Gov Perry is about to execute a mexican citizen without giving him access to

[nadinbrzezinski]

Mexican authorities.

Now here is a hint, as a Red Cross worker I can't tell you how many times I filled that particular form, or how many times I called the US consulate, or the Israelis, or the Polish.

I can't tell you how many times i helped a cop fill the paperwork either. Yes it is a very specific piece of paper that is part of a treaty, the Geneva Convention. If Perry goes ahead with that and you end up in a foreign jail for drunk in public, some cops, or EMS will no longer fill that pesky form or call the US authorities. Don't get me started on how not very efficient the Consulate was... But they did show up...not always, actually rarely, in a timely manner, but they did. And I know I worked the weekend so it might have been that.

So yes Governor Perry wins fhe idiot award of the year if he goes ahead and signs that death warrant.

[Zoeisright]

1. Typical repuke.

Kill kill kill kill kill.

[Rebubula]

40. As opposed to the accused??

RAPE AND MURDER, RAPE AND MURDER, RAPE AND MURDER.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. And NOBODY has questioned this

should we also get rid of the Miranda Warning and just the court system to be more efficient? String it up high...

There are REASONS for this

READ ON and TRY TO LEARN...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1425829&mesg_id=1427229

NOBODY is telling you this guy did not commit a horrible crime...

So what other standards do you want to get rid in the US System? Perhaps not guilty until proven? JURY trial? What?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

103. The supreme court has ruled that the Miranda Warning is no longer necessary.

http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2010/06/supreme-court-overturns-miranda.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. And soon you will see the kind of abuses that

brought it to the fore... so what do you people want to do? Serious?

Remove ourselves from the world community... get a Napoleonic code... spare the jury system... blow up the Magna Carta? What?

For the record POLICE OFFICERS, the ones that fought against it in the beginning LOVE IT. It is kind of unintended consequences, but whatever

Personally even if a person is found guilty, I want all the Ts and all the Is dotted... there are good reasons for that...

And no I am not over reacting. I see a certain disdain for both the legal system and international law... for a nation that supposedly runs on laws... 'splains why war
criminals will walk, have walked, et al.

We not only as a people tolerate it... but this is what we want.

Here is another reality coming from the recent distraction... the state did not prove the case, the system, ideally, prefers a guilty person walk than an innocent person not walk...

I also noticed that you did not adress the meat of this.. which is the REASON for those international treaties. Given 70% of americans do not own a passport this does not matter really.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

118. If you noticed, I just stated fact....

...I did not say I agreed with it or disagreed with it.

[Obamanaut]

80. And here's part of what the parents must live with.

<snip>Sauceda was found beaten with a 30- to 40-pound piece of rock, strangled and raped. A piece of wood more than foot long, with a screw protruding from one end, was left in her. <more at link>

http://www.click2houston.com/news/28460239/detail.html

Sauceda is the last name of the little girl, the victim. If I had a vote, the murderer/rapist would die the same sort of death.

[Romulox]

2. You mean a "foreign" country in which we had live illegally since we were two, right?

Just so we can lay out the hypothetical quite clearly.

I oppose the death penalty in ALL CASES; however, I don't believe illegal aliens should have any special rights to avoid same.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. The Geneva Convention, which we did sign, does not care

About your legal residency status, so we are clear. That pesky form had a copy for my form, staid with patient in file...another to the Foreign Office, and a third to the coutry in question. In the United States cops mostly fill the same pesky form, REGARDLESS OF LEGAL STATUS. It is part of the Fourth Protocol of the Convention. The problem is NOT that he was here illegally, but that the Mexican Government was not advised of the arrest to assist or not. It is a legal wicket, like Miranda.

[Romulox]

5. The state of Texas is not a signatory to the controlling protocol

I am almost positive the SCOTUS resolved this issue in Texas' favor when it came up under W's tenure.

"In the United States cops mostly fill the same pesky form, REGARDLESS OF LEGAL STATUS"

In MANY jurisdictions, cops aren't allowed to inquire about legal status. So I doubt it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I guess Texas is now an independent country

And yes they do...the moment Joe shmo says I am a citizen of blah... They are supposed to. I know my LOCAL PD does not ask, yet they are trained in the academy on this protocol and how to fill that form. I will let you try to connect those dots yourself.

[Romulox]

9. The US is a Federalist union in which criminal law is largely left to the states

It's been that way since our inception.

"And yes they do...the moment Joe shmo says I am a citizen of blah... They are supposed to"

My understanding is that the convicted killer never identified himself as a Mexican national until after conviction. Without his cooperation, it may be virtually impossible to identify him as a foreign national.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Federal treates have the force of law

I will suggest you read the supremacy clause, regarding international treaties...incidentally this is not about criminal law either.

Have a good day... :banghead:

And since I doubt you travel abroad you will never have to worry about conquences

[Romulox]

24. The Supremacy Clause only applies to areas in which the Federal Gov't has Constitutional mandate

"incidentally this is not about criminal law either."

It's about the case of a convicted murderer/rapist. I hate argument that characterize words like "about", so let's just agree that it "involves" criminal law.

"Have a good day... "

I'm sorry the issue of the Federalist nature of our government confuses/frustrates you. It's not an easy topic.

"And since I doubt you travel abroad you will never have to worry about conquences"

What's the basis of your doubt? The fact that I have a grasp of the structure of the Federal government? :silly:

Your precedent is Medellín v. Texas. 552 U.S. 491 (2008), btw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Texas is now independent

And international treaties have zero application in the Republic, gotcha...

Consequences... Bye bye.

[Romulox]

28. I *knew* you wouldn't bother to read the link.

You're not interested in the legalities of this matter, imo. Just moralizing + namecalling.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I know the case

Still, consequences... When that case came down there was also a brouhaha, for the reasons stated...American Exceptionalism at it's best...and we cannot demand others follow this when we don't.

Ah the hours I'd save not killing those trees.

[Romulox]

33. Then make it clear you are making an argument *outside* of existing law--

especially when berating others.

Believe it or not, knowing Constitutional law does not make on a proponent of any given ruling. But there is law on point, and it is crystal clear.

I guess that means I never travel abroad? :wtf:

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I made my argument based on treaty law

Have a good life

[Romulox]

42. The US Constution, and the SCOTUS' interpretation thereof, is the controlling law

Not "treaty law".

"Have a good life"

Learn not to attack people discussing a matter with you respectfully. Especially where the facts aren't on your side! :hi:

[stevenleser]

53. And the Supreme Court has held that Treaties bind states and trump state law. n/t

[Romulox]

57. Yeah--flip that 180 degrees, and it is 100% correct: Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)

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>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

:hi:

[stevenleser]

61. Flip yours 100% and you would be correct, a rare accident I'm sure...

In 1922, the Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.

[Romulox]

65. It's not "mine". It's the United States Supreme Court.

"In 1922..."

Oi vey! You don't know how "stare decisis" works, do you? The 2008 case controls.

[stevenleser]

66. The 2008 case has nothing to do with the facts of the 1922 case, but nice try. n/t

[Romulox]

68. This is what we used to call a "clown dance" on another message board.

You're just disrupting. Which is cool, since this is a weak thread.

[stevenleser]

70. So, then stop being a clown. n/t

[Romulox]

122. And yet the SCOTUS ruled the way I suggested they would.

Learn the difference between analysis and advocacy! :hi:

[Odin2005]

106. Treaties are equal to constitutional law with regards to the states.

States MUST comply with treaties.

[stevenleser]

120. The Constitution AND logic demand exactly what you say...

As I have told that person repeatedly in other OP threads, if treaties could not bind the states, our treaties would be worth nothing and that, plus the Constitution's supremacy clause, is why the SCOTUS has upheld exactly that.

If we make a fishing rights treaty with Russia and then Alaska decides to pass a state law regarding fishing in Alaskan waters that violates the treaty and the federal government could not enforce the treaty via the supremacy clause, what use would be the treaty?

You can go down that road with any treaty you can imagine. Arms limitation? What if a state decides to produce weapons in contravention of the treaty? Etc.

[Romulox]

121. Well, it seems the Geneva Convention cited by the OP isn't the operative law

But rather the VIENNA Convention, which hasn't been ratified by the US, along with an ICJ ruling, to which the US is not a party.

[MrDiaz]

44. If it

was your daughter that was raped and murdered would you be saying the same thing?

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. I am against the DP, so you know,

It has zero deterrent and fiscally it is hell. Then there are the people who have been executed in Texas, no less, who were not guilty. So yes, I would give them life, to prevent one wrongful execution.

[MrDiaz]

56. OK just to clarify,

If your daughter was raped and killed by this guy, you would have no problem letting him live? Sorry I am glad this guy is getting what he deserves!

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Yes... But I grew in a place

Were eye for eye are not running the legal system.

Oh and life in solitary is far less fun too

[Obamanaut]

77. Your experience with life in solitary tells you it is far less fun? nt

[Odin2005]

107. I would want to bucher the fucker, but that's why we have a legal system with due process.

What I desire is irrelevant.

[TheKentuckian]

114. You need him dead then kill him yourself.

[Romulox]

60. So I am I, for the record. That doesn't control the legal question here. nt

[stevenleser]

64. And Nadin didnt suggest that it did. n/t

[Obamanaut]

76. DP is not a deterrent. DP is a punishment. The prospect of a DP penalty

is a deterrent for most, but not for everyone - obviously.

Life without parole is not a deterrent, it is a punishment. For some, the prospect of life without parole is the deterrent, but obviously not for all.

That might be why, after a guilty verdict, there is the penalty phase and/or sentencing, where the punishment is imposed.

[stevenleser]

34. That is not correct. It applies anytime congress intended to act in an area.

You cited one of the rare instances when the Supreme Court decided in favor of a state and there were specific and unusual reasons why that was done in that case. Usually, the state law is struck down or said to not apply. As is shown in the last case cited below, federal law trumps state law California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#Supreme_Court_interpretations

Supreme Court interpretationsIn Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. The state of Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the Treaty superseded the Virginia statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare the Virginia statute "null and void."

In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), the Supreme Court reviewed a tax levied by the state of Maryland on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States. The Court found that if a state had the power to tax a federally incorporated institution, then the state effectively had the power to destroy the federal institution, thereby thwarting the intent and purpose of Congress. This would make the states superior to the federal government. The Court found that this would be inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law superior to state law. The Court therefore held that Maryland's tax on the Bank was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause.

In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause and the judicial power granted in Article III give the Supreme Court the power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Thus, the Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by state courts.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.

In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which made advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force a crime under Pennsylvania state law. The Supreme Court held that when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject; and a state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.

In Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court rejected attempts by the state of Arkansas to nullify the Court's school desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education. The state of Arkansas, acting on a theory of states' rights, had adopted several statutes designed to nullify the desegregation ruling. The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to hold that the federal law controlled and could not be nullified by state statutes or officials.

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:<2>

1.Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
2."...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."
In 1922, the Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.

The Federal Supreme Court has also held that only specific, "unmistakable" acts of Congress may be held to trigger the Supremacy Clause. The State of Montana had imposed a 30 percent tax on most sub-bituminous coal mined there. The Commonwealth Edison Company and other utility companies argued, in part, that the Montana tax "frustrated" the broad goals of the national energy policy. However, in the case of Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981), the Supreme Court disagreed. Any appeal to claims about "national policy", the Court said, were insufficient to overturn a State law under the Supremacy Clause unless "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained".<3>

However, in the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressedly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the State action. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a State law is not in direct conflict with a Federal law, the State law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives".<4> Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over State laws either, because Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.<5>

[Romulox]

39. tl;dr. The US Government is one of *enumerated* powers,

and the Supremacy clause gives the Federal Government no additional power to intrude upon areas not granted to it directly. Again, there is law directly on point on this matter.

[stevenleser]

49. Yes there is law, and you are on the wrong side of it as the caselaw I provided shows. n/t

[Romulox]

54. You cut and pasted an entire wiki article without comment. Hardly a "Blue Book" citation

I've cited the controlling case in this matter in several places on this thread. As I'm sure you would've read it if you cared to know, I'm sure you'll studiously ignore it. :hi:

[stevenleser]

55. Yes, and the case law I pasted was all on the Supremacy clause. Of course you dont want to read it

because it proves you completely wrong.

[Romulox]

59. Waste. of. Time.

I don't believe your posts are sincere.

[stevenleser]

62. That is obviously why you are wrong so much. You decline to read anything that disagrees with you

n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Thanks, and there were protests filed

By signatories to the treaty, we might argue they were pro forma, but they were.

[Philippine expat]

111. I travel abroad extensively

and it worries me not.

[Obamanaut]

11. If it is true that the Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed

conflict to governments who have ratified its terms, how does this case have anything to do with the Conventions?

[Romulox]

25. Oh you, and your legal technicalities!

"First the verdict; THEN the trial!" -the Queen of Hearts

[Lost-in-FL]

84. So why even bother with a trial then? Why not kill him on the spot?

Since you do not explain what "special rights" are to you, I am assuming then that a trial IS a "special right".

[aikoaiko]

4. Explain to me the importance of what is happening, please.

This is pretty big news and I'm confident the Mexican consulate knows about this case. Are you saying the Mexican consulate representatives tried to visit and were denied access or that they don't know?

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. They were never informed of the arrest

They learned about this later from relatives... The cops were supposed to fill a very specific form and inform the Consulate of the arrest in a timely manner. Translation within 72 hours of the arrest, or learning his citizenship status.

We were not arresting people, and still we fulfilled that requirement as well..

[One_Life_To_Give]

23. Who had custody when officially learned he was a Mexican National?

When was any Government agency first aware they were holding, charging, prosecuting, convicting a Mexican National?
When was the Mexican Gov't notified?

The Cops can only notify the consulate if they are a) Aware of his nationality B) Still have Custody. If he was not identified until the Dept. of Corrections has him then it was their job to notify the Consulate. And they may or may not have been properly trained in how to respond to such situations.

In the end would it have made a difference in the final outcome had the Mexican Gov't been officially notified at any time prior to actual notification?

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. It is a legal wicket

It is not about outcome or result in the court or guilt.

Should we stop readying Miranda as well? Yes, in that category.

[One_Life_To_Give]

69. Do we send 193 notices of each arrest to be safe?

Should we treat all captives as Geneva Class 5 until proven otherwise?

If I thought that someone should of had reason to act and didn't, I would feel differently. If there was no reason to believe that the young man was anything other than a US Born citizen and that was how he was treated. And for whatever reason the young man never clarified the situation etc. Then after the fact all I can do is apologize to Mexico and say we treated him as one of our own. And had we known would of notified you earlier etc.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Alas they did not do even that much

when you find the status, whether it is by the arresting officer, or years later, you are supposed to inform that other nation state of it... it is a legal wicket and has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It is just a treaty obligation... so I guess I should have never ever filled those forms.

Mark my words, if the equivalent situation existed people here would be OUTRAGED. We tried to be efficient about it... I guess we should not have done such.

[Springer9]

36. How where the authorities to know that he was a Mexican citizen

if he didn't volunteer the information, which he didn't. Should they have assumed because of his ethnic appearance that he was illegal, as in SB1070? Isn't that the dreaded profiling? Now his reps want to play the immigrant card?

He should have contacted the consulate to see if raping and murdering a 16 yo child was legal in the United States before he committed the deed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. The beef is that as soon as they learned they should have

And they did not.

Incidentally rape, I am sure you are not aware, is a serious crime down there too. Alas there was a long national discussion on it a decade ago after a crime that was quite heinous...the country and jurists decided against it.

[MrDiaz]

50. If the Police Department

Are not aloud to ask the person if he is an illegal immigrant, then how would they know that he was?

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Whether you learn of this status due to a SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT

yes, that is a technical term... or years later... the obligation is still there, UNDER TREATY, to inform the home country. It does not even depend on whether the hone country signed that particular protocol or not, WE DID.

I will use my local PD for a good example. THEY DO NOT ask legal status... they still get training in the Academy on this particular protocol and how to fill that pesky form. Why do you think that is? I guess the department wants to waste valuable cadet time on this.

[One_Life_To_Give]

100. Police wouldn't be involved

When claim was made he was in custody of Corrections. They are not police officers and don't attend the academy. His defense attorneys then and along the way should have identified his status and assured steps were taken by the court to notify Mexican Authorities, IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Yes, WHEN YOU FIND the status,

whether by an arresting officer... or later by dept of corrections (who also attend an academy) or other officers of the court, that notification should have been done. We agree. You are correct. And that is the beef... not that there is a trial. Not that he was found guilty. Not that he is a boy scout... he's not.

I gave the example of my local PD since the person I was responding to said police cannot ask about legal status which is correct. I told her exactly how a police officer, in this case the arresting officer or processing officer, would find about it... and the actions taken.

The legal system knows about this...

The medical systen in the US lot less.. in Mexico the PRIVATE and PUBLIC hospitals don't either... the Red Cross does... for some odd reason.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. I wonder if that mexican citizen contacted mexican authorities

before he decided to rape & kill 16 year old Adria Sauceda
:shrug:

[Bill McBlueState]

74. this is the kind of non-argument

I expect to see in the comments section of my local newspaper. I thought we had standards around here.

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. Whenever I want justice, I think "Mexican authorities."

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Alas there is no dead penalty

Far from perfect but our prisons, for example, are as bad or worst.

And right now they are in the middle of wholesale reforms...including ditching the napoleonic code.

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. That guy would be free as a bird after a few twenties change hands.

And he'd be back in the US faster than you can spin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. No, not really

Rape is a pretty dimm crime... In fact, rapist involving kids at times slip on bars of soap...

By the way I am familiar with the system...not as familiar as I'd like...but a lot of our visions of Mexico, which has issues, are created by the media. I might want to point as to why...free hint, Catholics, speak a foreign language and have darker skin.

I'd avoid Juarez at this time, but I am as safe in Mexico city as I am in San Diego these days.

[kctim]

13. Good

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. You travel abroad often i take it

[kctim]

67. Why, yes I have

Didn't sneak into any of those places and never raped and murdered a child, so I'm not sure how those places deal with scum like that. Don't think they would let me go because they didn't give me a piece of paper though.

I'm curious, since its racist and wrong to ask a criminal if they are an American citizen or not, how did they find out he was Mexican?

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Then do not jay walk

and have you heard of the TERM spontaneous statement?

Incidentally why do you think my local cops train on saith protocol and learn how to fill that form? I guess the Academy is wasting VALUABLE time.

Though if you are detained, for any length of time... realize you do have that right...

By the way under this logic we should stop readying Miranda as well... and yes this is the equivalent under International law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. How does the convention apply in peacetime?

One of the least known aspects of it's history. Due to the fun and games in between the wars the 1948 protocols expanded to peacetime, and this agreement for nation a to inform nation b that their citizen was arrested...the objective was to allow nation b the opportunity, not always taken, to assist their national in legal matters...or why we filled pesky forms, with medevacs.

Yes, it is arcane and not everybody follows this. Hell, you gotta be a signatory to that particular protocol, not everybody is, to be obligated to follow it. We have...so be it. So has Mexico, and nations also work on the principle of if I do blah under treaty I expect you to do it too.

[Obamanaut]

108. Might you consider providing a link and/or appropriate excerpt verifying

the Geneva Convention(s) cover folks in other people's jails in peacetime?

Simply repeating it several times doesn't have the same impact as actually showing it.

[Obamanaut]

17. He and his family, friends, and attorneys have had several years to

contact/have access to any number of people. The crime was in 1994, and there is this:

<snip>Sauceda was found beaten with a 30- to 40-pound piece of rock, strangled and raped. A piece of wood more than foot long, with a screw protruding from one end, was left in her. <more at link>

http://www.click2houston.com/news/28460239/detail.html

I can find not one speck of sympathy for the guy.

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. Nor I. I hope he dies with pain, and I don't care what anyone thinks.

Crimes like that are what the DP is for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. This speaks about you

And this is not about sympathy but legal obligations. Incidentally having a lawyer help in defense has didly squat with the DP, which is expensive to carry out and have zero deterrent. Life...in solitary, is my choice for these people.

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. I guess he committed this crime, what, a couple of weeks ago?

No.

And if you want to put the guy away forever, who cares who he sees?

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. It does not matter

should we stop readying Miranda?

I guess we should adopt a Napoleonic code while at it.

When YOU FIND that status, your obligation by treaty is to fill that pesky form. Why is this so hard to understand?

The NATURE OF THE CRIME has NO IOTA to do with that. You got that obligation whether your perp was arrested for jay walking or mass murder.

[Obamanaut]

75. The DP is not a deterrent, but rather a punishment. The PROSPECT of the

DP might be a deterrent for some, but obviously not for all.

X number of years behind bars is not a deterrent to robbery, fraud, kidnapping, etc., but rather a punishment. The PROSPECT of X years locked up is the deterrent for some, but obviously not all.

Punishment is not a synonym for deterrent. They are separate and not equal.

edited spelling error

[Obamanaut]

22. Now there are two of us. nt

[Jack Rabbit]

27. This is the American exceptionalism in which the right wing believes

Suck on it, war criminals.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. And many here too

Apparently asking that we fulfill legal obligations is thinking the criminal didn't do it. What's next? Stop readying the Miranda WRning? Incidentally we are moving in that direction.

[Romulox]

30. Clear legal precedent set by the SCOTUS in 2008: Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)

This case is "on all fours", as they say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

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>

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Yes and many nations filed protests

The hours wasted filling those forms.

[Romulox]

46. "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803)

Other nations' protests are not controlling US law. Decisions of the US Supreme Court are.

Have a nice life! :rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Self delete wrong place

[Rebubula]

38. Not my concern, really

He raped and killed a 15 year old.

Yeah...he should have been given that opportunity to contact his home country - but, he also SHOULD have NOT Raped and killed that teenager.

Whenever I travel abroad (and I travel to places like Qatar and Hong Kong for business - they tend to be VERY hardcore to foreigners ) - I am REALLY, REALLY careful not to rape and murder anyone. Perhaps this asshole should have done the same thing.


If you act like a human - you will be treated as such. You rape and murder - you should be put down like a dog.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Independent, should we stop readying Miranda as well?

It is a legal obligation, a wicket, that is all

[Rebubula]

48. Not Necessarily ...

...but I think it is high time to eliminate the lack of reading as a reason out of a conviction\prosecution.

Know your rights - ignorance is no excuse.

Now...as with everything, there are gray areas. It should be a case by case decision in situations where Miranda was not read.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. This is just a legal wicket

And Americans at least have heard of Miranda. In this case, I am willing to bet, that unless you have been directly involved in filling saith form and why...most Americans or Mexicans don't know. That said, the Mexican authorities have been running PSA's on thus and other matters for a couple of years. Independent of this, their PSAs for elections are fantastic, and I wish we has equivalent adds here.

[Obamanaut]

78. "Reading" not "...readying Miranda..." nt

[itsrobert]

51. Texas getting something right. Fry the bastard.

NOW!

[richmwill]

71. Oh, that "poor, poor man"

If I were in Perry's office, I'd bring the pen over to him so he could sign it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. It has nothing to do with the perp

But international, read treaty obligations. This is akin to Miranda...should we stop readying that too? I mean why bother?

[Bill McBlueState]

73. yikes

I can't believe how everyone's concern for the legal process goes out the window in the face of a heinous crime. I expect that kind of know-nothing dumbassery at my in-laws' house, but I expect better on DU. Maybe I shouldn't.

[MilesColtrane]

79. deleting and withholding comment until I know more about this case.

My knee was a bit jerky.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Yep..and the kind with real world consequences

For others

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Treaty obligations have nothing to do with the details of the case

the guy committed a horrific crime... the beef is not that. It is that when Texas learned of his status they did not inform his home government. This is an obligation equivalent to Miranda.

[MilesColtrane]

96. However, it appears that the Supreme Court, in Medellin v. Texas, ruled that...

Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is not binding domestic law.

The Supreme Court, being the final say in the interpretation of the Constitution, appears to have ruled definitively on whether Texas authorities violated an international treaty.

I'm not a fan of Perry, or the death penalty, and I don't agree with the SC decision in the Medellin case, but the Governor appears to be well covered legally, even as he scores political points with his "tough on crime" base.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. However that was heavily protested and that one has

very specific caveats... supremacy clause still applies, in this. It was, in that case, something close to Bush v Gore.

And if the US stops doing this... take my word on this, so will other governments.

I know most people do not realize WHY this is done.

Here is the function... let's assume for a moment that you were arrested in imaginary country that did sign the protocol... so in a timely manner your US Embassy\consulate got the pesky form.

Here is what State does.

1.- They have local lawyers on retainer, who are familiar with local laws and customs... no State will not pay for them, except for very specific circumstances, but they will be able to point you to them... and at times call them in... that way you have a lawyer present whether local custom has it or not. They TRY to have our ways apply to you as much as possible. (So do other governments incidentally)

2.- They will also have teams from state do health and welfare visits... to your local jails, just in case somebody forgot to fill form... or quite frankly to make sure US Citizens are treated to at least the local standard... in Japan for example, they will arrange for food to be brought in. Japanese jails do not normally feed prisoners.

3.- Incidentally their health and welfare include local ERs... where at times I assisted... to help American Citizens find a way to evacuate when needed. Difference between oh the US and oh Poland... Poland paid for it, but they still have national health care.

These are the two major functions and they are facilitated by this treaty.

In this particular case Mexico would have lobbied the court to lower this from a capital crime to life... and they don't succeed all the time. hey it is rare... why? Mexico does not have a DP... and they would have continued with the health and welfare visits.

This is what is at stake... not whether the gentleman in question committed a horrific crime. He did... none is questioning that part.

If we expect OTHERS to fullfil obligations under International treaty... well the minimum standard is to expect ourselves to do this. To many Americans Treaty law is an insult and an invasion of sovereignty. Treaty law is what allows the world community not to be at each other's throats most of the time. Oh and we do meddle and scream in other legal systems regularly... see when that American boy was canned in Singapore... it is NOT our legal system... still the usual protests were filed... oh and people were outraged here.

Governments file complaints regularly, over DP cases, the other usual suspect is China... we trade places as to who executed more people each year... a dubious honor if you ask me.

[Obamanaut]

101. Please tell the unenlightened masses "...I know most people do not..."

"...I know most people do not realize WHY this is done..."

Surely you can see how one might read a little condescension in this.

[Rex]

81. Perry is in league with Satan, he mocks God by lying in church

almost every day he can slither in and get some political points with the faithful. I doubt he actually won the last election, I can't find a soul that likes him or voted for him.

[Lost-in-FL]

89. Bet if you repost this later with another country, you will get a lot more recommendations. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. I am betting that if I switched countries

and a US citizen was in a Mexican jail, sentenced for thirty... the max, for a horrific crime... and US Authorities were NOT informed... people would be asking when are we invading?

And I would be just as critica of the Mexican Government for NOT meeting those pesky treaty obligations.

[Lost-in-FL]

91. Bingo! nt

[Rebubula]

93. Bullshit

If an American went to Mexico and raped\murdered a 15 year old - I doubt anyone outside of the ACLU would give a shit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Oh yes they would

it is not bullshit... and by the way... Mexico is not only careful about those treaty obligations but will also gladly return the perp to the US to serve time in an American Jail...

Oh and no, Mexico would not give such a perp the DP, simply it does not exist in Mexican Law.

And yes, people would because they have in the past.

Oh and one more thing this has nothing to do with the nature of the crime... it has to do with NOT MEETING treaty obligations.

What other legal wickets do you want to skip to fry somebody? It is not a special right... it is a TREATY OBLIGATION. Should we get rid of Miranda too?

Yes, it is the INTERNATIONAL TREATY equivalent.

[Lost-in-FL]

95. Actually, they would make a movie out of it. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

97. Nope. You do the crime, you do the time.

Nice try, though.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

105. The Teabaggers are reactionary isolationists who reject ALL treaties with other countries.

They don't give a damn about International Law because they think it's part of some conspiracy involving UN black helicopters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. It is not limited to tea baggers, read the thread

[tammywammy]

115. The execution should be stayed until this issue is resolved

I don't care what crime he did, everyone deserves all their rights. If he had the right to notification to the Mexican consulate then that's what he gets. Period.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. ;Yep, I know what the Mexican authorities will do

it is pretty predictable... for the record we do the same... they will file a Friend of the Court brief explaining why it should be lowered to life... and have welface visitation rights.

And like MOST cases, it will be filed, considered and not accepted...

But they should do that...

[UTUSN]

117. Goodhair is a "governor" (weak governor State) - well whatever n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

119. Perry can only issue a single 30 day stay. Texas governors can't commute sentences or pardon.

All of that is done by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.

[Doctor_J]

123. Hopefully when Smirk ventures outside the US, the same thing will happen

to him.

[malaise]

124. You were so right

Kick