Yes, I have read the entire treaty, the SCOTUS opinion, the ICJ opinion on the matter, and the United States Constitution...
Any more questions?
The United States signed and ratified the treaty. Thus, the United States, under international law, is required to abide by the provisions of that. This tenant of international law PRECEDES by centuries the existance of the United Nations. As for the 'self-execution' doctrine, it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. is bound to abide by the terms of the treaty and thus, the US is CLEARLY in violation of its treaty obligations. Also, this 'self-execution' doctrine is idiotic. The Constitution is VERY CLEAR on the supremacy of treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. A nonsensical decision by SCOTUS.
Just out of curiousity...beyond reading a few lines in a newspaper article (if people actually bothered to read the article) does anyone actually KNOW what the treaty entails, how it applies...or even IF it applies?
Dood raped and killed a 16 year old. You REALLY need more than that?
Bla h blah blah let the killer go cause oh some murdering rapist Mexican didn't get told he could call the Mexican Consulate after being arrested.
NEVER MIND the devastated family, the dead girl or the fact said killer entered another country without tally or clue of his rights and decided to commit murder...
I say you enter another country, commit murder and have no clue what your "rights" are, you get what's coming to you.
yes, i do
that criminal is going to be incarcerated/killed in my name as an American citizen
and i really need to know that the due processes of law were followed to assure he - or anyone else - received a fair trial
our nation agreed to an international treaty asserting that aliens would be entitled to counsel from their home nation
there is no good reason why such counsel should be denied to those indicted aliens
just as there is no good reason why Americans arrested abroad should not be accorded access to American counsel
but this action by tejas could, by its precedent, undermine that American right to American representation abroad
Well...yes actually. Bravo-right off the top...not a question but welll done. My guess is that if you can honestly state that you are one of the few. Now. Since you have read all those things and there are opinions (emphasis on 'opinions' because hey...here we are with Texas still proceeding, so obviously their 'opinion differs') on the subject of treaties relative to the Geneva Convention, then 1-did you read them because of this thread, and 2-do youside with 'opinions' based solely on your pre-existing beliefs? Oh...Im sure there are other questions (since from what I have read there appears to be significant differing opinions from people that are actually legal scholars) but we can start there. Again..Kudos for actually reading the article.
To my earlier point.
YOU have the expertise and legal backing to declare the SCOTUS was wrong. You SURE there isnt at least a LITTLE bit of bias there?
The U.S. is under no obligation to honor any treaty involving countries that routinely ignore said treaties.
If the guy were Dutch or English or someone from a country deserving of such considerations, I would say yeah, why not let them see their consulate Go Fers?
That is not the case with Mexico or a hundred or so other countries. They do not rate considerations like these, especially re their illegal alien criminals.
Do you have any evidence that Mexico denies U.S. Citizens consular acces or are you blowing smoke?
that they seek a commutation of sentence is not a request which has to be abidedHorse****. If it wasnt for the death penalty attachment this wouldnt be a story and you wouldnt know his name. If/when they commute his sentence to life no one is going to care or give him a second thought.
but for the intervention of the American consulate - which representation and actions were excellent - my friend would still be down there wasting away in some dreary mexican prisonBTW...how does mejico treat their illegals? Do they follow treaties? Ever read anything on their southern border and how others are treated there? Do they get to meet their consulate?
and he should be properly tried under American law ... which provides for his access to mexican counsel. process which was denied to himDood came to America, lived as a citizen, raped and killed a 16 year old. No indication he wasnt mirandized or given the same rights as any US citizen.
The United States signed and ratified the treaty. Thus, the United States, under international law, is required to abide by the provisions of that. This tenant of international law PRECEDES by centuries the existance of the United Nations. As for the 'self-execution' doctrine, it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. is bound to abide by the terms of the treaty and thus, the US is CLEARLY in violation of its treaty obligations. Also, this 'self-execution' doctrine is idiotic. The Constitution is VERY CLEAR on the supremacy of treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. A nonsensical decision by SCOTUS.
Horse****. If it wasnt for the death penalty attachment this wouldnt be a story and you wouldnt know his name.
If/when they commute his sentence to life no one is going to care or give him a second thought.
Was he informed of his right? U.S. citizens are required to be informed of their rights via the Miranda Warning. This treaty provides such rights for foreign nationals. Nice try though...
Did you read Article VI of the Constitution? It is VERY clear as to its meaning and intent.
He was properly tried under US law. I dont see that as being in question. What is questioned is if he was allowed to talk to a mejican counsel, not if he recieved appropriate counsel. Your friend...was he guilty of raping and murdering a 16 year old mejican citizen? If so, he should still be there rotting. Did he recieve a fair trial? By all accounts THIS rapist/murderer in question DID.that they seek a commutation of sentence is not a request which has to be abided
that we failed to provide him with the same rights we would want accorded an American citizen in mexico (or elsewhere) is something we should recognize
but for the intervention of the American consulate - which representation and actions were excellent - my friend would still be down there wasting away in some dreary mexican prison
that is why i find this matter of such importance. i can envision mexican authorities denying American consulate intervention in matters affecting American citizens in their jails because we have ended the practice of comity
and he should be properly tried under American law ... which provides for his access to mexican counsel. process which was denied to him
i don't care who the criminal was or what their crime consisted of, they deserve due process. because that guarantee then extends to each of us. just as depriving him of due process with our sanction might later result in the deprivation of our due process rights when we need them
Do you have any evidence that Mexico denies U.S. Citizens consular acces or are you blowing smoke?
Did the guy ask and was denied? I haven't read anywhere that he did. I looked over the Vienna Treaty and I couldn't find anywhere it saying a person must be informed, only they must do so if asked. I agree with you, they are simply attempting to get his sentence commuted. Which it should NOT. LWOP is not a real punishment as after a few years they become institutionalized and comfortable with their surroundings. Everything is provided FOR them and they have no worries where their next meal is coming from.
Obama Administration seeks to halt Texas execution of Mexican national, Humberto Leal Garcia
BY Aliyah Shahid
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, July 2nd 2011, 11:43 AM
The Obama Administration is taking the unusual step of trying to halt the execution of a Mexican citizen who has been sentenced to die for the brutal kidnapping, rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl more than 16 years ago.
Obama Administration seeks to halt Texas execution of Mexican national, Humberto Leal Garcia
Did the guy ask and was denied? I haven't read anywhere that he did. I looked over the Vienna Treaty and I couldn't find anywhere it saying a person must be informed, only they must do so if asked. I agree with you, they are simply attempting to get his sentence commuted. Which it should NOT. LWOP is not a real punishment as after a few years they become institutionalized and comfortable with their surroundings. Everything is provided FOR them and they have no worries where their next meal is coming from.
That's a rather naive argument I think. You're saying if I threw you in jail with no hope for parole, that you'd be cool with that. After a couple years, you'd be comfortable and wouldn't want to be outside prison? Even if that were the case, so what? You're in prison and that means not on the streets where others could be subjected to your crime. You've been removed.
Do a little reading on being institutionalized. Then come back and I'll discuss it with you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?