Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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

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.

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?

Be gentle, hes still new

KingCracker wrote:Be gentle, hes still new

Ah, a youngling.
He'll soon learn the ways of the OT.

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.

Excellent case. It keeps the President from signing a treaty signing away our fundamental rights, like the 2nd Amendment.

I've learned something today....

The US legal system will never, ever make sense to me!

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!

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.

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>

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...

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:.

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.