The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Texas to international US relations: Screw You
Gnome-Interruptus
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Source: CBC News with files from the Associated Press
The facts:
The background and related info:
So states rights interfere with international relations... isnt this something that the feds should have had more control over? What are the views of my southern neighbors on this one?
The facts:
Texas execution sparks international legal debate
Authorities in Texas have carried out the execution of a Mexican man in defiance of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, in a case legal analysts said could have implications for U.S. citizens travelling abroad.
Jose Medellin, 33, who was convicted of the rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston in 1993, was executed late Tuesday after he lost his last-minute appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I'm sorry my actions caused you pain," Medellin told the teens' parents late Tuesday before being executed by lethal injection in Huntsville. "I hope this brings you the closure that you seek."
Elizabeth Pena, 16, and Jennifer Ertman, 14, both of Houston, were gang raped, beaten and strangled in June 1993. Their remains were found four days later.
The brother of one of the gang members, disgusted to learn about his sibling's involvement in the attack, tipped police, leading to the arrest of Medellin and others.
Medellin's appeal to the top court relates to the Vienna Convention, an international treaty the U.S. signed that gives detained foreigners the right to consular help from their government.
The International Court of Justice, known also as the World Court, has argued that never happened in the case of Medellin and some 50 other Mexicans on death row in the United States.
U.S. President George W. Bush asked the states to review the cases, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that neither the president nor the international court could force Texas to wait.
The background and related info:
Death row inmate came to U.S. at age 3
Texas authorities argued Medellin, who came to the U.S. when he was three years old and grew up in Houston, never sought Mexican consular protections until four years after he was arrested. By then, he already had been tried for capital murder, convicted and condemned.
But international legal researcher Mark Warren said there are greater issues at stake, and that as a result of the execution, other countries would no longer be obliged to offer Americans the protection laid out in the treaty.
"I think the U.S. is in a very difficult position now because of the obstruction and belligerence of the state of Texas," he said.
But Ted Poe, a Republican congressman from Texas, told CBC News that the case is a matter of sovereignty.
"The Supreme Court has ruled according to our law and constitution that none of those entities have any say as to what takes place in Texas," Poe said.
Mexico's Foreign Relations Department said it sent a note of protest to the U.S. State Department about Medellin's case.
The statement said officials "were concerned for the precedent that [the execution] may create for the rights of Mexican nationals who may be detained in that country."
A bill to implement the international court's ruling wasn't introduced in Congress until last month. The Texas legislature doesn't meet until January.
Medellin was one of five to get the death penalty for the killings of Pena and Ertman.
Derrick O'Brien was executed two years ago. Peter Cantu, described as the ringleader of the group, is awaiting execution, but a date has not been set.
So states rights interfere with international relations... isnt this something that the feds should have had more control over? What are the views of my southern neighbors on this one?
MWO: Adamski
Gnome-Interruptus on
0
Posts
So would an international ambassador in Texas also possibly be put in jail and executed without any say from his home country? Thats the type of precedent this sets.
And once a country doesnt trust you with their dignataries, they are significantly less likely to treat yours very well... or any visiting citizens.
MWO: Adamski
Foreign dignitaries should stay in DC where they're protected by federal law. /sarcasm
This was a West Wing Episode. I assume similar things have happened before, but probably not executions.
Of course, if the laws are completely retarded, by all means step in. But rape and murder are one of those kinds of areas where I don't think a country can claim amnesty and extradition of their citizens. I feel this should be extended to diplomats as well, and I don't particularly agree with diplomatic immunity at all. They should be just as accountable for our laws as their owns.
Stealing fruit and getting your hands chopped off is one thing, but raping and killing people is a whole different ball game in my eyes.
Interesting point. I'm sure recognized dignitaries enjoy greater protections than other visitors, but I don't know how the SCOTUS decision would affect those protections. I haven't read the decision itself, just the summary in the OP, but it would seem like they would be subject to state laws. The way our government is set up, I don't see how this wouldn't have always been the case. Perhaps they can do another end-run around the legal system and tie this into interstate-commerce
All that said, I think this was a pretty silly thing for Texas to do. If I were the governor, I think I would have stayed the execution until he the international problem was resolved. Sometimes pragmatism is called for.
At that point, he is also a citizen of Mexico, so he may have been extradited there to face life imprisonment or whatever as opposed to the death penalty.
MWO: Adamski
No, he was a resident alien. Besides, the U.S. doesn't recognize dual citizenships.
Umm.. thats not true. The US doesnt allow their citizens to go out and get a dual citizenship. But citizens of another country can become citizens of the US without losing their citizenship in their home country.
MWO: Adamski
I mean honestly. Who gives a fuck what really happened to this shitbag? Oo, a piece of garbage was executed before he could whine to his home country. Big deal.
I know the issue is important, but this case is an awful one to debate it with.
If he was a U.S. citizen, then domestic law should certainly apply to him despite any other citizenship he may hold. Not nearly as interesting of a predicament though, in my opinion.
No, even in those cases the U.S. Government does not recognize the other citizenship. Hell, they don't recognize dual citizenships from countries that both allow it.
I think it's a perfect case for discussion, because if it was something minor we would let him go without worrying about it to preserve the protection to American citizens outside the country. It requires the guy to be a total piece of shit to make us question where to draw the line.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It's despicable for Texas to think that they're above international law. It's even worse to see the fucking guile that the Supreme Court has.
As a dual citizen myself, you are entirely incorrect.
The principle here is that the U.S. is executing people who are foreign without consulting said people's country of origin. This is being sanctioned by government and the Supreme Court. You know how people keep asking "Man, why does everybody hate Americans?". Well this is a pretty big reason.
I'm also a dual citizen. The last time I mentioned it to a U.S. Immigration official she repeated it like a mantra. Note that not recognizing it doesn't mean disallowing it.
Unless there is a treaty between two countries. The question is whether or not the federal government has a right to sign treaties that nullify state laws in regards to foreign nationals. It's a murky issue of state sovereignty.
The guy requested help four years after he was arrested and convicted, which certainly complicates matters.
Not to harp upon things I've already said in this post, but it's a question of whether or not states are subject to treaties that they aren't a direct participant in when it comes to U.S. soil. There must be some debate on this in the past history of our nation? I would think this would have come up pretty early on.
The treaty is cut and dry: you give foreign citizens access to consular help when they ask. Period. Your country fails to do that, no other country is obligated to ever do the same for your citizens. The Supreme Court declining to intervene is irrelevant; the rulings of the ICJ are non-binding, and the Supreme Court had no basis in US law to stay the execution on the grounds that the ICJ objected.
But by choosing to proceed with the execution simply because no one had the legal authority to stop them, Texas potentially fucked over all US citizens big-time.
The specifics of this asshole's case are irrelevant, it's the repercussions that are potentially ugly. Ugly enough that I'll be sure to travel on my Canadian passport from now on.
She was misinformed. They are both allowed and recognized.
Hmph. And here I was thinking it was something new they slipped under the radar when they organized DHS.
When that American kid in Singapore got caught vandalizing cars and got sentenced to be beaten with a stick, the US State Department was all over the Singaporean government. Pres. Clinton called for clemency. 24 US Senators signed a letter requesting clemency. They got him reduced to 4 hits from the original 6. After the punishment, the US tried to have a WTO summit relocated from Singapore.
This was all after the sentence was announced, not before the trial.
Ok, what about the 50 other Mexicans on death row?
Edit: Also, regardless of the fact a prisoner asks for it, consular help should be sought out. It's a mater of diplomacy and trust in respect of the fact that you're not trying to fuck with one of their citizen's rights.
All true, but he did ask prior to the execution, and was denied, which may very well lead to bad bad things for U.S. citizens.
The point being that the U.S. government isn't always consistent in it's dealings with foreign nations and that the different branches of government don't always see eye to eye? If so, I agree.
I think the point is that you may not always be assigned a lawyer in countries, or would it be safe to assume that the lawyer is knowledgeable about international treaty. There most likely isn't a system set up to catch this situation and alert a federal official, but ideally if a federal official were notified the originating countries embassy should be contacted on behalf of the accused. This is to meet the spirit of the treaty if not the letter.
Fuck, he's not even technically a Mexican. They changed the law in like 1997 to allow dual citizenship, but you had a 5 year grace period to apply. Unless they granted a convicted American rapist citizenship while he was in an American jail on death row, where does this claim even come from? Unless I guess he never claimed American citizenship ever. I'm not even sure what would happen there then.
That, plus the American kid has consular help during the trial as well, and still there was an outcry over the punishment rather than this "what happens in Texas stays in Texas" attitude.
While I'm an advocate of states' rights, there is the need for the federal government for particularly this reason. One of the chief purposes of the federal government for which it was created was to handle foreign relations on the states' behalf to prevent individual states from needing to establish individual treaties, embassies, etc. While Texas is ignoring international law, it is also ignoring the federal government's authority to handle such treaties. Which one is a bigger danger, I'm not sure, and is probably a debate in and of itself.
I recognize the federal governments authority over foreign matters, but the guy was on U.S. soil. A foreign national on U.S. falls into a murky gray area where it's not clear who has authority. There are downfalls to declaring either side.
If he falls entirely under federal jurisdiction, then state laws would not apply? The federal government would need to draft and manager a much larger code of laws than it does currently, down to parking violatioins.
On the other side of the absurdity spectrum is giving states full authority. In this case, the U.S. could make no agreement with a foreign country regarding their rights when visiting the states (beyond those which are already the purview of the federal government).
Not trying to set up a false dichotomy here, there must be a reasonable middle ground. Just trying to point out my difficulty in seeing a good solution.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass