221
Post by: Frazzled
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/05/obama-stop-texas-mexican-execution
Obama tries to stop execution in Texas of Mexican killer US president warns Texan authorities that execution would put America in breach of international legal obligations
President Barack Obama is attempting to block the execution in Texas on Thursday of a Mexican man because it would breach an international convention and do "irreparable harm" to US interests.
The White House has asked the US supreme court to put the execution of Humberto Leal Garcia on hold while Congress passes a law that would prevent the convicted rapist and murderer from being put to death along with dozens of other foreign nationals who were denied proper access to diplomatic representation before trials for capital crimes.
The administration moved after the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, brushed aside appeals from diplomats, top judges, senior military officers, the United Nations and former president George W Bush to stay Leal's execution because it could jeopardise American citizens arrested abroad as well as US diplomatic interests.
Leal, 38, was convicted in 1994 of the rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl in San Antonio. Few question that he was responsible for the killing but the Texas authorities failed to tell Leal, who was born in Mexico and has lived in the US since the age of two, that under the Vienna convention he was entitled to contact the Mexican consulate when he was arrested.
Leal's lawyers argue that the lack of consular access played a role in the death penalty being applied because the Mexican national incriminated himself in statements made during "non-custodial interviews" with the police on the day of the murder. Had Leal had access to the Mexican consulate it would have been likely to have arranged a lawyer who would have advised the accused man to limit his statements to the police. As it was, the Mexican authorities were never informed of his arrest.
In a 30-page brief to the supreme court, the administration said that the carrying out of the execution "would place the United States in irreparable breach of its international law obligation" under the convention.
The White House said it was in the US's interests to meet its treaty obligations.
"These interests include protecting Americans abroad, fostering co-operation with foreign nations, and demonstrating respect for the international rule of law," it said.
Carrying out Leal's execution would cause "irreparable harm" to US interests abroad, the administration added.
"That breach would have serious repercussions for United States foreign relations, law-enforcement and other co-operation with Mexico, and the ability of American citizens travelling abroad to have the benefits of consular assistance in the event of detention," it said.
The legal situation has been complicated by earlier court rulings.
In 2004, the international court of justice (ICJ) ruled that the US authorities had failed to meet its legal obligations to 51 Mexicans awaiting execution in American prisons when they were not informed of their right to contact their consulates.
The then president, George W Bush, a former Texas governor who backs the death penalty, said the US would adhere to the ICJ ruling which, in effect, meant the death sentences would be reviewed or commuted. But in 2008 the supreme court ruled that while the US government was obliged to comply with the ICJ ruling it did not have the power to force individual American states to do so. Only Congress could require adherence by passing a law.
The Obama administration has told the supreme court that a bill has recently been introduced in to the Senate to do just that but it is unlikely to win the approval of both houses of Congress before next year. The White House wants Leal's execution put on hold until the law is passed but two courts have already ruled that pending legislation has no effect on the legal process.
The UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, has appealed to Perry to commute Leal's sentence to life imprisonment.
Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions said that if Leal was put to death it would be "tantamount to an arbitrary deprivation of life".
Perry's office has said Texas laws had been abided by and that Leal would be executed for "the most heinous of crimes".
42223
Post by: htj
No comment, Fraz?
14573
Post by: metallifan
...I think he's confused himself... On one side, Fraz probably sees the sense in the government maintaining a good image with a major trade partner, not to mention upholding int'l law. On the other hand, he's probably thinking 'THIS... IS... TEXAAAAS!' I do believe our good Fraz may have blown his own mind 
221
Post by: Frazzled
htj wrote:No comment, Fraz?
Not needed.
42223
Post by: htj
metallifan wrote:...I think he's confused himself...
On one side, Fraz probably sees the sense in the government maintaining a good image with a major trade partner, not to mention upholding int'l law.
On the other hand, he's probably thinking 'THIS... IS... TEXAAAAS!'
I do believe our good Fraz may have blown his own mind
This is what I was afraid of.
221
Post by: Frazzled
metallifan wrote:...I think he's confused himself...
On one side, Fraz probably sees the sense in the government maintaining a good image with a major trade partner, not to mention upholding int'l law.
On the other hand, he's probably thinking 'THIS... IS... TEXAAAAS!'
I do believe our good Fraz may have blown his own mind
Not quite (about the confused part, not the blown his mind part  )
We've had this discussion before. IIRC the criminal is pushing up daisies now. There's a general lack of sympathy when you come here illegally and then claim you're a foreign citizen.
State's rights uber alles, especially in the selective enforcement by the DOJ, whilst leaving the border more open than a bar during spring break. How's that Project gunrunner operation investigation going Holder? Find out it traces back to, well Holder, yet?
Perry needs to debate him on the issue. It will be a good taste of the Presidential debate, shortly before another Texan wins the Whitehouse...
45258
Post by: remilia_scarlet
God, things like this disgust me. What's next, get convicted of murder, spend a night in jail?
41903
Post by: lord commissar klimino
remilia_scarlet wrote:God, things like this disgust me. What's next, get convicted of murder, spend a night in jail?
if you could get off that easy id have a trail of bodies behind m-err,yeah,that would be bad,so bad.it disgusts me.
14573
Post by: metallifan
Frazzled wrote:
Not quite (about the confused part, not the blown his mind part )
Perry needs to debate him on the issue. It will be a good taste of the Presidential debate, shortly before another Texan wins the Whitehouse...
Yes, silly me for assuming that you were still sane after all these centuries stalking the greatest off-topic forums throughout history 
221
Post by: Frazzled
metallifan wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Not quite (about the confused part, not the blown his mind part )
Perry needs to debate him on the issue. It will be a good taste of the Presidential debate, shortly before another Texan wins the Whitehouse...
Yes, silly me for assuming that you were still sane after all these centuries stalking the greatest off-topic forums throughout history
You as a Canadian, above all others should understand the effect of being 1,300 miles from Tim Horton's.
14573
Post by: metallifan
Frazzled wrote:metallifan wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Not quite (about the confused part, not the blown his mind part )
Perry needs to debate him on the issue. It will be a good taste of the Presidential debate, shortly before another Texan wins the Whitehouse...
Yes, silly me for assuming that you were still sane after all these centuries stalking the greatest off-topic forums throughout history
You as a Canadian, above all others should understand the effect of being 1,300 miles from Tim Horton's.
1,300 miles?
Fraz, I'm less than 500 meters from one, and I'm feeling the effects of withdrawal.
39004
Post by: biccat
I seem to recall this happening before.
Anyone remember Jose Medellin?
21853
Post by: mattyrm
God damn hippies, rapist and murderer!?
SLAY THEM ALL!
39004
Post by: biccat
mattyrm wrote:God damn hippies, rapist and murderer!?
SLAY THEM ALL!
Rapists, murderers, or hippies?
45258
Post by: remilia_scarlet
biccat wrote:mattyrm wrote:God damn hippies, rapist and murderer!?
SLAY THEM ALL!
Rapists, murderers, or hippies?
Do we have to pick?
221
Post by: Frazzled
biccat wrote:I seem to recall this happening before.
Anyone remember Jose Medellin?
Yep.
41903
Post by: lord commissar klimino
remilia_scarlet wrote:biccat wrote:mattyrm wrote:God damn hippies, rapist and murderer!?
SLAY THEM ALL!
Rapists, murderers, or hippies?
Do we have to pick?
yeah cant we kill them all. all of them break the laws,so all should die!
221
Post by: Frazzled
In their defense I've known a few hippies. They don't actually break the law most of the time. They don't actually do much of anything most of the time.
41903
Post by: lord commissar klimino
Frazzled wrote:In their defense I've known a few hippies. They don't actually break the law most of the time. They don't actually do much of anything most of the time.
freeloaders! lazy! high! tree huggers! 
46
Post by: alarmingrick
lord commissar klimino wrote:Frazzled wrote:In their defense I've known a few hippies. They don't actually break the law most of the time. They don't actually do much of anything most of the time.
freeloaders! lazy! high! tree huggers!
Other than the splinters, what's wrong with hugging a tree high?
221
Post by: Frazzled
alarmingrick wrote:lord commissar klimino wrote:Frazzled wrote:In their defense I've known a few hippies. They don't actually break the law most of the time. They don't actually do much of anything most of the time.
freeloaders! lazy! high! tree huggers!
Other than the splinters, what's wrong with hugging a tree high?
Trees often have ants. This could get painful very quickly.
41903
Post by: lord commissar klimino
alarmingrick wrote:lord commissar klimino wrote:Frazzled wrote:In their defense I've known a few hippies. They don't actually break the law most of the time. They don't actually do much of anything most of the time.
freeloaders! lazy! high! tree huggers!
Other than the splinters, what's wrong with hugging a tree high?
ummm,your hugging a tree! im all for we need them,but thats going to far. as for being high,thats its own problem.go get therapy or something! at least most of the time its not as bad as smoking.
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
Bah! It's just good ol' Barry Soetoro going for another completely unearned Nobel prize. That's the sort of hobbies our dear leaders have, didn't you know?
19370
Post by: daedalus
President Barack Obama is attempting to block the execution in Texas on Thursday of a Mexican man because it would breach an international convention and do "irreparable harm" to US interests.
Huh.
25703
Post by: juraigamer
From what I read this is about following international regulations and specific treat(ies)
No doubt fox news with twist this into horrible, horrible crap.
Give the damn fool back to mexico, problem solved.
9598
Post by: Quintinus
remilia_scarlet wrote:God, things like this disgust me. What's next, get convicted of murder, spend a night in jail?
Too late. Casey Anthony. 
39004
Post by: biccat
juraigamer wrote:No doubt fox news with twist this into horrible, horrible crap.
I'll admit, I lolled. Look at that horrible, horrible crap that Fox News twisted the story into: "A top United Nations official is urging the governor of Texas to call off the execution of a Mexican national convicted of murder" It's like they're not even a real news source!
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Whilst I agree that people should get the legal aid that is due to them, if they are convicted anyway even with the "standard" level of legal aid that any other person would get there should not be an issue, other than perhaps tightening the system up to try and ensure it does not happen again.
It is the same as someone who gets demolished in court after being caught red handed but gets off on some procedural technicality - being guilty is still being guilty.
221
Post by: Frazzled
juraigamer wrote:From what I read this is about following international regulations and specific treat(ies)
No doubt fox news with twist this into horrible, horrible crap.
Give the damn fool back to mexico, problem solved.
Horse gak. He's an illegal alien who came here and murdered people. He received his due trial and defense.  him.
37886
Post by: Goddard
It's not like they're going to release him back out into society. That man is gakked in the long term or the short term. But international-politics are a delicate matter, especially with our strained relationship with Mexico.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Goddard wrote:It's not like they're going to release him back out into society. That man is gakked in the long term or the short term. But international-politics are a delicate matter, especially with our strained relationship with Mexico.
that.
He had a full defense. the Mexican consulate doesn't defend their tens of thousands of illegal citizens in our court system. There was no difference.
Mexico has standing to talk about anything, when they close their border.
As noted, we've been through this before. On the positive I support Mexico's call to try the people behind operation Gunrunner. Holder might start thinking about taking a trip to Canada.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Frazzled wrote:juraigamer wrote:From what I read this is about following international regulations and specific treat(ies)
No doubt fox news with twist this into horrible, horrible crap.
Give the damn fool back to mexico, problem solved.
Horse gak. He's an illegal alien who came here and murdered people. He received his due trial and defense. him.
Hold on skip, article says he was two when he arrived in the US. That's not so much going somewhere, as being taken?
And you know, just sort of turning up and bumping off the natives is something of a tradition in the USA.
And now seriously. I see it's not just Obama trying to do this, but several others, including his predecessor. So the guy doesn't Fry? Long as he remains locked up, I fail to see the problem?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Hold on skip, article says he was two when he arrived in the US. That's not so much going somewhere, as being taken?
*** He's illegal or he's not. If you're arguing he's not then the Mexicon consulate is irrelvant. If he is (an d he is) I restate. Give him a one way ticket to repsiration free land.
And you know, just sort of turning up and bumping off the natives is something of a tradition in the USA.
***He's not a native. I am. him.
And now seriously. I see it's not just Obama trying to do this, but several others, including his predecessor. So the guy doesn't Fry? Long as he remains locked up, I fail to see the problem?
***He won't fry. He'll get the needle. As noted, this has happened before and will happen again. What will happen next is the DOJ will attempt to seize all the drugs stating theirs a potential problem in their procurement.
37886
Post by: Goddard
As long as he's kept from society, who gives a gak?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
He'll either rot or fry, and I'm fine with both.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Frazzled wrote:Hold on skip, article says he was two when he arrived in the US. That's not so much going somewhere, as being taken? *** He's illegal or he's not. If you're arguing he's not then the Mexicon consulate is irrelvant. If he is (an d he is) I restate. Give him a one way ticket to repsiration free land. And you know, just sort of turning up and bumping off the natives is something of a tradition in the USA. ***He's not a native. I am. him. And now seriously. I see it's not just Obama trying to do this, but several others, including his predecessor. So the guy doesn't Fry? Long as he remains locked up, I fail to see the problem? ***He won't fry. He'll get the needle. As noted, this has happened before and will happen again. What will happen next is the DOJ will attempt to seize all the drugs stating theirs a potential problem in their procurement.
So at what point does someone become a native in a country comprised of the descendants of immigrants? He likely has no memory of life in Mexico, having lived in the US way before the average human memory really kicks in. And again, when someone is brought into a country without their consent (being a kid, he couldn't give it, this was a decision presumely made by his parents) why should he be harrassed for it? N.B. not trying to excuse his crime, scumbag is a killer, but I fail to see what his status has to do with it?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Goddard wrote:As long as he's kept from society, who gives a gak?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
He'll either rot or fry, and I'm fine with both.
Thats not what they are pleading for.
41903
Post by: lord commissar klimino
Frazzled wrote:Goddard wrote:As long as he's kept from society, who gives a gak?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
He'll either rot or fry, and I'm fine with both.
Thats not what they are pleading for.
but its what they should be going for.
4402
Post by: CptJake
President Barack Obama is attempting to block the execution in Texas on Thursday of a Mexican man because it would breach an international convention and do "irreparable harm" to US interests.
I wonder if "Not Doing Irreparable Harm" was taken into consideration in the project gun runner planning sessions?
Heh.
39004
Post by: biccat
Mr Mystery wrote:N.B. not trying to excuse his crime, scumbag is a killer, but I fail to see what his status has to do with it?
His status has everything to do with the story.
The US signed a treaty that requires access to consular officials for foreign nationals arrested in the US. Because he was born in Mexico, he's a Mexican citizen, and this access was denied to him.
Of course, one could argue that someone who has lived in the US for almost his entire life wouldn't have any interest that is served by having access to a Mexican consulate.
221
Post by: Frazzled
lord commissar klimino wrote:Frazzled wrote:Goddard wrote:As long as he's kept from society, who gives a gak?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
He'll either rot or fry, and I'm fine with both.
Thats not what they are pleading for.
but its what they should be going for.
They should be shutting up. As noted Mexico has tens of thousands of citizens in the US criminal system currently. They don't pony up to defend or assist in any way. This is no different.
10667
Post by: Fifty
This is like a RaW vs RaI argument. At the end of the day, he deserves the most extreme penalty available, and in Texas that is death. On the other hand, if killing him leads to some Americans, born and bred, not getting the access to an American Consulate that they should, is it really worth it? Personally, I suspect that not all that much damage will really be done to American foreign relations. After all, it is not like they normally negotiate from a position of "please be nice, just like we were to you..." anyway.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:juraigamer wrote:From what I read this is about following international regulations and specific treat(ies)
No doubt fox news with twist this into horrible, horrible crap.
Give the damn fool back to mexico, problem solved.
Horse gak. He's an illegal alien who came here and murdered people. He received his due trial and defense. him.
Surely the whole point of the story is that he didn't?
He was due consular contact and wasn't offered it. Whether that is a failing of the defence or prosecution, it's a mistake in the judicial process.
I doubt whether this case will seriously affect international relations, but still I think it would be better if the justice system followed the law.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Surely the whole point of the story is that he didn't?
***One does not mark the other. AS NOTED, Mexico does not support its criminal defendants in the US. This only popped up because its a death penalty case, and frankly Obama and the state of Texas don't get along. But again, we'll fix that in 2012.
He was due consular contact and wasn't offered it. Whether that is a failing of the defence or prosecution, it's a mistake in the judicial process.
***No, its not. He was given the full defense options as every other defendant in Texas. He was legally and rightfully convicted, and that conviction has withstood a plethora of mandatory appeals (death penalty case).
I doubt whether this case will seriously affect international relations, but still I think it would be better if the justice system followed the law.
***It did follow the law. It won't impact international relations because the border is a ing warzone with Mexican gangsters shooting people on boats on Eagle Lake, Mexican troops crossing our border, and Mexican citizens (THIS CASE IN POINT) killing US citizens on US soil. We've gone to war WITH THIS COUNTRY in the past over this before.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Doesn't the fact that NO ONE seems to be disputing his guilt seem to be an indicator?
"Well of course he is guilty, but we don't want to upset Mexico!"
"Sure he did it, but he didn't get to talk to a Mexican bureaucrat, so we should let him go".
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Well then what is the point of the story?
I thought the point was that foreign nationals are due consular contact, and he didn't get it.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
If I were in charge down there, Id just march in there and shoot the bastard in the chest. If he survives then hes free to not be killed by lethal injection and spend life in prison. Sounds fair to me anyways
4402
Post by: CptJake
Kilkrazy wrote:Well then what is the point of the story?
I thought the point was that foreign nationals are due consular contact, and he didn't get it.
The point of the story is the Liberal Press is lamenting the fact that the Feds can't trump State laws.
Unless I'm misreading something...
Jake
45258
Post by: remilia_scarlet
Kilkrazy wrote:Well then what is the point of the story?
I thought the point was that foreign nationals are due consular contact, and he didn't get it.
Inb4 locked.
46
Post by: alarmingrick
remilia_scarlet wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Well then what is the point of the story?
I thought the point was that foreign nationals are due consular contact, and he didn't get it.
Inb4 locked.
Why would that get it locked?
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Be gentle, hes still new
46
Post by: alarmingrick
KingCracker wrote:Be gentle, hes still new
Ah, a youngling. 
He'll soon learn the ways of the OT.
39004
Post by: biccat
Kilkrazy wrote:Well then what is the point of the story?
I thought the point was that foreign nationals are due consular contact, and he didn't get it.
See here.
The Supreme Court has already addressed this issue. Until Congress acts, there's no authority to compel any state to act.
It's called dual sovereignty.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Excellent case. It keeps the President from signing a treaty signing away our fundamental rights, like the 2nd Amendment.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
I've learned something today....
The US legal system will never, ever make sense to me!
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
I'm not so sure we're just worried about hurting relations with Mexico. Other countries may get upset that we're fudging on a treaty, regardless of the nation we're "offending".
Not that I'm about sparing the guy. Hell, it's Texas! F that lethal injection crap...they should string him up WW style!
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:Excellent case. It keeps the President from signing a treaty signing away our fundamental rights, like the 2nd Amendment.
That's already how it worked due to the process ratification. The only difference is that Congress would now have to pass a separate bill in order to compel state compliance.
Frazzled wrote:
But again, we'll fix that in 2012.
The numbers don't point that way. Automatically Appended Next Post: Deadshane1 wrote:I'm not so sure we're just worried about hurting relations with Mexico. Other countries may get upset that we're fudging on a treaty, regardless of the nation we're "offending".
The issue is that it would come off as a reversal on our acceptance of an ICJ ruling, and there are a lot of nations that like the ICJ; including us given the protection it applies to our citizens tried abroad.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Frazzled wrote:Surely the whole point of the story is that he didn't?
***One does not mark the other. AS NOTED, Mexico does not support its criminal defendants in the US. This only popped up because its a death penalty case, and frankly Obama and the state of Texas don't get along. But again, we'll fix that in 2012.
You obviously didn't read the bit in the article where it says GWB also pushed for this. <text redacted; make your point without making personal attacks --Janthkin>
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Frazzled wrote:Surely the whole point of the story is that he didn't?
***One does not mark the other. AS NOTED, Mexico does not support its criminal defendants in the US. This only popped up because its a death penalty case, and frankly Obama and the state of Texas don't get along. But again, we'll fix that in 2012.
He was due consular contact and wasn't offered it. Whether that is a failing of the defence or prosecution, it's a mistake in the judicial process.
***No, its not. He was given the full defense options as every other defendant in Texas. He was legally and rightfully convicted, and that conviction has withstood a plethora of mandatory appeals (death penalty case).
I doubt whether this case will seriously affect international relations, but still I think it would be better if the justice system followed the law.
***It did follow the law. It won't impact international relations because the border is a ing warzone with Mexican gangsters shooting people on boats on Eagle Lake, Mexican troops crossing our border, and Mexican citizens (THIS CASE IN POINT) killing US citizens on US soil. We've gone to war WITH THIS COUNTRY in the past over this before.
So the plan is to take back the white house so another military conflict can be initiated?
Glad to see the republicans are looking to shake things up and try something different should they win in 2012...
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
While I think that the man deserves the worst possible sentence possible, the fact that he didn't receive the due recognition he was allowed under the law does bother me. I'm a big proponent of the ideal that no one is above the law, and that the law should bend for no one. THat includes cases when it protects the guilty.
However, double jeaporday means we can't jut redo all of this. My personal belief is that we should offer to extradite him to Mexico, and if the Mexican government refuses to take him back, then Texas can just go kill the son of a :censored:.
43487
Post by: Flaming Troll
Frazzled wrote:convicted rapist and murderer
Anything other than execution should be out of the question. I don't care if he's from Mars, he is a rapist and a murderer and deserves only death.
5470
Post by: sebster
There is actually a thread about people being denied consular access. Not only a thread about it, but an actual state moving along with punishment for a crime while denying them their consular access. I know it's Texas, but still.
Frazzled wrote:There's a general lack of sympathy when you come here illegally and then claim you're a foreign citizen.
It doesn't matter how much sympathy you have, due process is due process.
It amazes me that you do not understand that. Automatically Appended Next Post: remilia_scarlet wrote:God, things like this disgust me. What's next, get convicted of murder, spend a night in jail?
This isn't about letting a guy go, it's about ensuring he's convicted in a fair court of law.
Would you be similarly disinterested in an American receiving consular support after being arrested for a crime in Mexico?
Would you be similarly disinterested in an American being denied a fundamental right in an American trial, because 'we all know he's guilty anyway.' Automatically Appended Next Post: Fifty wrote:This is like a RaW vs RaI argument. At the end of the day, he deserves the most extreme penalty available, and in Texas that is death. On the other hand, if killing him leads to some Americans, born and bred, not getting the access to an American Consulate that they should, is it really worth it? Personally, I suspect that not all that much damage will really be done to American foreign relations. After all, it is not like they normally negotiate from a position of "please be nice, just like we were to you..." anyway.
I don't think it's a particularly good idea to encourage government to act on 'we'll ignore the law to do what's right, as long as we think it won't harm us down the line.'
39004
Post by: biccat
CT GAMER wrote:So the plan is to take back the white house so another military conflict can be initiated?
They told me if I voted for McCain we would get involved in another war in the Middle East...
ChrisWWII wrote:While I think that the man deserves the worst possible sentence possible, the fact that he didn't receive the due recognition he was allowed under the law does bother me.
Except he did get the protection due under the law. This circumstance has already been litigated (although he can re-litigate it if he wants). We already know what protections are due under the law: none.
ChrisWWII wrote:I'm a big proponent of the ideal that no one is above the law, and that the law should bend for no one. THat includes cases when it protects the guilty.
Totally agree.
ChrisWWII wrote:However, double jeaporday means we can't jut redo all of this.
This isn't double jeopardy. If the case is overturned on appeal, the government can prosecute him again.
5534
Post by: dogma
sebster wrote:There is actually a thread about people being denied consular access. Not only a thread about it, but an actual state moving along with punishment for a crime while denying them their consular access. I know it's Texas, but still.
Its a messy issue. If you're interested, here is an interesting criticism specifically related to the Medellin case mentioned earlier in the thread.
The short version is that if any given treaty is not self-executing, and is not implemented into law by Congress, then the ratification of that treaty is not tacit to domestic law. This effectively added an additional layer of scrutiny beyond the Congressional process of ratification. Of course, what self-executing treaty actually is never clearly defined, as indicated by the dissent; presumably it relates to specificity in terms the treaties language; ie. "all signatory parties" vs. "All signatory parties, and their constitutive bodies."
This is worth reading too, if only for a laugh.
Texas Attorney General wrote:
Any Texas judicial authority who presides over the arraignment of a foreign national should offer the arraigned person an opportunity to contact the consular officials of his country of origin.
5470
Post by: sebster
dogma wrote:Its a messy issue. If you're interested, here is an interesting criticism specifically related to the Medellin case mentioned earlier in the thread.
Yeah, I understand that Texas has a very sound case that they don't have to grant access. I'm simply amazed that they, or anyone else, have suddenly decided that doing so is a good idea.
As you second link shows, it's one of the basic things that everyone assumes is to simply be granted, until someone screws up and doesn't do it, then a bunch of people start pretending that it isn't really.
5534
Post by: dogma
sebster wrote:
Yeah, I understand that Texas has a very sound case that they don't have to grant access. I'm simply amazed that they, or anyone else, have suddenly decided that doing so is a good idea.
As you second link shows, it's one of the basic things that everyone assumes is to simply be granted, until someone screws up and doesn't do it, then a bunch of people start pretending that it isn't really.
Definitely. There's a reason the otherwise realist Bush administration sided with an international institution when it ruled in favor of mandatory consular access over Medellin et al.
37886
Post by: Goddard
Frazzled wrote:Goddard wrote:As long as he's kept from society, who gives a gak?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
He'll either rot or fry, and I'm fine with both.
Thats not what they are pleading for.
Do you really think the re-prosecution will result in any other outcome?
30287
Post by: Bromsy
After carefully weighing the issue, I have to say that living here since he was two, in my mind if not the legal world, means he can get along with just the same trial an actual citizen would get.
45258
Post by: remilia_scarlet
Ok, the way I see it sebster, no matter where you are, or where you're from, if you commit a murder, you commit a murder, it doesn't matter if you're an illegal mexican in texas, or an american tourist in mexico, you commited a murder. There's no justifying killing another human being, it's wrong, and to go unpunished is salt in the wound, don't you think?
I understand that he does need a trial first , but, if he's found guilty and recieves death penalty, he recieves death penalty. Of course, you have to understand that him getting out of this can be an insult to the family of the victim, don't you think?
Or, are you going to condescend what I said?
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
biccat wrote:Except he did get the protection due under the law. This circumstance has already been litigated (although he can re-litigate it if he wants). We already know what protections are due under the law: none.
I'm not 100% sure of the law in this scenario, but if there are any remaining legal options for him that he was not allowed to pursue, he should be allowed to do so. If not, and that's what it sounds like, then he deserves whatever the court chooses to give him.
This isn't double jeopardy. If the case is overturned on appeal, the government can prosecute him again.
Oh, of course. The implication that I was getting was that the case was going to be droped on a technicality. If it's just an appeal, then let's prosecute him again, convict him again, and let him suffer the consequences for what he's done.
5534
Post by: dogma
ChrisWWII wrote:If it's just an appeal, then let's prosecute him again, convict him again, and let him suffer the consequences for what he's done.
That's not how appeals work. Appeals are based on procedural malfeasance, not the absence of a decision one does not like.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
dogma wrote:ChrisWWII wrote:If it's just an appeal, then let's prosecute him again, convict him again, and let him suffer the consequences for what he's done.
That's not how appeals work. Appeals are based on procedural malfeasance, not the absence of a decision one does not like.
I'm confused, is this guy going to get off murder completely or is there going to be some sort of re-trial?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Neither, as it stands Leal will get injected and face his maker, and all the folks who hate the dealth penalty will hold him as a unjustly killed martyr and a victim of the Evil US.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm
Here is some info on what a nice guy he is: 
EDIT: Note that the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations allows traveling foreign nationals to call for legal advice from their home governments. Seems that a guy who has lived in the US almost his life cannot really be considered a 'traveling foreign national', and it is also hard to make any case what so ever that his trial and all the sibsequent appeals were not fair.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
That's pretty damn gruesome. What will happen if he gets consular access?
221
Post by: Frazzled
ChrisWWII wrote:While I think that the man deserves the worst possible sentence possible, the fact that he didn't receive the due recognition he was allowed under the law does bother me. I'm a big proponent of the ideal that no one is above the law, and that the law should bend for no one. THat includes cases when it protects the guilty.
However, double jeaporday means we can't jut redo all of this. My personal belief is that we should offer to extradite him to Mexico, and if the Mexican government refuses to take him back, then Texas can just go kill the son of a :censored:.
Thats horse gak. He had the same right to a defense as you or I. He needs a dirt nap and in just a few days he should get it. Automatically Appended Next Post: iproxtaco wrote:That's pretty damn gruesome. What will happen if he gets consular access?
Nothing. As I said Mexico will not provide legal support for defendants. It would benkrupt them as there are tens of thousands in our legal system.
Its an excuse to overturn the verdict and cost US taxpayers another million $.
5534
Post by: dogma
Emperors Faithful wrote:
I'm confused, is this guy going to get off murder completely or is there going to be some sort of re-trial?
The request being made if essentially for a retrial, though it may be beyond the period in which such action can be taken, he has been on death row for awhile. This is basically a case of Texas doing whatever it wants, within the law, and a (large) number of federal officials and military personnel considering their choices to be stupid. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:
Nothing. As I said Mexico will not provide legal support for defendants. It would benkrupt them as there are tens of thousands in our legal system.
Its an excuse to overturn the verdict and cost US taxpayers another million $.
Of course its an excuse to overturn the verdict, so what? That's how argument works when politics and law coincide.
In any case, whether or not Mexico would grant legal support to all of their nationals in the US justice system is not relevant. The relevant dispute is over whether or not this man was given access to his consulate.
The US regularly refuses to provide legal support to its nationals in foreign criminal disputes because, as you say, it would cost an immense amount of money. We tend to pay for defense high profile cases, or those cases in which there is an apparent absence of fairness in trial. That's how most states do things, and it is likely that Mexico would respond similarly.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
dogma wrote:
That's not how appeals work. Appeals are based on procedural malfeasance, not the absence of a decision one does not like.
I'm not going to pretend to know all the details of how law works. I want to be a lawyer some day, but I'm still an undergrad for now.
I was speaking colloquially. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:
Thats horse gak. He had the same right to a defense as you or I. He needs a dirt nap and in just a few days he should get it.
It certainly is beginning to seem like that's the case, and I'd agree with you. Like I said, I'm a proponent of the ideal that everyone is equal before hte law, if he's had his fair trial (and it seems like he's had) let's kill him already. If he hasn't, let's give him on.e
5470
Post by: sebster
remilia_scarlet wrote:Ok, the way I see it sebster, no matter where you are, or where you're from, if you commit a murder, you commit a murder, it doesn't matter if you're an illegal mexican in texas, or an american tourist in mexico, you commited a murder. There's no justifying killing another human being, it's wrong, and to go unpunished is salt in the wound, don't you think?
Absolutely. I don't think for one second justice would be served by having this guy go free. I also don't think for one second that's likely to happen.
I understand that he does need a trial first , but, if he's found guilty and recieves death penalty, he recieves death penalty.
Sure, but that part there - "found guilty"... that part relies on the assumption of a fair trial. Part of a fair trial is giving the accused access to every form of defence he can muster, and that includes giving a foreign national access to his government.
Of course, you have to understand that him getting out of this can be an insult to the family of the victim, don't you think?
The law has never been about whether or not we're being fair, or whether or not we're being insulting to the family of the victim. That kind of sentiment is too likely to lead to emotive trials, and that's too likely to lead to injustice. The power of the state is a scary thing, and it is too easily wielded by people claiming to be concerned for the family of the victim, and relying on emotion to have us all fall in to support them.
5534
Post by: dogma
ChrisWWII wrote:
It certainly is beginning to seem like that's the case, and I'd agree with you. Like I said, I'm a proponent of the ideal that everyone is equal before hte law, if he's had his fair trial (and it seems like he's had) let's kill him already. If he hasn't, let's give him on.e
I think this issue has more to do with getting Texas to honor the US treaty regarding consular access than actually staying this particular execution. That would be a fringe benefit for some of those arguing for it, but I get the impression that its just one battle in a larger war regarding what many view as an irresponsible judicial practice. One which even Texas claims to uphold according to their Attorney General's website.
18499
Post by: Henners91
KILL THE XENOS!
10356
Post by: Bran Dawri
Just a thought:
this guy did it. However, they're arguing that because he's a mexican immigrant he would've had a lawyer who would have told him to shut up because american defense lawyers don't?
Why? language barrier? this guy has lived in the states since he was 2. I don't think he would have any trouble with the language. At least, he shouldn't.
I'm with the crowd saying hang 'im high on this one.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
I don't really have a problem with stringing this character up, but I'd also prefer that he did recieve every legal route available to him before he swings. If that means an entire re-trial that will ensure that this case has been dealt with appropriately, then I'd support that.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't really have a problem with stringing this character up, but I'd also prefer that he did recieve every legal route available to him before he swings. If that means an entire re-trial that will ensure that this case has been dealt with appropriately, then I'd support that.
You would.
He had a trial. He was in the US since he was two. I'd bet good money English was his natiuve language. He had representation.
him with a chainsaw.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
The issue here is whether or not he received the full and proper process under the law. If he was still a foreign national, he should have had consulate acess.
How would you feel about a US national that was denied access to a US embassy in a similar situation?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Frankly, if a US national raped some 16 year old girl with a stick then bashed in her head with a rock, went through a fair trial and a ton of appeals and was convicted, it would not bother me that he was not offered the chance to talk to someone from a consulate.
The key is Fair Trial. Though there are countries other than the US where that is a right and a right that is actually given and protected, it is NOT the norm around the globe.
Go ahead and make a logical post about how access to a consular official would have made a difference in this case, and why it should have made a difference. The guy was guilty. He had a fair trial and exhausted the appeals process.
He DID receive full and proper process under the law. Period. See the case I referenced in an earlier post. What Pres Obama is trying to do is hold off on the execution in the hopes that a NEW law will be passed by our congress which would then trump Texas law. Currently that law has NOT passed. So, Texas is well within its rights. Period.
39004
Post by: biccat
Emperors Faithful wrote:The issue here is whether or not he received the full and proper process under the law. If he was still a foreign national, he should have had consulate acess.
How would you feel about a US national that was denied access to a US embassy in a similar situation?
That raped and murdered a 16-year-old girl with construction materials?
I'd say send him back to the US because Mexico doesn't have the death penalty.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The issue here is whether or not he received the full and proper process under the law.
***And he did. Whats the whole argument here? The Mexican government does not provide any support for criminal defendant in the USA. There would have been no difference. They wouldn't have picked up the ing phone.
If he was still a foreign national, he should have had consulate access.
***He was here since he was two and lived as an American. The argument is being made in many circles that he's "an American" now. In fact in many states he could get the residency discount for college, whereas if I moved there I wouldn't be able to. If the polizei can't ask your nationality how exactly are they going to asertain you're a foreign devil in the first place?
Again him with a chainsaw.
How would you feel about a US national that was denied access to a US embassy in a similar situation?
***
1) Usually happens anyway in the plethora of shitholes in the world.
2) I wouldn't particularly give a gak if an American went to another country at age two. If you go to Mother Russia you live by Mother Russia's rules.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
CptJake wrote:Frankly, if a US national raped some 16 year old girl with a stick then bashed in her head with a rock, went through a fair trial and a ton of appeals and was convicted, it would not bother me that he was not offered the chance to talk to someone from a consulate.
The key is Fair Trial. Though there are countries other than the US where that is a right and a right that is actually given and protected, it is NOT the norm around the globe.
Go ahead and make a logical post about how access to a consular official would have made a difference in this case, and why it should have made a difference. The guy was guilty. He had a fair trial and exhausted the appeals process.
He DID receive full and proper process under the law. Period. See the case I referenced in an earlier post. What Pres Obama is trying to do is hold off on the execution in the hopes that a NEW law will be passed by our congress which would then trump Texas law. Currently that law has NOT passed. So, Texas is well within its rights. Period.
I thought the whole point of this was that full and proper process under the law would have given him access to a consulate? Well, that and the hope of avoiding any detrimental affect on foreign relations.
As for all the arguments regarding "he's an American now". No, he's not a US citizen, otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue. That's pretty straightforward. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:2) I wouldn't particularly give a gak if an American went to another country at age two. If you go to Mother Russia you live by Mother Russia's rules.
It's not a matter of foreigners not being bound by a country's laws. The issue would be the US citizen not being given any access to an embassy or anything.
221
Post by: Frazzled
He had the full and proper process under the law. Thats the freeking point.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
So, if he had gotten counsel from Mexico he wouldn't have admitted to the cops that he'd done it? Looks like we dodged a bullet there.
He should get the injection... A LETHAL INJECTION OF A PIECE OF LUMBER!
4402
Post by: CptJake
Emperors Faithful wrote:
I thought the whole point of this was that full and proper process under the law would have given him access to a consulate? Well, that and the hope of avoiding any detrimental affect on foreign relations.
That is what the anti-US and anti-depth penalty folks want you to think.
Again, look at the case I referenced earlier:
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.[1]
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
CptJake wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:
I thought the whole point of this was that full and proper process under the law would have given him access to a consulate? Well, that and the hope of avoiding any detrimental affect on foreign relations.
That is what the anti-US and anti-depth penalty folks want you to think.
What? 
Again, look at the case I referenced earlier:
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.[1]
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas
Ah, cool. So being given access to a consulate if you're a foreigner is in an international treaty, but not domestic law?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Ah, cool. So being given access to a consulate if you're a foreigner is in an international treaty, but not domestic law?
Exactly. Point of reference here my man. To be binding and valid under the US Constitution, any international treaty has to be proerly ratified by Congress. Additionally, enabling legislation has to be passed to make it a valid law if it impacts domestic affairs. Third, if it impacts domestic affairs and has such legislation, such legislation must stil be constitutional under the er, Constitution. Ergo, as much as the President may like, The President cannot sign a treaty limiting free speech in the United States. Or more properly he can, but any legislation to enable that treaty would be struck down as the treaty would have no impact.
24882
Post by: Infreak
SlaveToDorkness wrote:He should get the injection... A LETHAL INJECTION OF A PIECE OF LUMBER!
I think that constitutes a human rights violation.
More to the point, the guy made a bad choice and now faces the legal ramifications, whenever that might be, after being found guilty. The treaty clearly does nothing to help the guy so deep six the bugger and move on. I hear there are a number of people dying to be next.
45047
Post by: dajobe
this guy disgusts me, i mean come on, what he did to that girl is unforgivable. Do i think he should have been able to call the consulate...yes,technically...do i think he should have been tried here, yes, if your here since you are 2 years old, you are "american" whether your birth certificate says it or not. I think, give him some texas style justice, and even if by some horrible chance he does get let go to mexico and allowed to live, when he eventually dies, wherever it is, hes gonna get judged again, and i think hes goin to hell.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
He won't be let free. He's been tried and re-tried many times, if Mexico does end up giving him aid, even though they won't, the same thing will happen. He's going to die be lethal injection, and good riddens with him.
221
Post by: Frazzled
iproxtaco wrote:He won't be let free. He's been tried and re-tried many times, if Mexico does end up giving him aid, even though they won't, the same thing will happen. He's going to die be lethal injection, and good riddens with him.
thats now how it works. They want the case overturned. That means an entire new trial with a cold case. The likelihood of conviction a second time. It also means the relatives of the girl has to go through the nightmare a second time so do gooders can go there there see now we have justice.
Speed up the process. Do it now.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
What the feth? What's the point in that? I've been reading up and I've missed that, but seriously? He's been tried plenty of times, if hes tried again the same thing will happen. He's guilty, they've proven that, now it's just causing unnecessary discomfort for the family of the victim. Just damn kill him, beat him to death for all I care.
221
Post by: Frazzled
To be accurate he probably just had one trial, but with multiple appeals.
45047
Post by: dajobe
iproxtaco wrote:What the feth? What's the point in that? I've been reading up and I've missed that, but seriously? He's been tried plenty of times, if hes tried again the same thing will happen. He's guilty, they've proven that, now it's just causing unnecessary discomfort for the family of the victim. Just damn kill him, beat him to death for all I care.
i believe that is cruel and unusual punishment, probably is what he deserves though.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
As cruel as the torture he subjected his victim to?
45047
Post by: dajobe
as i said, he probably deserves it, but it is in the US constitution that no cruel or unusual punishment be administered
Automatically Appended Next Post:
emphasis on US consitution, not international law
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
I wouldn't select any kind of punishment as cruel as that, but if it were to happen, i couldn't say I would feel any sort of objection.
4402
Post by: CptJake
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a Mexican man's request for an execution stay in Texas, calling his argument meritless.
The U.S. Supreme Court said, “We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President,” presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.”
No surprises there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now we need to see if Presidential aspirations influence Gov. Perry to save this turd.
5470
Post by: sebster
Bran Dawri wrote:Just a thought:
this guy did it. However, they're arguing that because he's a mexican immigrant he would've had a lawyer who would have told him to shut up because american defense lawyers don't?
Why? language barrier? this guy has lived in the states since he was 2. I don't think he would have any trouble with the language. At least, he shouldn't.
I'm with the crowd saying hang 'im high on this one.
No, they're arguing that everyone deserves the full representation granted to them under the law. Legal systems that decide to cut corners are very dangerous things. Automatically Appended Next Post: CptJake wrote:The key is Fair Trial.
No, the key is due process.
Go ahead and make a logical post about how access to a consular official would have made a difference in this case, and why it should have made a difference. The guy was guilty. He had a fair trial and exhausted the appeals process.
Do you honestly believe we are better served by having a judicial system where judges get to decide what fundamental rights wouldn't really make a difference in this case, and deny them as a point of convenience? Automatically Appended Next Post: dajobe wrote:this guy disgusts me, i mean come on, what he did to that girl is unforgivable. Do i think he should have been able to call the consulate...yes,technically...do i think he should have been tried here, yes, if your here since you are 2 years old, you are "american" whether your birth certificate says it or not.
He would have been tried in the US anyway. He just would have access to Mexican embassy officials who could have explained to him if events in his trial were proceeding as they ought to, or if helped with any language barrier or whatever.
These people were very unlikely to have made a difference, it's doubtful Mexico would have even offered much support, or that he would have taken it, given how long he's been in the US.
The point, quite simply, is that society cannot tolerate a judicial system that decides for itself whether a person really needs one or more of their fundamental rights before proceeding to prosecute them.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
I thought fundamental rights were more along the lines of presuming innocence until guilt is proven; not an interview with a bureaucrat from a country you can't remember. That seems more like a 'special' right than a fundamental one.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
alarmingrick wrote:KingCracker wrote:Be gentle, hes still new
Ah, a youngling.
He'll soon learn the ways of the OT.
He certainly spams like a champion.
Anyway, it seems like they went ahead and did it. Too bad Casey Anthony wasn't Texan, eh? Eh?
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
"A technicality doesn't give anyone a right to come to this country and rape, torture and murder anyone,"
Sums it up for me.
"A large stick with a nail in it"
Anyone even remotely defending this trash should take a real long shower and think about that.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:The likelihood of conviction a second time. It also means the relatives of the girl has to go through the nightmare a second time so do gooders can go there there see now we have justice.
There is no right to the freedom from emotional duress, nor are political observers barred from requesting that a Governor grant a stay of execution.
Automatically Appended Next Post: SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Anyone even remotely defending this trash should take a real long shower and think about that.
I don't think anyone is defending the convicted, I think a number of people are criticizing the way Texas went about securing it. To be clear, all that had to be done to avoid this was give the guy access to his consulate. This could have been as simple as allowing him a phone call.
In either case, procedure wasn't violated here, except in the sense that Texas has a history of ignoring the internationally accepted right of foreign nationals to contact their state of citizenship, which in the US is a matter of norms, and not law (at least at the state level). The objection to Texas' decision to execute this guy isn't really about the fact that this particular person is being executed, its part of a larger campaign to pressure Texas into granting consular rights to accused criminals from Mexico.
5470
Post by: sebster
Bromsy wrote:I thought fundamental rights were more along the lines of presuming innocence until guilt is proven; not an interview with a bureaucrat from a country you can't remember. That seems more like a 'special' right than a fundamental one.
You can feth about with calling it whatever the hell you want, it's extremely important. It's something Texas thought was very important, right up until they thought it was inconvenient. Now we have people defending the ability of the state to pick and choose what processes it is willing to follow in it's prosecutions. Automatically Appended Next Post: SlaveToDorkness wrote:Anyone even remotely defending this trash should take a real long shower and think about that.
You need to accept that you have absolutely no idea what people are actually trying to defend in this case. No-one is defending this guy. He's just one more psycho loser, there's been plenty before and there'll be plenty after him.
What matters, what people are trying to defend, is the idea that the state doesn't get to decide what elements of due process are necessary, and which it can just ignore for the sake of a quick trial.
Now go take a real long shower, and think about that.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Did they even know he was a Mexican National at the time? Did they ask him? Did he tell them the truth? Seams like an easy way to get away with murder if it had worked out that way.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Monster Rain wrote:Anyway, it seems like they went ahead and did it. Too bad Casey Anthony wasn't Texan, eh? Eh?
Can't say I'm sorry.
Also, what did the paper mean by Conservative vs Liberal judges in the court's decision? Surely the role of a Judge is to rule on the law, not deal with politics.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
Frazzled wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:
Ah, cool. So being given access to a consulate if you're a foreigner is in an international treaty, but not domestic law?
Exactly. Point of reference here my man. To be binding and valid under the US Constitution, any international treaty has to be proerly ratified by Congress. Additionally, enabling legislation has to be passed to make it a valid law if it impacts domestic affairs. Third, if it impacts domestic affairs and has such legislation, such legislation must stil be constitutional under the er, Constitution. Ergo, as much as the President may like, The President cannot sign a treaty limiting free speech in the United States. Or more properly he can, but any legislation to enable that treaty would be struck down as the treaty would have no impact.
That's a accurate, clear, and concise summary of the issue. In this particular case however the President does however have to power to commute a sentence down to LWAP to bring the USA back into compliance with the treaty. Doing so in the middle of the 2012 general election would be stupid, but doing it during the Republican Primaries would actually make sense. Doing so would piss off the Republican base so much that it might give the much needed edge to Bachmann instead of candidates like Romney or Huntsman, and it would really help Michelle Bachmann win the state of Texas (Which Obama has no hope of winning in 2012) in the GOP primary.
5470
Post by: sebster
Emperors Faithful wrote:Can't say I'm sorry.
Also, what did the paper mean by Conservative vs Liberal judges in the court's decision? Surely the role of a Judge is to rule on the law, not deal with politics.
Judicial appointments get made by the political party that has power at that particular point in time. As the two parties have become increasingly stratified over certain issues, so judges have typically tended to vote along those lines.
This has resulted in a lot of recent prominent decisions being ruled along down party lines. For instance, four courts ruled on the constitutionality of healthcare reform, the two Republican appointed judges found parts of it unconstitutional, the two democrat appointed judges found it constitutional.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Also, the law isn't always as cut and dry as people seem to view it, especially at this level. These are the judges that decide what "is" means in context to Highway/Interstate Transportation Act of 1973 and how it relates to each states burden individually becuase of a suit brought becuase blah blah blah.
23400
Post by: Ma55ter_fett
Frazzled wrote: He's an illegal alien who came here...
At the age of two... after spending (practically) his whole life here in the US can you really blame him for not heading back to Mexico? (What a silly question I've just asked... I know you can )
His being in the country illegally is less of an issue for me (a nonissue to tell you the truth) than the rape and murder of that young girl. However as much as I would like the sentence to be carried out in full I can see the wisdom of not doing so. Were it an American citizen in this situation the sentence would most certainly not be carried out. And while I hate men who rape and murder little girls I would hate any hypocrisy or double standards in US foreign relations more.
One can always hope for a shanking in the prison courtyard however…
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Frazzled wrote: He's an illegal alien who came here...
At the age of two... after spending (practically) his whole life here in the US can you really blame him for not heading back to Mexico? (What a silly question I've just asked... I know you can )
His being in the country illegally is less of an issue for me (a nonissue to tell you the truth) than the rape and murder of that young girl. However as much as I would like the sentence to be carried out in full I can see the wisdom of not doing so. Were it an American citizen in this situation the sentence would most certainly not be carried out. And while I hate men who rape and murder little girls I would hate any hypocrisy or double standards in US foreign relations more.
One can always hope for a shanking in the prison courtyard however…
You are implying he only made it on to death row because he is not a US citzen?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Does it matter to all you folks claiming Due Process was violated that even the US Supreme Court thought Texas was in the right? Or are our constitution and laws so irrelevant because they are not automatically subordinate to YOUR understanding of Due Process in international law?
When the Supreme Court reviews the case and issues a statement like We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an 'appeal of the President,' presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.
it is hard to claim Due Process was not followed, if you have a clue as to what Due Process actually means.
39004
Post by: biccat
schadenfreude wrote:In this particular case however the President does however have to power to commute a sentence down to LWAP to bring the USA back into compliance with the treaty.
Actually, no, he didn't. edit: past tense.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I think the president only has pardon power, not the power to change sentencing or charges. Even then I'm not all that familiar with the process (not even considering the political considerations) that would be required.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
biccat wrote:schadenfreude wrote:In this particular case however the President does however have to power to commute a sentence down to LWAP to bring the USA back into compliance with the treaty.
Actually, no, he didn't.
edit: past tense.
Ooops the charges were all state charges, I'm too used to dealing with ua knuckleheads up on federal charges. My comment would have been valid if he was convicted in a murder conspiracy under the rico act, but he wasn't, and its all a real moot point now because no man can pardon a corpse.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
schadenfreude wrote:...no man can pardon a corpse.
I can.
...or I could just make a joke about necromancy.
25963
Post by: Miraclefish
A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.
Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.
The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?
You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.
39004
Post by: biccat
Ahtman wrote:I think the president only has pardon power, not the power to change sentencing or charges. Even then I'm not all that familiar with the process (not even considering the political considerations) that would be required.
Nah, he could reduce a sentence:
"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment"
schadenfreude wrote:Ooops the charges were all state charges, I'm too used to dealing with ua knuckleheads up on federal charges. My comment would have been valid if he was convicted in a murder conspiracy under the rico act, but he wasn't, and its all a real moot point now because no man can pardon a corpse.
If he had been indicted on federal charges, then this would have been a different story. I believe there is federal law requiring consular access for foreign defendants.
Also, not exactly. While pardoning a corpse isn't illegal, the practical effect is probably minimal
4402
Post by: CptJake
Miraclefish wrote:A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.
Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.
The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?
You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.
Did you again miss the part where Texas DID follow all the Due Process they had to, and that even the Supreme Court agrees? What part did they skip that you are upset about? What part did they not adhere to fully?
Either deal with the fact that in the system as it exists, Texas did everything it had to do, or don't. But you can't make stuff up and expect it to stick.
45047
Post by: dajobe
they injected that horrible person with "blue juice" and now hes sleepin with the fishes, good riddance
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
Yep.
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/07/08/humberto_leal_mexican_national_executed_in_texas_over_obama_s_ob.html
He's gone, and the world isn't worse off for it.
Basically, the Law was followed, the only problem was Obama and Mexico asking for a temporary reprieve to allow Congress to decide on a new law which would make consular access mandatory. The Supreme Court ruled against Obama, stating that they were to rule on current laws, not potential laws. Entirely justified.
25963
Post by: Miraclefish
CptJake wrote:Miraclefish wrote:A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.
Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.
The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?
You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.
Did you again miss the part where Texas DID follow all the Due Process they had to, and that even the Supreme Court agrees? What part did they skip that you are upset about? What part did they not adhere to fully?
Either deal with the fact that in the system as it exists, Texas did everything it had to do, or don't. But you can't make stuff up and expect it to stick.
The bit where he wasn't informed about his right to contact the consulate, granted by international treaty.
45047
Post by: dajobe
Obama should have known that Texas would have done the exact opposite of what he wanted so he shoudl have said to execute him if he actually wanted him to live. maybe thats why Obama said to let him live,to look good for other countries, and the guy still gets executed. well played obama
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
Miraclefish wrote:CptJake wrote:Miraclefish wrote:A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.
Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.
The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?
You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.
Did you again miss the part where Texas DID follow all the Due Process they had to, and that even the Supreme Court agrees? What part did they skip that you are upset about? What part did they not adhere to fully? Either deal with the fact that in the system as it exists, Texas did everything it had to do, or don't. But you can't make stuff up and expect it to stick.
The bit where he wasn't informed about his right to contact the consulate, granted by international treaty.
Which isn't law, it's a potential law, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas followed procedure to the letter. This whole thing about he should have been granted consular access because that's what the law says is wrong, that's not what it says. The treaty, which is yet to be decided upon by congress holds no sway on official procedures. Read the link I posted.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Miraclefish wrote:CptJake wrote:Miraclefish wrote:A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.
Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.
The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?
You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.
Did you again miss the part where Texas DID follow all the Due Process they had to, and that even the Supreme Court agrees? What part did they skip that you are upset about? What part did they not adhere to fully?
Either deal with the fact that in the system as it exists, Texas did everything it had to do, or don't. But you can't make stuff up and expect it to stick.
The bit where he wasn't informed about his right to contact the consulate, granted by international treaty.
See bolded parts you must have missed the first time.
241
Post by: Ahtman
biccat wrote:Ahtman wrote:I think the president only has pardon power, not the power to change sentencing or charges. Even then I'm not all that familiar with the process (not even considering the political considerations) that would be required.
Nah, he could reduce a sentence:
"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment"
Ah yes, that is right.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well he's toast.
Burn in hell, and tell em Texas sent you. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ma55ter_fett wrote:Frazzled wrote: He's an illegal alien who came here...
At the age of two... after spending (practically) his whole life here in the US can you really blame him for not heading back to Mexico? (What a silly question I've just asked... I know you can )
I have no problem with that. We treated him just like you would like, like an American citizen. Automatically Appended Next Post: Miraclefish wrote:A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.
Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.
The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?
You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.
Nothing was skipped. Its not part of the process until there is an actual law, until then its just foreigners talking hot air.
28942
Post by: Stormrider
I thought illegals had the same rights as citizens (and are subject to the same ramifications of crime), or is it when they're on death row that they revert back to being illegal?
12061
Post by: halonachos
Where I'm at illegals get in-state tuition rates.
45047
Post by: dajobe
that makes me mad...
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
sebster wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:Can't say I'm sorry.
Also, what did the paper mean by Conservative vs Liberal judges in the court's decision? Surely the role of a Judge is to rule on the law, not deal with politics.
Judicial appointments get made by the political party that has power at that particular point in time. As the two parties have become increasingly stratified over certain issues, so judges have typically tended to vote along those lines.
This has resulted in a lot of recent prominent decisions being ruled along down party lines. For instance, four courts ruled on the constitutionality of healthcare reform, the two Republican appointed judges found parts of it unconstitutional, the two democrat appointed judges found it constitutional.
That sounds incredibly stupid. How is this in any way in line with the seperation of powers?
Granted Australia has both it's own precedent and English law to fall back on, but I've never heard it said our judges have such clearly-set political views. This goes beyond interpreting the law into re-interpreting it to mean whatever suits the political goal of their party.
45047
Post by: dajobe
You guys have a different system, and while i will not deny that our judges do seem to be very politically influenced, is it possible to a truly "unbiased" judge who does not allow their opinions to influence them at all?
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
dajobe wrote:You guys have a different system, and while i will not deny that our judges do seem to be very politically influenced, is it possible to a truly "unbiased" judge who does not allow their opinions to influence them at all?
Of course not, Judges are human beings after all. An emotional trial is less likely to affect them than a jury but it can influence them, in the same way that the accussed showing disrespect will not go down well.
It's completely different to having heavily politicised judges. Judges should rule on the law, not re-interpret it to suit whatever political goal their respective party is after.
45047
Post by: dajobe
the judges always interperet what they see to be within the constituition. Its just some have opinions that cause them to lean one way and look at certain laws certain ways.
and sorry, didnt read the entire passage you were quoting before, whoever said that was wrong, the president nominates the judges and the senate/house approve. But the president almost always does nominate within his party.
and seperation of powers deals with seperation between branches of the govt, not parties. And although appointed by someone, once in office, the judges are there for life and dont have to worry re election so dont have to worry about public approval much, and get to judge based on their opinions.
12061
Post by: halonachos
There are two types of judges; constructionists who are the literal judges and don't try to interpret the laws in funny ways and polygamists who are told the law several different ways.
39004
Post by: biccat
halonachos wrote:There are two types of judges; constructionists who are the literal judges and don't try to interpret the laws in funny ways and polygamists who are told the law several different ways.
There are other ways to break down the justices. For example, in certain cases you can reliably predict Scalia and Ginsburg to be on the same side and Roberts and Kagan (well, most of the newer justices) opposing.
It's all about judicial philosophy, and conservative/liberal isn't the only "dividing line."
12313
Post by: Ouze
I think all parties here acted correctly, despite the fact it forced them into conflict:
Texas was correct in sentencing him to death, assuming you believe in the death penalty. His crime was heinous and his innocence not in any real dispute.
Texas was correct in not offering him consular access since he never stated he was a Mexican national.
Mexico correctly pointed out he may not have had a fair trial for lack of said consular access.
Obama correct asked Texas to delay (not "stop", as the incorrect headline states) the execution. Enforcing federal treaty obligations are indisputably the purview of the Executive branch.
The Supremes correctly ruled that the execution could go forth, since Congress had plenty of time to codify the legislation required from the binding ICC ruling.
Texas executed him lawfully as all of his appeals had been exhausted.
The only interesting part of this case, really, is that there are so many angles available for people to flog their varied political biases on. You want to claim Obama is a power hungry despot? You can. You want to claim that Texas loves executing people, even unlawfully? You can do that too. You want to argue Texas only pushed this so hard because Rick Perry might run against Obama in 2012? That's also available. In some ways this case is like a political Rorschach test.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Emperors Faithful wrote:dajobe wrote:You guys have a different system, and while i will not deny that our judges do seem to be very politically influenced, is it possible to a truly "unbiased" judge who does not allow their opinions to influence them at all?
Of course not, Judges are human beings after all. An emotional trial is less likely to affect them than a jury but it can influence them, in the same way that the accussed showing disrespect will not go down well.
It's completely different to having heavily politicised judges. Judges should rule on the law, not re-interpret it to suit whatever political goal their respective party is after.
You have them. you just don't realize it. Our crappy system came from your crappy system.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
dajobe wrote:the judges always interperet what they see to be within the constituition. Its just some have opinions that cause them to lean one way and look at certain laws certain ways.
and sorry, didnt read the entire passage you were quoting before, whoever said that was wrong, the president nominates the judges and the senate/house approve. But the president almost always does nominate within his party.
So where is the judicial independance? Why are judges being selected based on their political leanings rather than their competence?
and seperation of powers deals with seperation between branches of the govt, not parties. And although appointed by someone, once in office, the judges are there for life and dont have to worry re election so dont have to worry about public approval much, and get to judge based on their opinions.
I don't know what they teach you in the US, but the Seperation of Powers is about keeping the Executive, Legislative and Judicial arms seperate. Here in Australia the Executive and Legislative arms are pretty inter-twined, but the Judicial arm has always been kept seperate. I would think not doing so would be very dangerous. That said, Australian judges also have more precedent to draw on than the US, as Aus Judges can apply English law to new cases if there is no Australian authority, and these questions of law often lead to conflicting decisions between judges. But I've never heard of judges being divided on political grounds here. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:dajobe wrote:You guys have a different system, and while i will not deny that our judges do seem to be very politically influenced, is it possible to a truly "unbiased" judge who does not allow their opinions to influence them at all?
Of course not, Judges are human beings after all. An emotional trial is less likely to affect them than a jury but it can influence them, in the same way that the accussed showing disrespect will not go down well.
It's completely different to having heavily politicised judges. Judges should rule on the law, not re-interpret it to suit whatever political goal their respective party is after.
You have them. you just don't realize it. Our crappy system came from your crappy system.
http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/education-monographs-1/monograph1/fbmason.htm
Judicial independance is taken pretty seriously here. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:I think all parties here acted correctly, despite the fact it forced them into conflict:
Texas was correct in sentencing him to death, assuming you believe in the death penalty. His crime was heinous and his innocence not in any real dispute.
Texas was correct in not offering him consular access since he never stated he was a Mexican national.
Mexico correctly pointed out he may not have had a fair trial for lack of said consular access.
Obama correct asked Texas to delay (not "stop", as the incorrect headline states) the execution. Enforcing federal treaty obligations are indisputably the purview of the Executive branch.
The Supremes correctly ruled that the execution could go forth, since Congress had plenty of time to codify the legislation required from the binding ICC ruling.
Texas executed him lawfully as all of his appeals had been exhausted.
The only interesting part of this case, really, is that there are so many angles available for people to flog their varied political biases on. You want to claim Obama is a power hungry despot? You can. You want to claim that Texas loves executing people, even unlawfully? You can do that too. You want to argue Texas only pushed this so hard because Rick Perry might run against Obama in 2012? That's also available. In some ways this case is like a political Rorschach test.
Very nice summary of the situation. I believe I agree with you.
I'm still concerned as to how the Supreme Court came to their decision, and why it was divided on a party basis rather than a question of law (which still would have seen the result in allowing the execution to continue.)
5470
Post by: sebster
CptJake wrote:Does it matter to all you folks claiming Due Process was violated that even the US Supreme Court thought Texas was in the right?
The Supreme Court has said it has no authority to enforce the US treaties upon Texas' domestic matters. Which is correct and fits with precedent, but it doesn't mean Texas is in the right, because there's a big difference between 'we can't enforce Federal Treaties on Texas' and 'it is good for a state to decide what basic elements of due process it would like to acknowledge, decided on a case by case basis'. When the Supreme Court reviews the case and issues a statement like We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an 'appeal of the President,' presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.
it is hard to claim Due Process was not followed, if you have a clue as to what Due Process actually means.
You've failed to understand what the Supreme Court has said. They said there was no Federal authority to enforce the treaty obligation. That's it, nothing more. It didn't comment on the actual case, it just said it had no authority to intervene. By your subsequent conclusion, anything where the Federal constitution can't intervene is due process and fair. Which is silly. Automatically Appended Next Post: Emperors Faithful wrote:Granted Australia has both it's own precedent and English law to fall back on, but I've never heard it said our judges have such clearly-set political views.
The US also has precedent, and if you go back far enough they've got English there as well. There's really nothing in our system stopping the same happening here, except a culture in our political parties to support indepedant judiciaries. This goes beyond interpreting the law into re-interpreting it to mean whatever suits the political goal of their party.
Well, it isn't that bad. It isn't as though every decision is decided based on party loyalty... most cases remain non-political afterall. It's just on divisive political issues the judges are, more and more, lining up along party lines. Automatically Appended Next Post: dajobe wrote:You guys have a different system, and while i will not deny that our judges do seem to be very politically influenced, is it possible to a truly "unbiased" judge who does not allow their opinions to influence them at all?
There is a pretty marked difference between bias drawn from personal beliefs, and bias drawn from political loyalties.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Nothing was skipped. Its not part of the process until there is an actual law, until then its just foreigners talking hot air.
Yeah, except for all those US citizens, and Texas citizens if you want to go that way, who took issue with the execution.
But what do I know, I just read things.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
sebster wrote:
The US also has precedent, and if you go back far enough they've got English there as well. There's really nothing in our system stopping the same happening here, except a culture in our political parties to support indepedant judiciaries.
Now there's a scary thought.
Well, it isn't that bad. It isn't as though every decision is decided based on party loyalty... most cases remain non-political afterall. It's just on divisive political issues the judges are, more and more, lining up along party lines.
It seems like the case here. I would imagine not being bound by pending-legislation is a pretty basic piece of law. How could the 'liberal' judges dispute something like that?
|
|
