World Court urges U.S. to stay 5 executions

[Straybow]

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.

The Treaty obligations apply to the Federal government, not State governments. SCOTUS has ruled on this a ways back:

The Court upheld the rulings of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts. The Court held that the signed Protocol of the Vienna Convention did not make the treaty self-executing and, therefore, the treaty is not binding upon state courts until it is enacted into law by Congress.

Linky: Medellin v. Texas

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If it was that easy. He confessed, etc. What's the big deal with having another review by the Mexican attorneys and allow them to represent him? If it was that clear cut, he'd be sent to the chair anyway. At least that way you don't set a precedent of ignoring the rights of foreign nationals to consular council (as Americans are offended when one of us are arrested overseas and not told of that right)

No, Mexico wants to prevent the execution regardless of the merits of the case. Same reason why they won't extradite on death penalty charges.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd


None that I know of. It was your hypothetical example.

China violating international law buy wanting to buy something for sale was not my example. It was yours.

And I was simply pointing out that, in spite of Alberta's ownership of the oil, there is probably some maneuvering Ottawa can do to prevent SHIPMENT of Alberta's oil. There is a huge difference between state/provincial criminal justice systems and international trade. I don't know Canada's Constitution, but in the US, Texas can't commit to trade agreements with any foreign power. However, Texas is both expected and required to administer it's own criminal justice system, within the framework of the US Constitution. I would expect no less of Canada.

Why should the GoC want to excercise any sort of extraordinary power over Alberta selling oil to whomever that province pleases?

The American federal government could likewise do more about Texas and America's international treaty obligations than say 'we tried.'

[David Floyd]

China violating international law buy wanting to buy something for sale was not my example. It was yours.

Actually, no. It was yours. You brought this up on the last page, and I quote

I'd be interested in hearing the screaming coming from Dallas and New York the day the Government of Canada said they tried to prevent Alberta from nationalising the oilsands, and shipping it all down a pipeline to Prince George and from there to China, but they were prefectly within their rights under constitutional law in Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld provincial jurisdiction over ownership of resources.

You decided to bring this silly example into the mix, and I answered it. You were trying to make me appear inconsistent by trying to involve a country that would be emotionally charged to most US right wingers. Unfortunately, you forgot that I'm smarter than you, and can see through such stupidity. Moving along...

Why should the GoC want to excercise any sort of extraordinary power over Alberta selling oil to whomever that province pleases?

If there was a treaty preventing Canada from selling oil to China, or any other country, then Canada would be obliged to do everything in it's power to prevent that from happening.

The American federal government could likewise do more about Texas and America's international treaty obligations than say 'we tried.'

Really? Such as?

And be careful, because your answer MUST be something that the US federal government is Constitutionally empowered to do.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Actually, no. It was yours. You brought this up on the last page, and I quote

You decided to bring this silly example into the mix, and I answered it. You were trying to make me appear inconsistent by trying to involve a country that would be emotionally charged to most US right wingers. Unfortunately, you forgot that I'm smarter than you, and can see through such stupidity. Moving along...

Substitute India, or Russia, or Botswanna if it pleases you.

Once again, how do you get that it is a violation of international law for China to want to buy something that is for sale by Alberta? The fact that Canada signed an agreement with Washington?

That's precisely the point, Alberta did not sign that treaty, and Alberta has jurisdiction over the resource in question. Just as Texas did not sign the treaty, and Texas has jurisdiction.

If your point is that the idea of Alberta 'nationalising' the energy industry is absurd, well good. It is. That hasn't stopped the Province from doing some absurd things in the past. It may be absurd, but I don't think it is impossible.

Incidently, I find the idea that the Vienna Convention does not apply in one of the largest states of the Union to by very absurd. So we're even, just that the whackos in Texas are actually doing it; being absurd, that is.

If there was a treaty preventing Canada from selling oil to China, or any other country, then Canada would be obliged to do everything in it's power to prevent that from happening.

Sure, but there is no treaty preventing Canada from selling oil to China. What if the moon were made of cheese? So what? It matters not, because it isn't.

There is an agreement for Canada to continue to sell a resource to the US once begun selling, or not to interfere with the sale thereof. However, the point is that Canada is not selling anything. Alberta is, or could be. Any commitments to sell oil, and other resources, to the USA with some assurance were signed by Ottawa, not Alberta.

Again, this is somewhat similar to the situation with Texas saying that treaties agreed to by Washington don't bind them. Note I said somewhat similar, not identical.

Really? Such as?

And be careful, because your answer MUST be something that the US federal government is Constitutionally empowered to do.

My answer could be anything I like it to be, I think.

I doubt it even has to be constitutional. The feds have passed many a measure that got tossed at some point by the courts in the US IIRC. I certainly don't see why this situation should be a situation where George decided that your Constitution was some sort of hallowed document when he hasn't behaved as if it is in the past.

However, they could always try to tie some sort of funding to some set of national standards. I think they already do that in some situations, don't they? Power of the purse would be the way I would approach it.

The real point is, the administration and Congress could at least try a bit more than asking nicely, because it really is an interesting precedent that is being set.

[SlowwHand]

What did you really expect him to do, other than ask Texas?

[notyoueither]

I'm not sure.

What would you expect any other national government to do when international treaties are being ignored by provincial or local governments to the inconvenience of an American or American interests?

It's an interesting conundrum, but I am of the opinion that we are all better off when we abide by little things like the Vienna Convention.

I would think people in the US, and the Southern US in particular, would be more interested in how Mexican officials treat people who are arrested in Mexico. As it stands, I can guess what the Mexicans will say the next time someone is disappeared into their prison system.

[notyoueither]

'You're from Texas? We're sorry, the Vienna Convention does not apply to you since your state does not recognise it.'

Then let the screaming begin.

I can see it now.

[SlowwHand]

Do you see it now? Some states have firing squads on the books or hanging or whatever, none even. It varies from state to state. Have you been following along on the activities going on in Mexico? The murders?
We executed an illegal Honduran for murder. Mexico has their own illegal alien problem in their south. Mexico is not just these little guitar and maraca players doing hat dances after their afternoon siesta.

[notyoueither]

Is it possible that foreign citizens might have had different results in the Texas courts had they been allowed access to their consular officials?

[SlowwHand]

No, and that's the point in this case. You leave out that he'd been here since he was 3.

[notyoueither]

Is he the only one?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=580&scid=

Amnesty International: Violation of the Rights of Foreign Nationals Under Sentence of Death
AI INDEX: AMR 51/01/98 (Published in 1998)

More than 60 foreign citizens representing 22 nationalities are under sentence of death in the United States of America (USA). In virtually every case, the arresting authorities failed to notify detained foreigners of their right to communicate with their consular representatives. As a consequence, foreign nationals confronted by an unfamiliar legal system were tried and sentenced to death without the benefit of the crucial support from the authorities of their native countries. Since 1993, the United States has executed at least 5 foreign nationals, including citizens of the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Cuba.

In 1969, the USA ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a multilateral treaty regulating the functions of consulates in at least 144 nations. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention requires the local authorities to promptly inform arrested foreigners of their right to consular assistance. At the request of the detainee, the authorities must notify the consulate of the arrest and permit consular access to the detained national.

Article 36 ensures that all arrested foreigners have the means at their disposal to prepare an adequate defence and to receive the same treatment before the law as domestic citizens. Consuls are uniquely placed to provide a wide range of essential services to their nationals, including legal advice and assistance, translation, notification of family members, the transferring of documentation from the native country and observing court hearings.

The right to consular notification and visits is also reiterated under international human rights standards, including Principle 16(2) of the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and Article 38(1) of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

The US Department of State considers Article 36 notification for American citizens arrested abroad to be a matter of the highest importance. However, the US federal government has taken no meaningful measures to ensure domestic compliance with the Vienna Convention or to remedy past violations which resulted in death sentences and executions of foreign nationals. Amnesty International is concerned that what appears to be a double standard applied by the US authorities may undermine the integrity of international law and endanger the fundamental human rights of foreign nationals detained worldwide.

In May 1997, 32 US law firms that represent foreigners on death row sent a joint letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, protesting the denial of their clients' consular rights. The letter pointed to "an alarming, widespread pattern of indisputable and indefensible violations" of Article 36 and urged the State Department to intervene. To date, there has been no substantive reply from the Secretary of State to the joint letter.

The cases of two Mexican nationals executed in 1997 illustrates the vital importance of timely consular intervention and the utter failure of the US authorities to meet their obligations under international law.

On 18 June 1997, Texas executed Irineo Tristan Montoya, a Mexican national sentenced to death in 1986. Following his arrest, Montoya underwent a lengthy police interrogation without the presence of an attorney or the assistance of the Mexican Consulate. He then signed a four-page confession written in English, a language that he did not read, speak or understand.

Although only eighteen years old at the time and despite his secondary involvement in the crime (Montoya was charged as an accessory to the murder), Montoya was condemned to death. The actual killer received a prison sentence. Texas authorities were fully aware of Montoya's nationality but failed to inform him of his right to consular access.

Shortly before the execution, the State Department contacted the Governor of Texas, in a belated attempt to determine the circumstances surrounding the breach of Article 36. However, in a remarkable reply that showed the Texan authorities' misunderstanding of, or contempt for, international treaties, the officials refused to investigate the violation or to assess its possible impact, on the grounds that Texas was not a signatory to the Vienna Convention. A final appeal to the US Supreme Court on the treaty violation was dismissed without comment.

Mario Benjamin Murphy was executed in Virginia on 17 September 1997. Murphy was one of six people charged with the 1991 'murder for hire' of a US Navy petty officer. Murphy fully cooperated with the police and was clearly not the most culpable individual. He was also the only defendant not offered a plea bargain by the prosecution and the only one sentenced to death -- and the only foreign national.

Mario Murphy finally learned of his consular rights in 1996; however, both the prison warden and the Virginia Attorney General refused his request that they contact the Mexican Consulate on his behalf. A District Court judge later criticised Virginia officials for their "defiant and continuing disregard" of the Vienna Convention. During a hearing at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, the Virginia Assistant Attorney General and two of the panel judges admitted that they had never heard of the Vienna Convention prior to the Murphy case.

The Mexican Consulate filed an 'amicus curiae' brief (interested parties may appeal to a court via an 'amicus curiae' (friend of the court) brief), outlining the "flexible and far-reaching assistance to avoid imposition of the death penalty" which consular officials would have provided, including efforts to obtain a plea bargain and the gathering of mitigating evidence. Ignoring the obvious misconduct of state officials, the US courts ruled that the issue was "procedurally defaulted" because Murphy had failed to raise the claim at an earlier stage of appeal.

Do you laugh or cry?

The day after Murphy's execution, the State Department sent a formal apology to the Mexican Embassy for the failure of Virginia officials to provide Murphy with the required notification of his right to consular assistance.

The consistent failure of the United States to meet its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is an issue of legitimate and growing concern to the international community. The governments of Canada, Mexico and Paraguay have all taken vigorous diplomatic and legal action to protect the consular rights of their citizens currently under a sentence of death.

Despite sporadic advisory notices from the State Department, most state and local authorities remain ignorant of their Article 36 responsibilities. Gerald Arenberg, Executive Director of the National Association of Retired Police Chiefs, was recently quoted as stating that: "In my 47 years in law enforcement, I have never seen anything from the State Department or FBI about this".

In an interview prior to the execution of Mario Murphy, the trial prosecutor, Robert Humphreys, showed contempt for Virginia's treaty violation: "I mean, what is the remedy? I suppose Mexico could declare war on us...To me, it's a completely ridiculous issue". In the same interview, Humphreys gave an entirely incorrect interpretation of Article 36: "The burden is on [defendants] to say, 'Hey, excuse me, I'm a Mexican citizen. Tell my Embassy'... ".

Many violations of foreign nationals rights under the Vienna Convention are also violations of the USA's obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by the USA on 8 June 1992. For example, Article 14 (3a) of the ICCPR states that:

'...[a defendant has the right] To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;' (emphasis added). General Comment 15 of the ICCPR's Position of Aliens under the Covenant also expands on the rights of foreign nationals charged with a criminal offence.

In response to mounting international pressure, the State Department is reportedly considering measures to ensure better domestic compliance with the Vienna Convention. These measures are said to include revised material for advising US police forces of the procedures to be followed when arresting foreign nationals.

Amnesty International welcomes these preliminary steps. However, the organization believes that they are insufficient to ensure that all US police departments are aware of--and comply with--the binding requirements of Article 36.

Amnesty International also remains deeply concerned over the reluctance of the US authorities to develop effective remedies in the cases of foreign nationals who were sentenced to death without receiving notification of their consular rights. The US Government continues to oppose efforts by death-sentenced foreign citizens (and their governments) to obtain relief through the courts.

In response to a law-suit filed by the Republic of Paraguay against Virginia officials, attorneys for the US Department of Justice argued that foreign governments are not entitled to a judicial remedy for Article 36 violations and that the proper recourse for breaches of consular rights is through diplomatic channels. However, it is not clear how diplomatic channels could correct the violation of the rights of those foreign nationals currently under sentence of death.

In light of the State Department's insufficient efforts to intervene prior to the recent execution of foreign nationals, Amnesty International finds this position completely unacceptable. Without fair and effective remedies for past violations of Article 36 in capital cases, any assurances of future domestic compliance from the US authorities can only be seen as hollow promises.

[SlowwHand]

Did you read the title, or read any posts? There were 50. That number has dropped now. We excute another murderer Thursday. Why don't you come protest it? I'd love to see you waste your time.

[notyoueither]

That was a stunning rebuttal. I shall have to carefully consider my next move.

[SlowwHand]

I would suggest that you do. If we don't care what the World Court says, do you expect us to care what Amnesty International says?
The State Department did as was asked. We held up the law in rebuttal. We won.

[notyoueither]

a double standard applied by the US authorities may undermine the integrity of international law and endanger the fundamental human rights of foreign nationals detained worldwide.

Congatulations. No one is stopping Texas from causing the United States to make a mockery of international treaties.

Have fun next trip outside of the US.