US doesn't honor treaties and Texas sucks.

[Wezil]

There are plenty of stories of completely innocent visitors to the US being absolutely ****ed over at the border. Gang raping and murdering not necessary.

[SlowwHand]

I can't speak about the yankees.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
A little overstated, but yes. I have cancelled a planned trip to the US and won't be planning any more.

Over this? Bit of an over reaction, don't ya think?

[SlowwHand]

There's been a new revelation of Canadians being jumped at some part of the border by some unidentified assailant. Never mind that in all this time, it's never been brought up at all, and with this telling, is pretty ambiguous.

It's been said, so it must be true.

[DinoDoc]

Out of curiosity, does it matter to thepeople hemming and hawing over this that the rapist and murderer failed to actually bring this up at his trial?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Part of the rule of law, perhaps the most important part, is judicial review.

At first glance it seemed to me that Texas was wrong but after reading the explanations by the Supreme Court it seemed to make sense. Thats why we have judges and not people in forums decide complicated legal matters. I doubt the Texans involved were actually aware of this subtlety when they acted as they did. But through the process of judicial review their actions were legal.

Given that other courts have reviewed this treaty over the past 45 years I'm smelling a rat. It's almost like the right wingers were aware of the political ramifications of upholding the treaty and so flailed around until they found the vagest loophole then forced the whole bloody treaty through the loophole. It smells like politics interfering with the law just like in Nov 2000 when the court very clearly broke down on partisan lines for political reasons.

[SlowwHand]

True. Flailing around about convicting a raping murderer is always first on the agenda. The acts alone were certainly not enough.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by snoopy369
He is offered the same rights as a citizen. A US citizen in Mexico would be permitted to visit the US Consulate, same for a Mexican citizen in America. No difference

The treaty is to prevent countries from taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of a foreign national in holding and jailing him (and the power difference as well; you have much less power as a non-citizen in most nations than as a citizen, in terms of being given a fair trial or even being taken to trial).

What irks me most is this is a treaty that primarily helps Americans and does little if any damage to America. It protects tourists and workers from being wrongfully imprisoned by a corrupt government. We have lots of tourists and workers overseas where they are at risk for this, and as we don't have a (very) corrupt government (really!!) we aren't harmed by it. It doesn't claim to give the accused any more rights in terms of not being charged, tried, convicted, or punished; simply that he/she has the right to talk to their embassy for legal defense. I don't see why Texas or anyone else would care about that, as they will get a fair trial either way.

This is why Bush is strongly in favor of it being enforced - it hurts us much, much more than it helps us to break this treaty.

Snoopy,

Your points are well-taken, but the problem is not that the treaty is unconstitutional, but that the Court held that the treaty requires enabling legislation by Congress to be official. One of the Justices in his concurring opinion actually asked the State of Texas to offer the appropriate process required by the treaty, but said, Constitutionally, the State could not be required to do anything without enabling legislation from Congress. Without that legislation, the State of Texas is not required to do anything. So the real remedy here (on a going-forward basis) for Congress to pass legislation implementing the Treaty.

[Dinner]

That claim just rings hollow after it had been enforced for almost a half century.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That claim just rings hollow after it had been enforced for almost a half century.

what has been enforced by whom? This specific issue-notice to an embassy? Enactment of this treaty? Enactment of other treaties similar through the same method used as this one? Enforcement of ICJ rulings?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Over this? Bit of an over reaction, don't ya think?

No, not over this.

My last trip to the US was 2004 (Lake Placid) and I discovered that not only were you not the same nation/people you once were but that I didn't like the direction you were going in.

I had a trip to Pennsylvania in the works but scrapped it. Looks like Amsterdam instead.

As to border issues - I started a thread here a while ago about the Sarnia/Port Huron crossing (my closest) and the **** a completely innocent Cdn (and his family) were subjected to. F'd over by the border guards and didn't get so much as a "sorry about that". See my comment earlier about the change. Then of course there are the extremes like Maher Arar that Agathon eluded to earlier.

SlowwHand - Yes, I will accept your excuse. I don't imagine too many Texans have been involved in the incidents I refer to.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
There's been a new revelation of Canadians being jumped at some part of the border by some unidentified assailant.

They weren't unidentified. They were in uniform.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow, this totally matches my experience.

Those border guards were so nasty as to actually ask for my ID! And they even scanned my bag and made me open my cd player to show them what it was.

I don't know how people ever lived before then!

[Wezil]

Yeah, that was all it was Ben.

[asleepathewheel]

Border guards over zealous? I'm not surprised in the least, unfortunately. I mean, look how USians are treated themselves at US airports, ie nipple piercing girl. I'm catching a flight to Chicago on Thursday and am just dreading it-which liquids are ok to go in a ziplock bag, etc.