221
Post by: Frazzled
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5890690.html
a nice bit
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."
7259
Post by: Deathmachine
He should fry!!!!
459
Post by: Hellfury
Wasnt this already a topic here? Or am I imagining it?
poast!
241
Post by: Ahtman
It might have popped up in the thread about the Supreme Court decision on rescinding the pistol ban. I do not think it had it's own thread, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
6173
Post by: yamato
you know you're in Texas when:
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."
I wish FL had the same stones. How long did they take to finally off Danny Rolling!
5470
Post by: sebster
Wow, that’s a really short sighted exercise in grandstanding the Texas courts are up to. Pay careful attention to the World Court’s position here, wanting the execution delayed until the petition from the Mexican government is properly considered. Meanwhile your AG stands up and pretends this is an issue of an international court interfering, instead of an international court requesting you act in a lawful manner and properly respond to the concerns of a neighbouring country who’s citizen you’re about to kill.
And it should be reviewed. It’s quite disgraceful that access to consular officials was denied. Imagine if you were in Mexico under arrest and were told you couldn’t access your embassy? Your own president, who’s hardly adverse to the death penalty, requested the situation be reviewed.
But you can’t wait for that… must kill him now!
131
Post by: malfred
I don't know the full story here. So did they avoid legal
questions for the sake of expediency? (I mean before this
point). If so, then it's their own fault that they didn't try
the person properly. I agree that murderer-rapists have
no place in society, but if we want to live by rule of law then
perhaps we should live by, um, rule of law.
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
sebster wrote:Wow, that’s a really short sighted exercise in grandstanding the Texas courts are up to. Pay careful attention to the World Court’s position here, wanting the execution delayed until the petition from the Mexican government is properly considered. Meanwhile your AG stands up and pretends this is an issue of an international court interfering, instead of an international court requesting you act in a lawful manner and properly respond to the concerns of a neighbouring country who’s citizen you’re about to kill.
And it should be reviewed. It’s quite disgraceful that access to consular officials was denied. Imagine if you were in Mexico under arrest and were told you couldn’t access your embassy? Your own president, who’s hardly adverse to the death penalty, requested the situation be reviewed.
But you can’t wait for that… must kill him now!
I live in California, but I have to say, damn right! Besides, humans are not a precious endangered species to be guarded. It's too bad that there aren't any type predatory occurrences on our species.
221
Post by: Frazzled
malfred wrote:I don't know the full story here. So did they avoid legal
questions for the sake of expediency? (I mean before this
point). If so, then it's their own fault that they didn't try
the person properly. I agree that murderer-rapists have
no place in society, but if we want to live by rule of law then
perhaps we should live by, um, rule of law.
They did try him properly, along with thousands of other illegal immigrants who commit crimes in Texas. The Mexican Consul (counsel?) wanted no part of it. He's been through the usual year after year of appeals. The Mexico request was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. Bushie overstepped his bounds in trying to force a state to abide by an international court when the US federal government itself had no jurisdictional power (clear separation of powers).
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
I wish they would bring back the death penalty here in Oz... not as deterent but as punishment for the really bad crimes.
Then a again being your 300 pound cellmate's 'life companion' for the rest of your life sounds pretty bad.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well in most states death row inmates have their own cells. There is a tendency for them to kill each other and try to kill guards.
226
Post by: blue loki
VermGho5t wrote:It's too bad that there aren't any type predatory occurrences on our species.
There are. The thing is, all of them are seen as bad for humanity and we as a species therefore attempt to prevent and/or eradicate them.
Viruses
Bacteria
Parasites
Dingoes
...and don't forget...
Humans
Self-predation is the cause, apparent result, and, according to some, the correct moral and logical reaction to Self-predation, which essentially is what this case is about.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You forgot three blue loki
*politicians
*lawyers
*girl scouts when selling cookies. Talk about predatory!
241
Post by: Ahtman
Then of course there is the most dangerous threat...Bears!
3934
Post by: grizgrin
I'm not really sure why he wasn't given consular access. However, the guy's case went all the way to the Supreme Court. He shot his wad, and he lost. Sebster, you were making some good points in that post. However, the guy is done. He went as far as our law allows (actually, he went a hell of a lot further, which is what landed the idiot in the position he is in now) and now he is going to fry for his crimes. I'm sorry that so much of the world seems to hate the US, but you look me in the eye and tell me that YOUR country gets it right 100% of the time. Should this guy have been advised of consular rights? Of course! Why was he not? I dunno, but if anyone can find it I'd sure like to read it. However, does the fact that he was denied consular access raise any reasonable doubts as to whether or not he did the crimes of which he stood accused? Not according to our Supreme Court, and I would say that they would be better judges than anyone on this forum. And it's not like they haven't made unpopular decisons in the past.
Sebster, I would suggest a sunnier perspective for you to consider. As of August 5th, there will be one less murderer and rapist of children alive. If you have friends or family who are female and underage, prehaps that thought will give you some pause in your keystrokes. It's easy for you to sit there from the comfort of your home and denounce decisions made by people with much more in the way of qualifications and experience in this, their realm of expertise, than you.
As a Texan, I fully support the execution of this "man". He dd the crime, and was reviewed by the higherst court in the land. What more do you want? How about we get some closure for the families of these poor girls. How about we consider and think of them in this as well.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Evidently he actually confessed to the crime.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-5928
Medellín, a Mexican national, confessed to participating in the gang rape and murder of two girls in 1993. He was convicted and sentenced to death, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on direct appeal. Medellín then filed a state habeas corpus action, claiming for the first time that Texas failed to notify him of his right to consular access as required by the Vienna Convention. The state trial court rejected this claim, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals summarily affirmed.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
There you go. Game, set, match. Got marshmallows?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Popcorn and tequila work?
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Outstandingly appropriate suggestion, jfrazell. I approve.
4455
Post by: Envy89
sebster wrote:But you can’t wait for that… must kill him now!
... he commited these crimes in 1993... 15 YEARS AGO
yes... 15 years is really a "must kill him now" isent it??
lets turn the tables. someone rapes and kills your daughter then confesses to the crime. do you want
A. to see him fry
B. let him live while he tries to get off the hook?
it is for things like this that i love texas, and wish the rest of our country would grow a pair.
7330
Post by: Aeddon
Seconded!
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Um d00ds when Mexico starts executing US citizens without letting them contact our Embassy how we gonna feel?
Gawd I should stay the heck away from this topic...
4455
Post by: Envy89
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Um d00ds when Mexico starts executing US citizens without letting them contact our Embassy how we gonna feel?
depends... if they CONFESS to the crime like this guy did. not to bad, though i think being in a mexican prision is more of a punishment then death 
if they are executed over something like an unpaied traffic ticket... then its time to look into it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Um d00ds when Mexico starts executing US citizens without letting them contact our Embassy how we gonna feel?
Gawd I should stay the heck away from this topic...
REALLY BAD COMPARISON.
If you're not beaten/disappeared, then US citizens, at least along the border states routinely have no access to legal counsel, much less the embassy. And if you think the US government is going to save you in Mexico then you are SADLY mistaken. We have a standing policy at the bank for visiting Mexico. If you have a problem you don't try the embassy-they are viewed as worthless. Our offices there have a private counsel on standby to try to get you out.
Remember, Mexico will no repatriate murderers that have fled to Mexico back to the US, despite treaty. They come to this argument with unclean hands.
5470
Post by: sebster
jfrazell wrote:They did try him properly, along with thousands of other illegal immigrants who commit crimes in Texas. The Mexican Consul (counsel?) wanted no part of it. He's been through the usual year after year of appeals. The Mexico request was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. Bushie overstepped his bounds in trying to force a state to abide by an international court when the US federal government itself had no jurisdictional power (clear separation of powers).
Except you're not telling the whole truth. There is an additional submission before the supreme court, due for review in the next few months. The International Court requested a stay until that submission was reviewed.
5470
Post by: sebster
grizgrin wrote:I'm not really sure why he wasn't given consular access. However, the guy's case went all the way to the Supreme Court. He shot his wad, and he lost. Sebster, you were making some good points in that post. However, the guy is done. He went as far as our law allows (actually, he went a hell of a lot further, which is what landed the idiot in the position he is in now) and now he is going to fry for his crimes. I'm sorry that so much of the world seems to hate the US, but you look me in the eye and tell me that YOUR country gets it right 100% of the time. Should this guy have been advised of consular rights? Of course! Why was he not? I dunno, but if anyone can find it I'd sure like to read it. However, does the fact that he was denied consular access raise any reasonable doubts as to whether or not he did the crimes of which he stood accused? Not according to our Supreme Court, and I would say that they would be better judges than anyone on this forum. And it's not like they haven't made unpopular decisons in the past.
I'm not sure why you think I don't like the US. I've liked everyone from the US I've met, and hope to travel there in medium term. I think the US, like every country and especially my own given our recent efforts, needs to make sure that the law is followed. The law and everyone's right to fair treatment is, afterall, above everything in keeping society civilised.
Sebster, I would suggest a sunnier perspective for you to consider. As of August 5th, there will be one less murderer and rapist of children alive. If you have friends or family who are female and underage, prehaps that thought will give you some pause in your keystrokes. It's easy for you to sit there from the comfort of your home and denounce decisions made by people with much more in the way of qualifications and experience in this, their realm of expertise, than you.
I don't think it really matters if he set nuns on fire and testified afterwards. You still get a fair trial, and you deserve whatever amount of time is needed for all avenues of your case to be heard.
And the second part is a false appeal to authority. Afterall, there are also people with a lot more in the way of qualifications and experience who are arguing this man deserves a stay of execution.
As a Texan, I fully support the execution of this "man". He dd the crime, and was reviewed by the higherst court in the land. What more do you want? How about we get some closure for the families of these poor girls. How about we consider and think of them in this as well.
As a Texan, I fully support the execution of this "man. He dd the crime, and was reviewed by the higherst court in the land. What more do you want? How about we get some closure for the families of these poor girls. How about we consider and think of them in this as well.
I'm not really for or against the death penalty, I certainly haven't argued either way in this thread. Just arguing for due process, which is still pending.
5470
Post by: sebster
Envy89 wrote:sebster wrote:But you can’t wait for that… must kill him now!
... he commited these crimes in 1993... 15 YEARS AGO
yes... 15 years is really a "must kill him now" isent it??
lets turn the tables. someone rapes and kills your daughter then confesses to the crime. do you want
A. to see him fry
B. let him live while he tries to get off the hook?
And if you kid is arrested and denied proper consul? You'd be okay with him being executed before all legal elements of his case have been properly heard?
it is for things like this that i love texas, and wish the rest of our country would grow a pair.
Yeah, your ability to swagger about and talk about how manly your state is exactly the best measure of
In my home state we've had a constant run of suspected criminals being beaten to death in apparent suicides the night they were arrested. We're so manly we sort the problem out before it ever reaches trial. Or possibly, you know, it might not be all that healthy to gain state pride from killing a guy.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Hah, I was just arguing this with my housemate this evening. Ireland had the death penalty for killing a Garda Síochána up until relatively recently. My Da is a Garda, so I supported it- I hoped it might help to deter people from killing him. It was never used in my lifetime, and eventually we got rid of it. I don't mind too much, my Da is retiring soon.
But some of the comments here are just a bit OTT for me. We're talking about a State taking a life. It might be the life of someone horrible, but it's still a sombre occaision. It's not appropriate in my view to engage in chest beating over it, or to insinuate that it's more manly or less manly or whatever. It's killing a guy, and that's always gotta be taken seriously.
4455
Post by: Envy89
sebster wrote:And if you kid is arrested and denied proper consul? You'd be okay with him being executed before all legal elements of his case have been properly heard?
well i am not married yet, so i do not have kids. BUT i plan on giving them much the same upbringing that i got. teaching morals, and right from wrong and what not. there is a very very good chance that people with a good upbringing will never end up in jail because of the upbringing that they got.
sebster wrote:Yeah, your ability to swagger about and talk about how manly your state is exactly the best measure of
In my home state we've had a constant run of suspected criminals being beaten to death in apparent suicides the night they were arrested. We're so manly we sort the problem out before it ever reaches trial. Or possibly, you know, it might not be all that healthy to gain state pride from killing a guy.
and that is wrong. people derserve a trail. in the case of texas the guy CONFESSED to the crimes and rightfully got a trial.
in the case you mentioned, no trial... HUGE differance.
though there are some people who get a trail and get off the hook because of some hoop they jumped through. it is a sad day to see a case like that.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Well sebster, I look back over it and I may have screwed the pooch on that one. From the last line in your first post, I got the impression you were painting all Americans with a rather bloodthirsty brush:
But you can’t wait for that… must kill him now!
That kinda irked me for reasons irrelevant here. I humbly apologize to you if that was not your intent.
That is not a friendly border in a lot of places, Seb. Americans don't get a lot of due process down there. Hell, the Mexicans (according to my Mexican bro's) don't get due process down there. There's a lot more to it than just this story. Old border, old story.
He may not have been advised of his consular rights, but that's got feth all to do with him doing what he did. I supported that American jerk getting caned down in Singapore years ago, and I thought it was crap that the US was trying to have him tried and punished in the US under US law. If you screw up in a foriegn country, you get what you deserve. I see people do it all the time, b/c I work almost exclusively abroad in undeveloped nations.
He's had 15 years of appeals and trying not to get hisself fried for a crime he confessed to. It went to the supreme court. He's done. As far as appeal to authority, when it comes to the law in the United States, there IS no higher authority than the US supreme court. The decisions they make establish ultimate precedent. Precedent is as strong, and in some instances a lot stronger, than written law b/c it is seen as the interpretation by the Judiciary of the law as written.
As far as some of the commentary about a man's execution needing to be taken seriously, I don't think Mr. Soon-To-Be-Extra-Crispy-Party-Animal there was too sombre about his deeds. No-siree-bob, sounds like he had hisself a grand old time with all his buddies and their new-found "friends".
5470
Post by: sebster
Envy89 wrote:sebster wrote:And if you kid is arrested and denied proper consul? You'd be okay with him being executed before all legal elements of his case have been properly heard?
well i am not married yet, so i do not have kids. BUT i plan on giving them much the same upbringing that i got. teaching morals, and right from wrong and what not. there is a very very good chance that people with a good upbringing will never end up in jail because of the upbringing that they got.
So we don't really have to worry about proper process because it's unlikely to happen to you? I think we're looking at the world from very different POVs.
and that is wrong. people derserve a trail. in the case of texas the guy CONFESSED to the crimes and rightfully got a trial.
in the case you mentioned, no trial... HUGE differance.
though there are some people who get a trail and get off the hook because of some hoop they jumped through. it is a sad day to see a case like that.
But there is still legal debate going on. Process was breached, and it may or may not have resulted in an improper trial. All I'm saying is to wait until after the issue is properly decided before doing something that can't be taken back. It isn't a contraversial point.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
grizgrin wrote:
As far as some of the commentary about a man's execution needing to be taken seriously, I don't think Mr. Soon-To-Be-Extra-Crispy-Party-Animal there was too sombre about his deeds. No-siree-bob, sounds like he had hisself a grand old time with all his buddies and their new-found "friends".
It doesn't matter if he was sombre or if he was gleeful or completely devoid of emotion. It's not him I'm commenting on, it's you. His behaviour was horrific, and he is being given the harshest possible punishment. That doesn't excuse you from decency. If you don't understand what I mean then I suppose we're coming at this from some pretty different angles.
221
Post by: Frazzled
sebster wrote:Envy89 wrote:sebster wrote:But there is still legal debate going on. Process was breached, and it may or may not have resulted in an improper trial. All I'm saying is to wait until after the issue is properly decided before doing something that can't be taken back. It isn't a contraversial point.
No there's not. It was settled by the US Supreme Court that the Federal Government had no jurisdiction. What the World Court or whatever that nonsense is called would like to do is irrelevant. Its a state issue. Its been fifteen years. Give him the needle.
Lets say he had a right to call the consul and then used it. So what? It would not have changed a thing. He confessed to the crime. He already had counsel (the Mexican government was not going to pay for a new one). There is no practical issue here.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Da Boss, I think decency has been pretty well served after 15 years of appeals and a Supreme Court appearance. He may have not been advised of his right to council, but the entire appeal process is a review of the legal process that brought thecase to that point. They look at the mechanics of the case, how the trial was executed. If he ran through all the appeals, that means that his case was deemed to have executed according to the letter of the law, not necc. with a "sense of justice". What this tells me is that this guy was judged to have been given all the process due. It tells me that if he was not advised of his right to consular access then it was judged to either have had no effect on the case or for some reason he wasn't DUE consular access. Was he in this country illegally? Would that have a bearing on whether or not he was even due consular access? There could very easily be a phrase or two in the treaty itself about that. Hell, if the guy had NO documents on him, he wouldn't even be considered an illegal; he would be a vagrant and therefore not due consular access to a damn thing. Some of that is pretty thin, but my point being that there is a lot about this case that is not known. There isn't a one of us here witthe case files in his garage. However, judging by what I can read here, the guy should fry, no doubt.
And if that puts me on a very different angle from you Da Boss, I'm cool with that. The guy confessed to heinous crimes and the society where he committed them has deemed him in need of killing. If my reactions and feelings about that are different from yours, well all I can say is I can live with that.
Also, it seems the posts in this thread are becoming confused about one point. Was he denied access, or was he not informed of his right to access? Two different things, and I see where some are saying one, and then others talk about the other.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Oh, you've misunderstood me. I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the case. I'm okay with his execution, and I'm not disputing that it is the right of the State of Texas to do it. I'm not arguing about any of that stuff. I'm commenting on the language being used to discuss his execution. Might seem like a trivial thing, but hey, it bugged me. I just think that when you talk about a serious issue like execution, murder or war, you should do so with a certain amount of restraint and respect. When I said we were coming from a different angle, I meant in that sense.
Hope we're clearer now. (Also, I'm not picking a fight or anything, and I know you have a right to talk about it in any way you want that doesn't break Dakka's rules.)
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Oh no, I didn't misunderstand you , Da Boss. I just tend to stray off topic quite a bit, personal character flaw. The majority of that post was a ramble, I admit. Mea culpa. I am made of OT. However, I DID address the point you mention in my last post; second paragragh last sentence.
And no, I don't believe that I am "excused" from decency. I believe that I am me. Call me decent, call me indecent, it doesn't matter. It's a wargames forum.
edited b/c I care.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Cheers!
4455
Post by: Envy89
sebster wrote:So we don't really have to worry about proper process because it's unlikely to happen to you? I think we're looking at the world from very different POVs.
how so... you dont think he should fry?? the guy gang raped and murdered 2 girls.
dosent matter who it is they need to burn.
sebster wrote:But there is still legal debate going on. Process was breached, and it may or may not have resulted in an improper trial. All I'm saying is to wait until after the issue is properly decided before doing something that can't be taken back. It isn't a contraversial point.
ok.... HE CONFESSED... are you not understanding that???
226
Post by: blue loki
Envy89 wrote:
sebster wrote:But there is still legal debate going on. Process was breached, and it may or may not have resulted in an improper trial. All I'm saying is to wait until after the issue is properly decided before doing something that can't be taken back. It isn't a contraversial point.
ok.... HE CONFESSED... are you not understanding that???
And because of an apparent breach of procedure, that confession may not be valid. He may not have understood his rights. He may have been told to confess even though he is innocent. He may have said anything just to appease the officials of our (to him) foreign government. He may not have understood the interrogators at all and simply said OK no matter what they asked him.
The rules of our court of law exist so that the results reached by the court can be upheld and withstand scrutiny. If those rules are breached and not thoroughly reexamined and satisfied, the ruling of the court has no meaning.
Is he guilty? Probably.
Are he and his legal team simply stalling for time? Quite possibly.
Do we know any of that for a fact yet? No.
The law must be honered and followed to its full extent. Procedure must be satisfied. Without these things, the execution is no more legal than the crime which precipitated it.
5470
Post by: sebster
Envy89 wrote:how so... you dont think he should fry?? the guy gang raped and murdered 2 girls.
dosent matter who it is they need to burn.
What? I haven't, and won't, give an opinion on whether the guy should be executed.
I have said that executions should be delayed until all appeals are properly heard. That people are arguing otherwise blows my mind.
ok.... HE CONFESSED... are you not understanding that???
Justice is a lot more complicated than 'did confess therefore fry'. Was the defendant receiving proper legal advice when he made the confession? Was he advised to confess to avoid a higher penalty by incompetent or negligent state council?
Regardless, the law is more important than one man the desire of others to see him killed for his crimes. If you don't see how the subbersion of the law and proper process due to 'simple common sense' doesn't lead to some very bad things, then you need to read up on countries that have fallen from democracy to totalitarianism. Italy is a good starting point, or any of the fascist countries really.
5470
Post by: sebster
jfrazell wrote:No there's not. It was settled by the US Supreme Court that the Federal Government had no jurisdiction. What the World Court or whatever that nonsense is called would like to do is irrelevant. Its a state issue. Its been fifteen years. Give him the needle.
Lets say he had a right to call the consul and then used it. So what? It would not have changed a thing. He confessed to the crime. He already had counsel (the Mexican government was not going to pay for a new one). There is no practical issue here.
Your assumption that a single appeal is automatically sufficient is a puzzling one. Seriously, why not wait a few months until the outstanding appeal is heard in the supreme court? No-one has given any reason not to delay a few months.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its not a single appeal. He went through a fifteen year appellate process.
The reason is The World Court has no jurisidiction in Texas. Period. End of Story.
(edited for spelling that would make BabyJesus cry)
Remember boys and girls, today's catchy theme song is "rock me rock me, rock me sexy Jesus!" 
226
Post by: blue loki
jfrazell wrote:The reason is The Wrold Court has no jurisidiction in Texas. Period. End of Story.
I agree. The less contact Texas has with the rest of the World, the better. Think of the horrors us non-Texans could avoid. 
514
Post by: Orlanth
The trouble is the precedent is set for someone to say.
"You cannot extradite me to Texas, my rights could be infringed."
A good lawyer will take this and run with it. Texas could soon be howling for people that cannot be extradited because of the state judiciarys refusal to abide by international court decisions.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats not a valid argument. Its not Texas specific. International court decisions have no power over US state courts on state matters. If the Federal Government does not have power over a certain state matter, it cannot use a treaty to bootstrap and gain that power.
Again what rights? He had the ability to pick up the proverbial phone and call who he wanted. Its his fault he didn't call the consulate. In the real world its irrelevant, as the consulate is not going to respond, there are thousands of ccriminal cases at this point along the southwestern border states. Even San Francisco is in a tizzy about an illegal immigrant kiling two people.
514
Post by: Orlanth
jfrazell wrote:Thats not a valid argument.
A good lawyer would disagree, and likely win.
jfrazell wrote: Its not Texas specific.
If what you say is correct it means the whokle US could have problems with extradition in future.
jfrazell wrote: International court decisions have no power over US state courts on state matters.
International courts overrule national courts on any grounds which are agreed. State courts are not special case, they just think they are. Scotland has its own courts as a subset of the UK and could not do this legally either.
Also state court rulings are likewise of no validity abroad. What matters is what agreements the US government has with the International courts, which grounds are for extradition, what rights foreign nationals have etc. Each nation ratifies as a nation, once International protocols are ratified they overrule local and regional judiciaries.
This is the way it has to be. Each nation ratifies, not each administrative region. If we tried to form an international system based around attempting a concensus of regional judiciary rather than national judiciary there would be chaos. Many nations dont have a seperate legislature and judiciary, many dont have seperate regional judiciaries and legislatures. The only thing every nationa has in common is a single identifiable central government. For international law this is the only legal body existing.
Simple example. If someone committed a murder and say California wanted to extradite him. California can from another state. But if the suspect is abroad, California cannot, only the USA can. now this can go entirely through Californian courts and piolitical bodies to appeal for the extreadition, but that is not in truth a state power, its a portion of the national authority. normally extradition is handled by the FBI for this reason, as the FBI is central government.
Likewise in the UK, Scotland has its own courts,m but must use the Uk legal system to claim an extradition.
In both cadees local lawyers may process the decisions and appeals, but they asre alweays made on the behalf of central government. with international law Texas cannot legally go it alone. To do so will only cause long term upsets.
Give this guy his consular visitation rights then deal with him afterwards. The process has taken long enough already. If all the state appeals and bureaucracy lasted 15 years already it is a little off to try blame Mexico for dragging out the procedures. The system can afford to wait a little longer for the consulate to have its say.
The system may and will sometimes suck, but ignoring it is far worse.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Every state, and country, has violated some prisoners rights at some point in time so it doesn't really work that well as an argument. You might as well say you can't be tried under any court system because they may violate your rights. How many judges will accept that argument?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Exactly (and if Ahtman and I agree then look out). To Orlanth, those arguments were tried, and found by SCOTUS to not be persuasive. This is not a theoretical argument, but already tested.
Orlanth your treaty summary is not correct. The US cannot create jurisdictional rights via treaty, when the federal government did not have those rights in the first place.
For example. The federal governement can sign (and Senate ratify) a treaty that says the 1st Amendment is null and void. Its irrelevant though, and will be struck down as contravening the US Constitution.
Frankly I'm saddened no one has related this yet to the rock me rock me sexy Jesus! theme song.
4588
Post by: Destrado
Actually, I find the disrespect of the World Court to be a more stressing affair. If it does not have a say in Texas, USA, why should any other country respect it?
221
Post by: Frazzled
You answered your own question, why should any country respect the World Court? Its a joke.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Destrado wrote:Actually, I find the disrespect of the World Court to be a more stressing affair. If it does not have a say in Texas, USA, why should any other country respect it?
Somebody actually respects the self-appointed so-called "World Court"?
Wow.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I wish they would bring back the death penalty here in Oz... not as deterent but as punishment for the really bad crimes.
I just wish there was some deserted island far away from where anybody lived where civilized folks could dump off their criminal / "undesirable" types and leave them to fend for themselves.
4588
Post by: Destrado
Well, after the Milosévic and Pinochet cases, world justice can hardly be called fair
At least, Saddam faced the gallows... Then again, this was bad for us since he loved Port wine.
Anyway, I do agree that some guys do deserve the death penalty, as they're a threat to society and law-abiding citizens in general. This mexican dude deserves what's coming.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
The threat to society angle always worries me.
It can be extended to cover a lot of behaviours.
Not relevant to this I discussion suppose.
If people aren't listening to the world court, who should they listen to? The UN? Should there be no interaction between countries in this way?(This is not a retorical question, I am interested in what you think is the answer)
241
Post by: Ahtman
This seems to be a common misunderstanding. The States are not precints, or counties of the federal government. The US is 50 Governments that have agreed to band together, but in the end still have their own powers. Think of the Federal government as the UN of the 50 states. This is more true of Texas then most.
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
JohnHwangDD wrote:Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I wish they would bring back the death penalty here in Oz... not as deterent but as punishment for the really bad crimes.
I just wish there was some deserted island far away from where anybody lived where civilized folks could dump off their criminal / "undesirable" types and leave them to fend for themselves.
Even the early Australian penal settlement had an isolated island to dump the worst crimminals... Norfolk Island.
5470
Post by: sebster
jfrazell wrote:Thats not a valid argument. Its not Texas specific. International court decisions have no power over US state courts on state matters. If the Federal Government does not have power over a certain state matter, it cannot use a treaty to bootstrap and gain that power.
See, that's wrong again. The Federal Government can make this into state law by having the senate ratify the treaty. The supreme court ruled that the executive couldn't just do this by itself, it had to be ratified by the senate.
There was no constitutional problem with the suggestion of a Federal treaty automatically being null and void at a State level. That's crazy talk, and would depend on the treaty and it's relation to the constitution.
Again what rights? He had the ability to pick up the proverbial phone and call who he wanted. Its his fault he didn't call the consulate. In the real world its irrelevant, as the consulate is not going to respond, there are thousands of ccriminal cases at this point along the southwestern border states. Even San Francisco is in a tizzy about an illegal immigrant kiling two people.
The suggestion that individuals, especially illegal immigrants, are now empowered to look after their own rights and need to request their own rights without any responsibility falling on the state doesn't just ignore reality, it looks reality straight between the eyes and mocks it for being so sensible.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ahtman wrote:Every state, and country, has violated some prisoners rights at some point in time so it doesn't really work that well as an argument. You might as well say you can't be tried under any court system because they may violate your rights. How many judges will accept that argument?
A person might be in a system that might breach their rights, therefore no actual breaches of individual rights should be considered?
That's zen like in it's lack of content. Seriously, think about what you're suggesting there.
5470
Post by: sebster
jfrazell wrote:You answered your own question, why should any country respect the World Court? Its a joke.
The American contempt for international bodies is one of those really odd cultural things.
5470
Post by: sebster
Da Boss wrote:The threat to society angle always worries me.
It can be extended to cover a lot of behaviours.
Not relevant to this I discussion suppose.
If people aren't listening to the world court, who should they listen to? The UN? Should there be no interaction between countries in this way?(This is not a retorical question, I am interested in what you think is the answer)
These matters are typically dealt with by individual treaties and by negotiation between embassies.
If both countries are signatories to the Int Court of Justice then it might be involved, but only to ensure both parties meet their obligations over the rights of the accused and the need for justice. The US isn't a signatory, which is why it's been so odd that people have got hung up over this ruling. The issue is the outstanding appeal that has been put before the Supreme Court.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
OK, getting back to The Law:
- Mexican Law is an oxymoron in and of itself. If Mexico weren't so hypocritical, this might be less amusing. Similarly, if the border weren't so porous, it'd be nice to be able to dump Mexican murderers back over the border.
- US Legal policy is that citizens are tried where they are arrested, unless there is some unusual arrangement (e.g. diplomatic / military immunity). That is why Americans *will* be executed in Malaysia for possession of drugs.
- If you commit a capital crime in the US, that's your fault. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if he wasn't aware that he was a captial crime, that's too bad. That said, he was in Tejas, so not even ignorance can be claimed.
- Whether the judicial processes are absolutely perfect is of no consequence, precisely because these are human processes. That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The only matter of consequence is that the flaws collectively did not signficantly alter the outcome. And in this case, there is no evidence of this being the case. Which is why that SOB is gonna to fry. 
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, getting back to The Law:
- Mexican Law is an oxymoron in and of itself. If Mexico weren't so hypocritical, this might be less amusing. Similarly, if the border weren't so porous, it'd be nice to be able to dump Mexican murderers back over the border.
- US Legal policy is that citizens are tried where they are arrested, unless there is some unusual arrangement (e.g. diplomatic / military immunity). That is why Americans *will* be executed in Malaysia for possession of drugs.
- If you commit a capital crime in the US, that's your fault. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if he wasn't aware that he was a captial crime, that's too bad. That said, he was in Tejas, so not even ignorance can be claimed.
- Whether the judicial processes are absolutely perfect is of no consequence, precisely because these are human processes. That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The only matter of consequence is that the flaws collectively did not signficantly alter the outcome. And in this case, there is no evidence of this being the case. Which is why that SOB is gonna to fry.
What are you talking about? No-one has suggested he should be penalised by Mexican law instead of US law. No-one has suggested legal standards must be perfect. No-one has suggested people shouldn’t be penalised if they were ignorant of the law. No-one has made any reference to the idea of beyond reasonable doubt.
It has been suggested that being denied consul access is a major breach of rights, one that it’s hard to find any reason to justify. It has been suggested that his execution should be stayed until this breach is fully heard by the Supreme Court.
241
Post by: Ahtman
sebster wrote:being denied consul access is a major breach of rights
If you could show me where in the US Constitution this right is granted that would make this much simpler.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ahtman wrote:If you could show me where in the US Constitution this right is granted that would make this much simpler.
It's part of the rights upon arrest, a section of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This was ratified by the US in 1991 or 1992. It was ratified with a ludicrously complex set of exceptions, to the point where courts have generally held it to be non-binding on domestic law. But that's hardly a complete decision, more the default one. That's why it's good to have something like this taken before the Supreme Court.
Incidentally, pointing out that something may or may not be in the constitution and assuming that's the end of the issue is simplistic, to say the least. Rights don't end with the constitution, after all. If a family member of yours was accused of something vile and arrested while in, say, Thailand, wouldn't you think it important that he had access to the US embassy there. Would you have any confidence in the subsequent trial if that embassy access wasn't granted?
241
Post by: Ahtman
It wasn't sarcasm, I was really asking.
While I may know a thing or two about a thing or two, I don't know every single aspect of the Constitution. If I did, I'd probably be in a different line of work.
221
Post by: Frazzled
JohnHwangDD wrote:Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I wish they would bring back the death penalty here in Oz... not as deterent but as punishment for the really bad crimes.
I just wish there was some deserted island far away from where anybody lived where civilized folks could dump off their criminal / "undesirable" types and leave them to fend for themselves.
Well, Antarctica is surrounded on all sides by water. On the other hand dumping them in Kodiak Island is cheaper and GREEN. Whats more green than dropping prisoners off on an island populated by the worlds largest type of grizzly bear. Mmmm convicted prisoner, chewy on the outside, and in the inside!
I keed I keed, ok not really.
221
Post by: Frazzled
sebster wrote:jfrazell wrote:You answered your own question, why should any country respect the World Court? Its a joke.
The American contempt for international bodies is one of those really odd cultural things.
We have contempt for international bodies because most international bodies are comprised from bribe taking bureaucratic sycophants and dictators. This is especially true of anything in any way connected to the UN. As soon as you can find one that isn't I'll buy you a cookie, but not the good kind. Those belong to me. 
221
Post by: Frazzled
sebster wrote:Ahtman wrote:If you could show me where in the US Constitution this right is granted that would make this much simpler.
It's part of the rights upon arrest, a section of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This was ratified by the US in 1991 or 1992. It was ratified with a ludicrously complex set of exceptions, to the point where courts have generally held it to be non-binding on domestic law. But that's hardly a complete decision, more the default one. That's why it's good to have something like this taken before the Supreme Court.
Incidentally, pointing out that something may or may not be in the constitution and assuming that's the end of the issue is simplistic, to say the least. Rights don't end with the constitution, after all. If a family member of yours was accused of something vile and arrested while in, say, Thailand, wouldn't you think it important that he had access to the US embassy there. Would you have any confidence in the subsequent trial if that embassy access wasn't granted?
And pray tell, what would the "consular right" have done? He had a lawyer. Everyone in the US is entitled to legal counsel. He had the full penumbra of rights, privileges, and case law, despite not being a citizen and being here illegally. The Mexican consulate is not going to get involved in petty criminal matters. As JohnH noted, the southern border is porous with thousands of cases every year (we should be sending the legal bills to Mexico). This is not Japan or some place a foreign citizen is rarely arrested. in Texas, illegal aliens from below the border now comprise something on the order of 1/3 of all inmates.
Note if he had fled back to Mexico, Mexico would NOT have extradited him back to the US, despite treaty.
4455
Post by: Envy89
hay... you cant spell UNethical without U.N.
241
Post by: Ahtman
jfrazell wrote:sebster wrote:jfrazell wrote:You answered your own question, why should any country respect the World Court? Its a joke.
The American contempt for international bodies is one of those really odd cultural things.
We have contempt for international bodies because most international bodies
It should also be noted that we have contempt for most domestic bodies as well.
226
Post by: blue loki
jfrazell wrote:And pray tell, what would the "consular right" have done? He had a lawyer. Everyone in the US is entitled to legal counsel. He had the full penumbra of rights, privileges, and case law, despite not being a citizen and being here illegally. The Mexican consulate is not going to get involved in petty criminal matters. As JohnH noted, the southern border is porous with thousands of cases every year (we should be sending the legal bills to Mexico). This is not Japan or some place a foreign citizen is rarely arrested. in Texas, illegal aliens from below the border now comprise something on the order of 1/3 of all inmates.
It does not matter what the "consular right" would have done. Just as it doesn't matter who you would have contacted with your "one phonecall" or how good your "state appointed defense counsel" is. The simple fact that it is denied is the point.
And what does frequency of similar cases have to do with the person's rights? One of three Americans in Japan or one of four million Mexicans in Texas, they should be handled with the same attention and given the same access to their native government consul. Or are not all men created equal anymore?
Try him and fry him, I don't really care. But an extra few months exhausting this last bit of legalese is not going to make a real difference to anyone. The dead will not come back no matter how fast you kill the guy. The only reason I can see in rushing the execution at this point, after 15 years of waiting, is that the state of Texas knows they screwed something up in the case and wants to make sure they can ease their itchy trigger fingers before they're found out.
Honestly, 15 or 15.5 years, whats the difference. Really.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
For starters, it's an extra half year of taxpayer-funded room & board.
221
Post by: Frazzled
blue loki wrote:
It does not matter what the "consular right" would have done. Just as it doesn't matter who you would have contacted with your "one phonecall" or how good your "state appointed defense counsel" is. The simple fact that it is denied is the point.
Thats the point. He could have called the consulate at any time. Miranda rights don't include us having to tell every illegal immigrant murderer that the have the right to consul. They have access to a phone and can do what they want. Further, his attorney could have made said call. Its a bogus argument by a killer so bad that when he told his story to other inmates, they put him in the hospital.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
226
Post by: blue loki
Pricing fair justice now, are we?
Arguing about having a right to consul is fine and expected, but arguing about the cost?
Can you seriously put a price on the ability of the legal system to thoroughly fulfill a defendant's rights during the course of a trial?
226
Post by: blue loki
jfrazell wrote:Justice delayed is justice denied.
How so?
221
Post by: Frazzled
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
And remember everyone, if you're arrested in Texas, you get to call your consulate. Unless you're arrested for cattle rustlin' or disparaging the awesomeness of Tex-Mex. Thats a hanging offense. No appeals permitted with on the spot execution of justice
226
Post by: blue loki
No problem. All my exes live in Texas anyway. That's why I hang my hat in ... Atlanta? Wait, that's not right...
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
blue loki wrote:Pricing fair justice now, are we?
Arguing about having a right to consul is fine and expected, but arguing about the cost?
Can you seriously put a price on the ability of the legal system to thoroughly fulfill a defendant's rights during the course of a trial?
You're the one who asked the question. If you don't like the answer, that's not my fault.
Why not? The idea that justice is, or should be free, is pretty crazy, because then if necessarily follows that justice is worthless.
5470
Post by: sebster
jfrazell wrote:And pray tell, what would the "consular right" have done? He had a lawyer. Everyone in the US is entitled to legal counsel. He had the full penumbra of rights, privileges, and case law, despite not being a citizen and being here illegally. The Mexican consulate is not going to get involved in petty criminal matters. As JohnH noted, the southern border is porous with thousands of cases every year (we should be sending the legal bills to Mexico). This is not Japan or some place a foreign citizen is rarely arrested. in Texas, illegal aliens from below the border now comprise something on the order of 1/3 of all inmates.
Note if he had fled back to Mexico, Mexico would NOT have extradited him back to the US, despite treaty.
It's very dangerous to start considering which rights people really need, and which are just nice to have. Especially when its just the Governor making the decision.
As you point out, if he was given fair legal representation then consular support probably wouldn't have helped. That's likely part of the argument the Supreme court will consider. All I'm suggesting is to wait until the Supreme Court has considered the argument before killing the guy.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ahtman wrote:It should also be noted that we have contempt for most domestic bodies as well.
There's a line in Greene's The Quiet American, when the narrator notes the 'lazy cynicism' of the new batch of journalists. Simply sounding off and condemning this, that and everything is often used to make someone seem worldly and wise, but it's no replacement for actual knowledge.
Yeah, the UN has problems. But a sweeping dismissal is a very lazy thing to do, ignoring the wide range of achievements of major and minor organs. It ignores just how hard many of the jobs done by the UN actually are.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:For starters, it's an extra half year of taxpayer-funded room & board.
It's a very dangerous thing to get cheap when you're talking about the state's ability to kill a man.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
And yet, it's unfair to ask how much counsel or consideration his victims received?
It's too bad we don't execute like China does.
Then we could bill his family for the bullet.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:And yet, it's unfair to ask how much counsel or consideration his victims received?
It's too bad we don't execute like China does.
Then we could bill his family for the bullet.
The responsibilities of the state are very different to the responsibilities of the accused.
The idea of procedure being more important than personal agendas is exactly the key difference between a country like the US and a country like China.
226
Post by: blue loki
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Why not? The idea that justice is, or should be free, is pretty crazy, because then if necessarily follows that justice is worthless.
So, both sunlight and a breathable atmosphere are worthless?
Price does not dictate nor define worth. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something.
221
Post by: Frazzled
"Quit hyperventilating. Air is not free citizen!"
Pay for some in hospital and they charge you through the nose!
7646
Post by: Gangsta_Tau
potentially offensive post removed
--yakface
241
Post by: Ahtman
Why do I get the feeling that a previously banned user is posting under a new account?
7646
Post by: Gangsta_Tau
what are you talking about?!
60
Post by: yakface
Gangsta_Tau:
While you are free to express your opinion, you must do so in a polite manner, and not in a way that is likely to insult others and incite a negative backlash.
7646
Post by: Gangsta_Tau
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Gangsta Tau: Because you earned it. Evidently you have forgotten where you "are".
Only 6 more days from my current time zone. I must confess, the backlash from The Hague is going to be interesting.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Ahtman wrote:Every state, and country, has violated some prisoners rights at some point in time so it doesn't really work that well as an argument. You might as well say you can't be tried under any court system because they may violate your rights. How many judges will accept that argument?
1. The IRA hired lawyers who used US law on just this point to prevent extradition to the UK for some terrorists hiding in the US.
2. Sweden has a policy of never allowing extradition to any country where the person could get the death penalty for the crimes they are charged with.
514
Post by: Orlanth
jfrazell wrote:Exactly (and if Ahtman and I agree then look out). To Orlanth, those arguments were tried, and found by SCOTUS to not be persuasive. This is not a theoretical argument, but already tested.
Orlanth your treaty summary is not correct. The US cannot create jurisdictional rights via treaty, when the federal government did not have those rights in the first place.
For example. The federal governement can sign (and Senate ratify) a treaty that says the 1st Amendment is null and void. Its irrelevant though, and will be struck down as contravening the US Constitution.
The trouble here is that if natioanal governments consider legal treaties with the US government to have no standing with individual states then the treaties themselves will be in jeapordy as they would clearly be one sided. There is evidence to suggest this problem already occurs.
241
Post by: Ahtman
It's not all treaties, but ones that overstep the Federal governments power. You know they don't have unlimited power right? This isn't that black and white though. This wasn't a unanimous decision and could be revisited at some time. This also didn't happen overnight, but gone through the legal process for 15 years. It may be upsetting to know, but in trials and elections, the side you want to win may not and there is nothing corrupt or illegal about it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
True that Ahtman. True that.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I wonder how much of the decision came down to the fact that it would have made no difference in the case at all; if it had been less of an obvious conviction, consular meeting or not, if there might have been a different verdict. Hmmm.
221
Post by: Frazzled
At what level are you referring to - SCOTUS? I think the causality is the same but bad cases make bad law so who knows.
|
|
