Announcement

**SpencerH** · February 7, 2003, 14:40

The treaty isnt bs. What's bs is the fact that this is merely a blatant attempt by foreign anti-death-sentence wienies to interfere in internal US matters

**DinoDoc** · February 7, 2003, 14:42

dp

**DinoDoc** · February 7, 2003, 14:43

But are we required to afford him consular protections given that he was an American citizen as well while he was alive? What does the Vienna Convention say about dual citizens?

**SpencerH** · February 7, 2003, 14:48

The treaty doesnt give them consular protection as in 'diplomatic immunity'. It simply says that the persons home country is to be informed that one of their citizens has been arrested so that they may provide legal services if they wish.

Imagine you get arrested on a bogus charge while backpacking through Columbia. You might want the US government to know that you're there.

**Imran Siddiqui** · February 7, 2003, 16:59

Treaties signed at gunpoint are far from being just or morally valid.

**KrazyHorse** · February 7, 2003, 17:03

Originally posted by DinoDoc
But are we required to afford him consular protections given that he was an American citizen as well while he was alive? What does the Vienna Convention say about dual citizens?

I get the feeling that it's not dependant on you not being a citizen of the country you were charged in, but rather being a citizen of a foreign country.

Slowwhand, get arrested in Canada or the UK (or even Mexico) and you'll be surprised that they do abide by the treaty for the most part. So unless you think that systemic violation of it in ****sville, Africa is cause to nullify it wrt citizens of every other country, what's your point?

**SlowwHand** · February 7, 2003, 17:07

"All the world" isn't just Canada.
And I'll dispute your assertion on Mexico.
Lastly, where do you think "Miranda Rights" originated?
It wasn't Canada, but that's the only clue you get.

**KrazyHorse** · February 7, 2003, 17:10

Sweetheart, I was providing a reference for you to compare to. I don't know whether the US was the first one to offer rights of the accused of the level of the Miranda warning or not, and I suspect you don't either.

**KrazyHorse** · February 7, 2003, 17:12

IIRC Miranda was won in 1960 something.

Oh, and please explain to me why you violate it in cases of citizens of First World nations. I'd like you to note that in all previous posts to the one you quoted I was careful to limit my argument to First World countries.

So until then, is it fair if I look on the US as a nation of promise-breakers?

**SlowwHand** · February 7, 2003, 17:16

Look at it how you want.
You said Mexico, I said you're wrong. That sums it up.

**KrazyHorse** · February 7, 2003, 17:18

Blurg. You guys are as bad as the Saudis.

**Master Zen** · February 7, 2003, 17:27

SlowwHand:

your government makes a HUGE fuss whenever a US citizen is arrested and tried in Mexico. Since you haven't actually lived here or heard tales about this situation, I would advise you not to jump to conclusions.

And yes, it is very unfair that the US does what the hell it wants with foreign nationals when it demands other countries to treat Americans as if they were something special.

First thing a US citizen says abroad when they're arrested:

"IM AN AMERICAN!!!"

**Kramerman** · February 7, 2003, 18:27

Originally posted by Master Zen

Actually we're just relocating the murderers, and getting water from the territory you stole first.

Um... the US didnt steal your land, we conquered it

**DinoDoc** · February 7, 2003, 18:29

It was a combined effort. We must give the Texans thier proper due for getting the ball rolling for us.

**SlowwHand** · February 7, 2003, 18:30

Oh great. Pissed off the Canadians. Pissed off the Mexicans.

Announcement

Texas Snubs World Court on Execution Stays

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment