, not always about truth and justice. But that's not saying that they did not get a fair trial, just that protocol on the issue was not followed.

Correct...the UN has no jurisdiction over Texas or any other state. The International Court was not used in this case. The American Justice System was used to try and convict these two men. Crimes they knew were illegal. Crimes carried out on U.S. soil and against U.S. citizens. If this had been Singapore...I doubt there would be any serious talk of the upcoming executions. Singapore is tough on crime and they don't play these games.

And its not been about the crimes. I have no doubt that these scumbags are guilty as hell (even with the so called Texan justice system), but it does not remove the fact that the US and Texas are in breach of a treaty they backed for 40 years as a cornerstone of international law.

The illegal Mexicans had plenty of opportunity of reaching the Mexican Embassy before they were apprehended for their crimes. They should have sought protection before their arrests, not after the fact.

Again you have zero clue about what you are talking about. Your feelings are getting in the way of cold hard facts. And frankly the xenophobia of the US is clearly showing in this case.. and it has gotten worse and worse the last decade under Bush.

 

[Tashah]

Foreign nationals arrested in the US (or anywhere) have the legal right to contact their embassy/consular officials. It is the responsibility of each sovereign government to make the arrangements for and to provide such access. This same legal protection applies to all US citizens arrested abroad.

Texas demonstrated poor judgement and has set a very bad precident by ignoring this international obligation. Even Dubya - not known for his fondness of international treaties and conventions - recognizes the vital importance of the mutuality inherent in this particular obligation and legal safeguard.

 

[Dezaad]

This is just another instance of our citizenry's diminishing ability to objectively assess any of the trade-offs that form a huge part of reality.

Americans can't even seem to understand that there is a trade-off between having low tax rates and high levels of government services. This is evidenced by our seeming willingness to listen to politicians who promise to cut taxes and increase spending when the result of such policies is for deficits to increase. This trade-off requires very little in the way of sophistication in order to be seen, yet it seems to be lost on most of us.

I have little hope that we will have the objectivity to see that we are in fact party to treaties that do obligate the State of Texas. Nor do I have hope that we will have the wit to understand that it is in our own citizen's interest for the U.S. to be party to these treaties.

I hope that we do not embarrass ourselves further with our knee-jerk backwater resistance to "furreners at the yooo eyun'.

 

[SgtRock]

The US is in breach of its international obligations and should be ashamed. Every person visiting the US (legal or illegal) is protected by not only US law, but also international laws, that the US has signed and ratified. That is how civilization works.

What Texas is doing is not only pissing on long standing international laws and agreements, that the US have promoted time and time again to defend its own citizens in other countries, but also basicly pissing on the federal system of the US. What's the next international agreement that Texas intends to ignore? nuclear non-proliferation treaty? How about the agreement on human rights? Or the treaty for women's rights?

Or is it just that these Mexicans are in fact.. Mexicans and the current climate in the US is very anti Latino (especially among the right), that its okay? I know of a Dane years ago being held in Texas did have access to the Danish Embassy, so why the freaking difference all of a sudden?

The UN has no jurisdiction over Texas or anyone.. never had and never will. The UN is a place for countries settle international incidents and in this case the International Court was used and the ruling was 100% correct. Its up to the Bush Administration to slap Texas over the hands and make them behave to international law, but some how I doubt that they will.

But I am guessing no one here is willing to actually discuss the implications as the big boogy words "UN World Court" have been mentioned, and that this thread, like very other UN thread, will degenerate into an anti UN, anti World, anti Europe and probably labelling everyone not agreeing with the Texan stand point as terrorists.

In short Texas is wrong in what it has done, as it should have given these Mexicans access to their Embassy. Texas is 100% correct to charge and convict and punish them, but not giving access to Embassy official's was a breach of international agreements that the US has signed and promoted.

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.

 

[SgtRock]

This is just another instance of our citizenry's diminishing ability to objectively assess any of the trade-offs that form a huge part of reality.

Americans can't even seem to understand that there is a trade-off between having low tax rates and high levels of government services. This is evidenced by our seeming willingness to listen to politicians who promise to cut taxes and increase spending when the result of such policies is for deficits to increase. This trade-off requires very little in the way of sophistication in order to be seen, yet it seems to be lost on most of us.

I have little hope that we will have the objectivity to see that we are in fact party to treaties that do obligate the State of Texas. Nor do I have hope that we will have the wit to understand that it is in our own citizen's interest for the U.S. to be party to these treaties.

I hope that we do not embarrass ourselves further with our knee-jerk backwater resistance to "furreners at the yooo eyun'.

What is your solution? Should we spit on the families of the victims and deny justice? Should we turn Medellin over to a corrupt Mexican government? What is your solution?

 

[PeteEU]

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?

Where on earth have even suggested that? Show me where I stated or even hinted that they should be released or handed over to Mexico?

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

And where have I said this?

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.

And you here show us that you have zero clue on what the whole issue is about.

Okay, how about this.. You go to the Germany (or similar), and get arrested for a crime (that you may or may not have committed) but the locals refuse to contact your embassy so you can get help. That would be okay for you?

 

[Tashah]

ASSISTANCE TO U.S. CITIZENS ARRESTED ABROAD

SUMMARY: One of the most essential tasks of the Department of State and of U.S. embassies and consulates abroad is to provide assistance to U.S. citizens incarcerated abroad. The State Department is committed to ensuring fair and humane treatment for American citizens imprisoned overseas. We stand ready to assist incarcerated citizens and their families within the limits of our authority, in accordance with international law. We can and do monitor conditions in foreign prisons and immediately protest allegations of abuse against American prisoners. We work with prison officials to ensure treatment consistent with internationally recognized standards of human rights and to ensure that Americans are afforded due process under local laws.

CONSULAR ACCESS TO PRISONERS: Article 36(a) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, 21 UST 77, TIAS 6820, 596 UNST 261, a multilateral treaty to which many, but not all, countries are party provides that consular officers shall be free to communicate with their nationals and to have access to them. However, Article 36(b) provides that the foreign authorities shall inform the consular officer or the arrest of a national "without delay" (no time frame specified), if the national requests such notification. Bilateral Consular Conventions between the United States and individual countries are more specific, requiring notification, regardless of whether the arrested person requests it, and generally specifying the time period in which such notification is to be made. When there is no treaty in force, notification and access are based on comity and largely dependent on whether the two countries have diplomatic relations.

Consular services include:

Upon initial notification of arrest:

- visiting the prisoner as soon as possible after notification of the arrest;

- providing a list of local attorneys to assist the prisoner obtain legal representation;

- providing information about judicial procedures in the foreign country;

- notifying family and/or friends, if authorized by the prisoner;

- obtaining a Privacy Act Consent;

- relaying requests to family and friends for money or other aid;

Source: US Department of State

Prisoner Transfer Treaties

Q. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME IN ONE COUNTRY TO BE TRANSFERRED TO HIS/HER HOME COUNTRY WHERE HE/SHE WILL SERVE THE REMAINDER OF HIS/HER SENTENCE?

A. Yes. Under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. §§ 4100-4115) foreign nationals convicted of a crime in the United States, and United States citizens or nationals convicted of a crime in a foreign country, may apply for a prisoner transfer to their home country if a treaty providing for such transfer is in force between the United States and the foreign country involved.

Q. WHAT COUNTRIES DOES THE UNITED STATES HAVE PRISONER TRANSFER TREATIES WITH AT PRESENT?

A. The United States has 12 bilateral prisoner transfer treaties in force in Bolivia, Canada, France, Hong Kong S.A.R., Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Palau, Panama, Peru, Thailand and Turkey.

Source: US Bureau of Consular Affairs

 

[Dezaad]

What is your solution? Should we spit on the families of the victims and deny justice? Should we turn Medellin over to a corrupt Mexican government? What is your solution?

Abide by our obligations. Be people of our word. Here is what I envision happening:

1. The executions are delayed.
2. The Mexican consulate is provided with the necessary information to conduct their reviews of the situations and to inform whomever they wish of what actions they intend to take.
3. Perhaps some additional legal wrangling will result, especially if the Mexican government can show some reason why their not being informed casts some doubt on the guilt of the men.
4. Texas will finally execute the men.

I view this issue as largely procedural. It could (there is a small chance)result in the men being returned to Mexico, but I highly doubt they would simply be set free there. That is not in the Mexican people's interest, and they know it. It is my understanding that there are legal avenues that would prevent their being simply set free there, if they were returned.

I could ask you the same thing in reverse: What would you say a few years from now to a family whose plausibly innocent son is being held in a foreign country? Please understand that I mean a hypothetical country who would be using this case as their rationale for not abiding by agreements they made to us under these same treaties. This is certainly not far-fetched... after all, we do have many many thousands of Americans who enter Mexico each year.

Please understand that I think both your question and mine are erroneous in that the intent of asking them is to evoke emotional, rather than reasoned, decision making. Such decision making is short-sighted and in the medium and longer term reduces, rather than increases, justice.

You seem to think that if the Texas governor capitulates, no justice will be done upon these criminals. Can you cite in the article, or in some other article, where this is indicated?

 

[SgtRock]

Where on earth have even suggested that? Show me where I stated or even hinted that they should be released or handed over to Mexico?



And where have I said this?



And you here show us that you have zero clue on what the whole issue is about.

Okay, how about this.. You go to the Germany (or similar), and get arrested for a crime (that you may or may not have committed) but the locals refuse to contact your embassy so you can get help. That would be okay for you?

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

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.