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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To be accurate he probably just had one trial, but with multiple appeals.

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.

As cruel as the torture he subjected his victim to?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.