World Court urges U.S. to stay 5 executions

[DinoDoc]

According to all relevent courts the legal process was followed. According to the majority opinion from the Court on this issue, neither the defendant nor his supporters “have identified a single nation that treats I.C.J. judgments as binding in domestic courts.” And the president lacked the standing to intervene.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And the Vienna treaty says prisoners have the right to consular notification. Regardless of what the Texas courts say, I'd like the US to follow our treaty obligations. So that other countries won't feel the need to deny US citizens their rights overseas.

[DinoDoc]

That's not Texas courts saying that Imran. It was SCOTUS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The SCOTUS merely said that ICJ judgements are not directly enforcable but did not speak as to state courts compliance with something like the Vienna Convention, which, IIRC, has been implimented by Congress.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin
...shows how utterly partisan the USSC is and why they should all be shot so we can start over.

Yeah! Screw the feds! Congress is next!

Go Texas!!

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Oerdin
**** state's rights. Texas needs to follow Federal law and it's no surprise that our overly politicized supreme court once again decided things based on ideology and not the actual law. One look at Bush v Gore shows how utterly partisan the USSC is and why they should all be shot so we can start over.

You know that if you did this, Bush would get to appoint the replacements, right

[David Floyd]

Wow, my post was just me drunk posting trying to be obnoxious. With that said, however, how would their access to Mexican counsel impact their guilt or innocence? I mean, is their point that if they had better sheysters on their side, they might have gotten away with murder?

Also, I agree with Imran that the US should follow our treaty obligations. However, if a treaty violates the right of a sovereign state, and/or infringes upon the power of that state in an unconstitutional way, then I don't know what the answer is. I understand Supremacy, but OTOH, if the Senate ratified a treaty saying that each state must turn the command of the National Guard in each respective state over to a permanent UN military structure, that would be pretty clearly unenforceable against the states. That's an extreme example and not something I think is going to happen, but my point is that it seems to me that there are situations in which a treaty is not necessarily enforceable against a US State. Remember, in this case, it isn't the US executing foreign nationals, it's the state of Texas, and that's a distinction that foreign nations may not quite get, nor may they understand that the US federal government can't peremptorily order a state government to do anything.

[SlowwHand]

As it turns out, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Texas has no obligation to listen to Bush, nor the World Court.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
As it turns out, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Texas has no obligation to listen to Bush, nor the World Court.

Sovereign States

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Wow, my post was just me drunk posting trying to be obnoxious. With that said, however, how would their access to Mexican counsel impact their guilt or innocence? I mean, is their point that if they had better sheysters on their side, they might have gotten away with murder?

I think the argument is, generally, that allowing the consulate access will ensure, to the respective government whose citizen is on trial, that a fair trial occurs (ie, they can make sure of it). The inverse, for example, was a concern for a while, with US Citizens being arrested in Mexico for all sorts of things; if they weren't able to contact the consulate, often they would end up imprisoned for a lengthy period of time for no reason.

It's not for our benefit, but for the benefit of the other country, to ensure their citizens are treated fairly, and not taken advantage of. They can also inform their citizen of their rights and duties.

Imagine, for example, you were in Apolytonia, and arrested for Public Trolling. You are advised by your 'counsel' (locally appointed public defender, you think) to plead guilty, so they are more lenient on you, and they apparently have an open-and-shut case. You agree, and plead guilty.

You are then sentenced to 50 years in Mingapulco, because Public Trolling is a severe offense; the leniency is that they don't hang you.

You'd probably have appreciated getting to visit your consulate, so they could let you know about that, right?

[David Floyd]

We're not talking about trolling,we're talking about murder. Firstly, only a moron thinks that they won't get a significant penalty in Texas for murder. Secondly, if a murderer gets tricked into a longer sentence than what a lawyer could have wrangled, then

As for a fair trial, fair trials were conducted, as evidenced by those trials being repeatedly upheld through the lengthy appeals process. In capital cases, these appeals are mandatory and every effort is made to ensure fairness.

As to reciprocal treatment of US citizens, again, we're talking apples and oranges. If a US citizen commits a serious crime in Mexico, they reap the consequences. If Mexico is in the habit of screwing Americans over for sport (or because we execute their citizens for committing capital crimes) then that's a problem that we have a solution for, but it's also a problem that isn't substantially related to what we are doing here. Just because Mexico is theoretically linking the two doesn't mean that such linkage makes sense.

Anyway, the bottom line is, don't kill people in Texas

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Also, I agree with Imran that the US should follow our treaty obligations. However, if a treaty violates the right of a sovereign state, and/or infringes upon the power of that state in an unconstitutional way, then I don't know what the answer is. I understand Supremacy, but OTOH, if the Senate ratified a treaty saying that each state must turn the command of the National Guard in each respective state over to a permanent UN military structure, that would be pretty clearly unenforceable against the states. That's an extreme example and not something I think is going to happen, but my point is that it seems to me that there are situations in which a treaty is not necessarily enforceable against a US State. Remember, in this case, it isn't the US executing foreign nationals, it's the state of Texas, and that's a distinction that foreign nations may not quite get, nor may they understand that the US federal government can't peremptorily order a state government to do anything.

To be clear, I was merely articulating my desire of what should happen, not what is legally obligated. Saying that, a treaty violating the Constitution could not stand because a treaty is like a regular law passed by Congress and thus must be subject to the Constitution.

Firstly, only a moron thinks that they won't get a significant penalty in Texas for murder. Secondly, if a murderer gets tricked into a longer sentence than what a lawyer could have wrangled, then

Third, if the convicted is NOT the murder (shockingly it has happened) but is convinced by his lawyer to plead guilty, then he's screwed over without ever knowing his rights.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by snoopy369



Imagine, for example, you were in Apolytonia, and arrested for Public Trolling. You are advised by your 'counsel' (locally appointed public defender, you think) to plead guilty, so they are more lenient on you, and they apparently have an open-and-shut case. You agree, and plead guilty.

You are then sentenced to 50 years in Mingapulco, because Public Trolling is a severe offense; the leniency is that they don't hang you.

You'd probably have appreciated getting to visit your consulate, so they could let you know about that, right?

I have never in my life been offered a courtesy call to the Texas consulate over being banned here. Not ever. Never.

Imran, the guy admits doing it. He did it to get rid of the witnesses. (The victims of the gang rapes. The victims of the beatings.) The guy is guilty, from his own mouth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Imran, the guy admits doing it. He did it to get rid of the witnesses. (The victims of the gang rapes. The victims of the beatings.) The guy is guilty, from his own mouth.

I didn't realize that legal rulings only have effects on just that person and no others. When did precedent not become a basis of our legal system?

[SlowwHand]

What are you talking about? The guy was found guilty. One co-murderer, at least one, has been executed. This guy admits doing the crime. The U.S. Supreme Court backs Texas.

What does it take?

Associated Press


HOUSTON – Testimony at his murder trial showed Jose Medellin made the first move, grabbing one of two teenage Houston girls as they walked home at night across a railroad bridge.

"Help me, Jennifer!" 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena cried out to her friend, 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman.

It was the start of a savage hourlong attack by Medellin, then 18, and five fellow gang members, who raped the girls and forced them to perform sex acts before beating them strangling them with a belt and shoelaces. It would be four days before their bodies, decomposing in the Houston heat, were found. By then Medellin already had boasted to friends about having "virgin's blood" on his underpants.