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.
She was misinformed. They are both allowed and recognized.
I'm curious as to how it is recognized. I'm pretty sure that while the phrasing is often confusing, countries in general nevertheless only care whether or not you are a citizen of their country, not what other countries you claim to be a citizen of.
In regards to this case, I don't like the idea that other countries now will be prompted like little children to seek revenge on us by refusing diplomatic consular services to our citizens. But seriously, he's been here since he was 3 and he didn't ask for help from Mexico until after he was convicted condemned to death. Nothing about that relates in any way to why we have that applicable treaty in the first place. Invoking his citizenship and right to counsel at that point was clearly nothing but a stalling technique and an attempt to abuse a treaty in hopes of avoiding his sentence.
And getting hit with a stick 4 times is barely anything. It's not gonna scar you for life in any way.
I'll assume you're joking.
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.
I think setting up a few basic guidelines for international offenders (for instance, requiring them to inform them of their right to contact their consulate) while still otherwise allowing them to try them as they see fit is a pretty reasonable compromise.
But again, at this point it's still on the accused to, you know, mention that they're citizens of another country. And seek help from their consulate, preferably before their sentenced to death.
In regards to this case, I don't like the idea that other countries now will be prompted like little children to seek revenge on us by refusing diplomatic consular services to our citizens. But seriously, he's been here since he was 3 and he didn't ask for help from Mexico until after he was convicted condemned to death. Nothing about that relates in any way to why we have that applicable treaty in the first place. Invoking his citizenship and right to counsel at that point was clearly nothing but a stalling technique and an attempt to abuse a treaty in hopes of avoiding his sentence.
As opposed to this, which is pretty much what happened in this case.
If you're in a country or state and you commit a crime, that country or state should have every right to enforce its laws and carry out sentences. There should however be some involvement with their country of origin and in this case consular help, which never happened.
It never happened because he never asked for it. And, while I'm having a hard time finding a source (other than wiki, with a broken link to a cite) I seem to remember reading that part of the reason he wasn't advised that he had the right to ask for it is because he didn't tell them he was a Mexican citizen. By the time he'd signed the confession (after being advised of his rights just as any US citizen accused of the same crime would have been) it's not like consular help would have meant jack shit anyway.
Ok, what about the 50 other Mexicans on death row?
How many of them failed to ask for consular assistance, and of those how many weren't advised of their right to do so. Of those, how many did the authorities know were Mexican (or other non-US) citizens?
That will be the number that I give a shit about. I will concede that it is probably non-zero.
I fail to see the point here. The fact of the matter is that there are Mexicans on death row that are not being represented. If you're a country, you don't go assuming people don't want consular help because they say they don't want any. How do you plan on convincing the originating country when they're wondering why you didn't notify them and simply executed 50 of their citizens? "They didn't want help" isn't really a good answer.
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.
And if the accused fails to notify them that he's a Mexican citizen? Should the interrogating officer just start calling every consulate from countries south of the border and ask if they know the guy?
He'd been living in the country for like fifteen years, and after being afforded every right that a US citizen would have been he signed a confession. Welcome to conviction-town. There's nothing consular help would have done for him at that point.
As for consular help now, what would the point have been? Stay the execution? Commute it to a life sentence? Considering he committed a crime that is more than worthy of the death penalty (assuming any crime is, which the people of Texas have decided yes) I see no reason that any change should have been made in his sentence.
If someone is in your country and is not a citizen, you mean to tell me you're simply going to kill him without finding out who he is or where he comes from? What if he has diplomatic immunity? I think you're going to bloody well ask questions and get alternate parties involved, that is, unless your country or state lacks common sense.
If you're a country, you don't go assuming people don't want consular help because they say they don't want any.
Uh...
So if I'm arrested I should always be asked if I want consular help? Even though I'm a citizen? That's idiotic. This guy confessed to the crime before he even mentioned that he was Mexican. Isn't having the authorities ask every single brown guy they arrest if they're citizens of another country just a smidge racist?
If someone is in your country and is not a citizen, you mean to tell me you're simply going to kill him without finding out who he is or where he comes from? What if he has diplomatic immunity? I think you're going to bloody well ask questions and get alternate parties involved, that is, unless your country or state lacks common sense.
If somebody has diplomatic immunity, I'd imagine that A) they'd know about it and they'd speak the fuck up. Again, I don't see why asking if a suspect has diplomatic immunity should be standard procedure before an interrogation.
You inform them that they have a right to counsel. Because everybody has a right to counsel. Then it's on their counsel to figure out if something like consular help or (assuming they're the dumbest diplomat ever) diplomatic immunity applies to them.
Yes, I realize that the children of diplomats have the immunity as well, but again I'd hope any diplomat would inform their kids of this.
If you're a country, you don't go assuming people don't want consular help because they say they don't want any.
Uh...
If you swap it to say "don't say they want any" it makes sense.
I mean, I still don't agree, but it makes sense.
The only obligation the authorities have is to inform them of their right to consular help. No more. Well, that and allowing them to pursue it, of course. And to do this, they'd have to know that the person isn't a citizen of this country.
And no, if I have a guy suspected of rape and murder I'm not going to be too concerned with his citizenship...it's on him to speak the fuck up if he's Mexican. I'm concerned about finding out if this guy raped and murdered somebody.
If you're a country, you don't go assuming people don't want consular help because they say they don't want any.
Uh...
So if I'm arrested I should always be asked if I want consular help? Even though I'm a citizen? That's idiotic. This guy confessed to the crime before he even mentioned that he was Mexican. Isn't having the authorities ask every single brown guy they arrest if they're citizens of another country just a smidge racist?
No. If you would have bothered with the entire sentence instead of trying to strawman that one line, you'd realize that your response doesn't even remotely cover what I said. Let me simplify it.
Man go to country.
Man rape and kill women and little boys
Country all wtf?
Country kill man
Country do this times 50 without telling foreign country, that is, where these people come from.
Now what is that other country going to think? That all those people just felt like they were guilty and opted against consular help? Perhaps a country would common sense would cover its ass by requesting consular help anyways, you know, in case they might think we're simply lying to them. This is called "diplomacy".
If someone is in your country and is not a citizen, you mean to tell me you're simply going to kill him without finding out who he is or where he comes from? What if he has diplomatic immunity? I think you're going to bloody well ask questions and get alternate parties involved, that is, unless your country or state lacks common sense.
If somebody has diplomatic immunity, I'd imagine that A) they'd know about it and they'd speak the fuck up. Again, I don't see why asking if a suspect has diplomatic immunity should be standard procedure before an interrogation.
You inform them that they have a right to counsel. Because everybody has a right to counsel. Then it's on their counsel to figure out if something like consular help or (assuming they're the dumbest diplomat ever) diplomatic immunity applies to them.
Yes, I realize that the children of diplomats have the immunity as well, but again I'd hope any diplomat would inform their kids of this.
Again, jumping to conclusions when you're executing people who fall under a foreign government is not very bright.
Man go to country.
Man rape and kill women and little boys
Country all wtf?
Country kill man
Country do this times 50 without telling foreign country, that is, where these people come from.
Now what is that other country going to think? That all those people just felt like they were guilty and opted against consular help? Perhaps a country would common sense would cover its ass by requesting consular help anyways, you know, in case they might think we're simply lying to them. This is called "diplomacy".
Well, we aren't talking about Liechtenstein here. I don't think that it's unimaginable that, with upwards of twenty million of their citizens in our country (and thousands upon thousands arrested for non-immigration crimes yearly), that maybe 50 would commit capital crimes and not request consular assistance.
And unless no Mexican citizens who are getting arrested are requesting consular help, it's not necessarily obvious that the US is engaged in some kind of systematic practice to deny it.
Besides which, at the time of interrogation and confession, Medellin never mentioned he was Mexican. So at that point at least the authorities had absolutely no obligation to even mention the word "consulate."
After that point, the entire thing is pretty shrugworthy. There was little his consulate could do for him once he confessed, especially given the nature of the crime. I do agree that when he finally requested it, he should probably have been given access to his consulate, so they could tell him "kiss your ass goodbye" in his native tongue.
Oh, wait. Having lived here since he was three, his native tongue was probably English. All the more reason the authorities might not have had any reason to assume he was a foreign national.
Man go to country.
Man rape and kill women and little boys
Country all wtf?
Country kill man
Country do this times 50 without telling foreign country, that is, where these people come from.
Now what is that other country going to think? That all those people just felt like they were guilty and opted against consular help? Perhaps a country would common sense would cover its ass by requesting consular help anyways, you know, in case they might think we're simply lying to them. This is called "diplomacy".
Well, we aren't talking about Liechtenstein here. I don't think that it's unimaginable that, with upwards of twenty million of their citizens in our country (and thousands upon thousands arrested for non-immigration crimes yearly), that maybe 50 would commit capital crimes and not request consular assistance.
And unless no Mexican citizens who are getting arrested are requesting consular help, it's not necessarily obvious that the US is engaged in some kind of systematic practice to deny it.
Besides which, at the time of interrogation and confession, Medellin never mentioned he was Mexican. So at that point at least the authorities had absolutely no obligation to even mention the word "consulate."
After that point, the entire thing is pretty shrugworthy. There was little his consulate could do for him once he confessed, especially given the nature of the crime. I do agree that when he finally requested it, he should probably have been given access to his consulate, so they could tell him "kiss your ass goodbye" in his native tongue.
Oh, wait. Having lived here since he was three, his native tongue was probably English. All the more reason the authorities might not have had any reason to assume he was a foreign national.
Again, you're missing the point entirely. It's not the fact that they're Mexican and it's not the fact that they're denying consular assistance. It's the fact that the U.S. is deeming itself just in executing several citizens in another country. You're simply choosing to argue semantics not to mention jumping to the conclusion that all 50 people decided against consular aid.
And in the interest of diplomacy, a country who finds an illegal citizen, regardless of their tenure within the country, and decided to put said individual on trial without even trying to determine where he comes from is ridiculously incompetent.
All I know is that considering the international treaty is basically scrapped due to the incompetence of the Supreme Court and Texas, the next time I see an expensive car with plates from the U.S.A., I'm going to jump in front of it and take them for everything they're worth.
Again, you're missing the point entirely. It's not the fact that they're Mexican and it's not the fact that they're denying consular assistance. It's the fact that the U.S. is deeming itself just in executing several citizens in another country. You're simply choosing to argue semantics not to mention jumping to the conclusion that all 50 people decided against consular aid.
Actually, it is the issue of denying consular assistance. Otherwise, sorry to say, but they're absolutely just in executing citizens of another country (provided the death penalty remains legal...I actually don't support the death penalty in general).
If you commit a capital crime in another country, and don't have immunity, it's not entirely unlikely that you could face the death penalty there as well, US citizen or no (and regardless of how this had turned out). When you commit a crime in another country, you are subject to their laws and their punishments. The only thing a consulate can do is either get you a better lawyer or try to exert political pressure for a lighter sentence...in this case, neither would have mattered.
The fact that we executed a foreign national is not, in and of itself, the issue here at all.
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.
Well, that might have had a little bit to do with the fact that that kid committed vandalism, while Medellin committed rape and murder.
Maybe.
The death penalty is the maximum penalty for his crimes in pretty much any country that has a death penalty. We're not talking about throwing people in prison for chewing gum, or anything.
I think the greater magnitude of the crime, and subsequent punishment, means that the embassy should be even more involved, not less. The higher profile the case, the more I'd want to be sure to cross my Ts.
And just because you let the embassy help the guy file his appeal doesn't mean you have to grant it. If the consul-aided appeal lacks merit then deny it and execute him. Texas still gets their execution, and the Vienna Convention is upheld.
Again, you're missing the point entirely. It's not the fact that they're Mexican and it's not the fact that they're denying consular assistance. It's the fact that the U.S. is deeming itself just in executing several citizens in another country. You're simply choosing to argue semantics not to mention jumping to the conclusion that all 50 people decided against consular aid.
Actually, it is the issue of denying consular assistance. Otherwise, sorry to say, but they're absolutely just in executing citizens of another country (provided the death penalty remains legal...I actually don't support the death penalty in general).
If you commit a capital crime in another country, and don't have immunity, it's not entirely unlikely that you could face the death penalty there as well, US citizen or no (and regardless of how this had turned out). When you commit a crime in another country, you are subject to their laws and their punishments. The only thing a consulate can do is either get you a better lawyer or try to exert political pressure for a lighter sentence...in this case, neither would have mattered.
The fact that we executed a foreign national is not, in and of itself, the issue here at all.
Right but when you go in front of the world, sign a treaty stating that you will provide consular assistance, then execute 50 members of another country without providing consular assistance all the while having the full support of the Supreme Court and Texas, I doubt you have the common fucking sense to be able to give people a fair trial in the first place. You also happen to have a legal system full of retards.
If you're a country, you don't go assuming people don't want consular help because they say they don't want any.
Uh...
So if I'm arrested I should always be asked if I want consular help? Even though I'm a citizen? That's idiotic. This guy confessed to the crime before he even mentioned that he was Mexican. Isn't having the authorities ask every single brown guy they arrest if they're citizens of another country just a smidge racist?
No. If you would have bothered with the entire sentence instead of trying to strawman that one line, you'd realize that your response doesn't even remotely cover what I said.
I think that you're both confused personally. I quoted that line because it doesn't make an iota of sense. McDermott said what I think you meant to say, which is "don't say" not "say they don't." The absence of statement vs the statement of absence and all that jazz.
If you're a country, you don't go assuming people don't want consular help because they say they don't want any.
Uh...
So if I'm arrested I should always be asked if I want consular help? Even though I'm a citizen? That's idiotic. This guy confessed to the crime before he even mentioned that he was Mexican. Isn't having the authorities ask every single brown guy they arrest if they're citizens of another country just a smidge racist?
No. If you would have bothered with the entire sentence instead of trying to strawman that one line, you'd realize that your response doesn't even remotely cover what I said.
I think that you're both confused personally. I quoted that line because it doesn't make an iota of sense. McDermott said what I think you meant to say, which is "don't say" not "say they don't." The absence of statement vs the statement of absence and all that jazz.
It makes perfect sense. If someone from another country says they don't want consular representation (and in this case he did by the way), you should still contact their government regardless of that fact(in which case they didn't and executed him ignoring the treaty).
It makes perfect sense. If someone from another country says they don't want consular representation (and in this case he did by the way), you should still contact their government regardless of that fact(in which case they didn't and executed him ignoring the treaty).
I think you're the one that's confusing things.
"Should" and "have to" are totally different things. The treaty in no way obligates us to contact the country of the accused. There are probably at least some cases in which the accused specifically asks us not to.
It makes perfect sense. If someone from another country says they don't want consular representation (and in this case he did by the way), you should still contact their government regardless of that fact(in which case they didn't and executed him ignoring the treaty).
I think you're the one that's confusing things.
"Should" and "have to" are totally different things. The treaty in no way obligates us to contact the country of the accused. There are probably at least some cases in which the accused specifically asks us not to.
But in this case, he didn't ask you not to.
He appealed
It says so right here.
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.
I'll admit I'm now more interested in seeing if some other nice place will grant me citizenship so I don't get my dumb ass convicted for a heinous crime I didn't commit in another country and am left without help because the world thinks Americans just deserve it now.
However--this guy deserved exactly what he got. If you rape and murder in Texas, which this guy confessed to, it's over. I live in state, and am just finishing up the required course on its government, so I will be the first to tell you that our judicial system is backwards as fuck and rife with problems, like defense counsel ASLEEP during death penalty cases.
But this case seems to have turned out alright, and I fail to see what Mexican consulate would've done for this guy.
It makes perfect sense. If someone from another country says they don't want consular representation (and in this case he did by the way), you should still contact their government regardless of that fact(in which case they didn't and executed him ignoring the treaty).
I think you're the one that's confusing things.
"Should" and "have to" are totally different things. The treaty in no way obligates us to contact the country of the accused. There are probably at least some cases in which the accused specifically asks us not to.
But in this case, he didn't ask you not to.
He appealed
It says so right here.
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.
That article is dated today.
But the failure to give his consulate access to him isn't the issue anyway, right?
Again, you're missing the point entirely. It's not the fact that they're Mexican and it's not the fact that they're denying consular assistance. It's the fact that the U.S. is deeming itself just in executing several citizens in another country. You're simply choosing to argue semantics not to mention jumping to the conclusion that all 50 people decided against consular aid.
Or, put another way, if at some point during the trial or appeals process he had been given access to his consulate (but after the confession, of course, because the police had no reason to assume he was Mexican), would you still have a problem with us executing him?
Aside from an aversion to the death penalty in general, of course...I don't agree with that either. But a problem with us executing him solely because he's a foreign national?
I can almost guarantee that, at some point during his trial, he was informed of his right to contact his consulate (by his own counsel, of nobody else). And he probably opted not to, because he figured it wouldn't do any good anyway...confession and all. The only reason he likely pursued it after the fact is because somebody told him that maybe he had a shot in hell at getting his conviction overturned...not because it would have made any difference back then.
In short, this is like the worst case ever to hang this issue on.
But this case seems to have turned out alright, and I fail to see what Mexican consulate would've done for this guy.
Nothing, likely. A consulate has no actual power in the trial...the most they can do to affect it is to hire you a better lawyer. Aside from that, their only purpose is to ensure that you rights aren't being violated in the country in which you're being tried. Which they weren't...he was afforded every right a citizen in the same situation would have been given. And given that he gave a full confession after being told he could shut the fuck up and wait for a lawyer (probably in the hopes of a lighter sentence, knowing he was guilty as shit...ooops) it's unlikely that any lawyer that Mexico might have hired for him would have had better luck. Especially not in Texas.
Actually, I'll reverse myself and say that it might be a good idea to add a line regarding the consulate to the standard Miranda warning...just a quick "...if a foreign national you have the right to have your consulate notified of your arrest. Do you understand these rights..." towards the end.
Given that like 10% of the people in this country are foreign nationals.
Aside from that? I don't think anything else is necessary. It can be on them to actually ask to have them contacted if it applies to them.
And in general I still don't think this is the gross miscarriage of justice it's being made out to be (other than my general objection to the death penalty). If he failed to ask for counsel before confessing it's unlikely he'd have asked to have his consulate notified, had he known he had that right.
Actually, I'll reverse myself and say that it might be a good idea to add a line regarding the consulate to the standard Miranda warning...just a quick "...if a foreign national you have the right to have your consulate notified of your arrest. Do you understand these rights..." towards the end.
That seems like a terrific idea. At the arraignment at the very least; I don't know how long the standard Miranda warning has gotten, so I'm not sure if I'd be terribly pissed off if the arresting officer wasn't required to note that.
Actually, I'll reverse myself and say that it might be a good idea to add a line regarding the consulate to the standard Miranda warning...just a quick "...if a foreign national you have the right to have your consulate notified of your arrest. Do you understand these rights..." towards the end.
That seems like a terrific idea. At the arraignment at the very least; I don't know how long the standard Miranda warning has gotten, so I'm not sure if I'd be terribly pissed off if the arresting officer wasn't required to note that.
Well, they're more or less required to inform them ASAP, so the arraignment would be too late. Again, this is more to deal with people who may not inform the officers that they're foreign nationals trying to use this as grounds for appeal later than anything...since while, in this case at least, it would not have mattered (again, if he didn't wait for a lawyer it's not like he's going to wait for his consulate) it can lead to silly technical issues later (along with pissing off the international community).
It makes perfect sense. If someone from another country says they don't want consular representation (and in this case he did by the way), you should still contact their government regardless of that fact(in which case they didn't and executed him ignoring the treaty).
I think you're the one that's confusing things.
"Should" and "have to" are totally different things. The treaty in no way obligates us to contact the country of the accused. There are probably at least some cases in which the accused specifically asks us not to.
But in this case, he didn't ask you not to.
He appealed
It says so right here.
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.
That article is dated today.
But the failure to give his consulate access to him isn't the issue anyway, right?
Why do you continue to obfuscate the issue? No matter what I said your entire argument hinged on the very fact that he denied his Mexican status. That's not the case. Texas backed up disregarding the treaty. The Supreme Court disregarded the treaty. The Americain legal system as a result is at fault. We're not talking peanuts here. They completely disregarded international law to the point where they deemed it has no hold over the state. In black in white of that very treaty it explicitly states in article 29 that it comprises the entire territory. In order for it to be any differently, they'd need the explicit consent of all parties for said treaty, which of course, they don't have.
Considering they're incompetent to the point of disregarding a treaty who's to say the 51 involved were even informed of their rights before this case came up?
The issue went well beyond a denial of consular consultation for Medellin. If I'm reading it correctly, the Senate ratified the treaty with the understanding that it's enforcement on U.S. soil was inapplicable. Pres. Bush sought to make the treaty enforceable by Executive powers, rather than Senate ratification and in doing so, would bypass state criminal procedure, the U.S. Senate and SCOTUS. The decision was effectively a reaffirmation of an earlier decision; that the ICJ's rulings are superseded by U.S. law as a matter of national (and state) sovereignty and that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law in the United States, not the ICJ.
State Department officials have said the international ruling will not help other foreign inmates in U.S. prisons, because federal officials cannot force states to comply. Administration officials also said that the president did all he could to force state compliance and that Congress now needs to intervene with specific legislation.
I find it interesting how the feds seem to pick and choose what they feel they can force the states to do.
The issue went well beyond a denial of consular consultation for Medellin. If I'm reading it correctly, the Senate ratified the treaty with the understanding that it's enforcement on U.S. soil was inapplicable. Pres. Bush sought to make the treaty enforceable by Executive powers, rather than Senate ratification and in doing so, would bypass state criminal procedure, the U.S. Senate and SCOTUS. The decision was effectively a reaffirmation of an earlier decision; that the ICJ's rulings are superseded by U.S. law as a matter of national (and state) sovereignty and that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law in the United States, not the ICJ.
In those circumstances, I can't imagine why any country would be bothered entering into a treaty with the US, if that treaty is clearly intended to have effect within the jurisdiction of the signatories to same.
I think we can all agree that the best course of action is to not rape and kill teenage girls.
And of course, make sure you're never wrongly accused of something in a foreign country. I really don't see how people can see this as anything other then a horrible precedent. Completely disregarding the crime itself, and the guy they executed...
You could easily be denied access to your consulate when accused of a crime abroad.
Seriously, have you people never seen Brokdown Palace?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
And of course, make sure you're never wrongly accused of something in a foreign country. I really don't see how people can see this as anything other then a horrible precedent. Completely disregarding the crime itself, and the guy they executed...
You could easily be denied access to your consulate when accused of a crime abroad.
Seriously, have you people never seen Brokdown Palace?
Denied consulate? Hell after seeing Hostel I am more worried about being kidnapped and tortured to death than I am about accidentally signing a confession detailing how I raped and killed a bunch of teenage girls. I mean both are pretty unlikely, and for random country X's police to deny me I must be suspected of doing something really bad. Heck the Sob's even had a trial. Do I get a trial in your version of events? Can it make international news?
I am quite happy with the events. First we have dead rapists. Always a plus. Second we have the fact that signing a treaty does not create law. Which means we cannot lose our rights without our government actually going through the approved process of doing so. The point is that is that after we sign a treaty it is assumed we will then follow our process of making what we agreed to law. If parts violate our constitution/cannot get passed then those parts might as well be written on toilet paper.
No, I take that back. The point is "I think we can all agree that the best course of action is to not rape and kill teenage girls."
You keep getting hung up on that part. "Hey, as long as you don't rape and kill teenage girls," then everything will be fine?
Mind if I modify the sentence a bit? How about "The best course of action is to not be accused by a random cop in a foreign country where you don't know anyone and don't speak the language, of raping and killing teenage girls."
What exactly do you think would happen if this guy had been allowed to contact the consulate? They would have rattled their sabers (what's a Mexican saber equivalent?) and the guy would have been executed. Nothing lost.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Do you really think that if foreign police were going to accuse an American citizen of something and hold him without access to his consulate this would be the reason? Access to the consulate would have changed nothing in this case, his appeals had run out. There was nothing the consulate could do but saber rattle as you say. So why bother?
Because, and here is the important part, signing a treaty does not create law. Do you have any idea how much worse things would be were this to be the case? Think about the amount of abuses that could take place. This is really the best outcome, as unless the government takes steps to actually make a treaty law the states are not beholden to it.
Also I never said everything would be fine, its more of a guideline really. Kinda like follow the code, don't piss on an electric fence, or if the glove don't fit your must acquit. If at any point the best course of action seems to be to rape and kill teenage girls then its time to take a step back and reexamine things.
You really think the police in any country except Mexico give a crap about this? Hell Mexico is already known for bad shit happening to people who run afoul of the local police. So given the amount of hell holes around the world I think we both agree to a compromise. 1.The best course of action is to not rape and kill teenage girls. 2. The second best course of action is to not be accused by a random cop in a foreign country where you don't know anyone and don't speak the language, of committing any crime whatsoever, but especially of raping and killing teenage girls.
Do you really think that if foreign police were going to accuse an American citizen of something and hold him without access to his consulate this would be the reason? Access to the consulate would have changed nothing in this case, his appeals had run out. There was nothing the consulate could do but saber rattle as you say. So why bother?
To follow this, do you honestly think that an international treaty is what is preventing American citizens from being denied access to their consulate? We have other means to attempt to enforce our desires on other nations, means that are far more potent than respect for international law.
Fine. But when you guys are in a Bangkok prision, don't come crying to me.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Because somehow, someway, through some hitherto unforeseen Rube Goldbergian collision of circumstances not only am I going to end up in a Bangkok prison, but this exact case is somehow going to have an effect on whether I can see a consulate or not?
Oh god you guys have to help me, I dnt hav time to ex plane, but im trap ted in a Bangkok prison. I manged to hid my phone donut ask where please some one alert the American Console. All guards do is laugh and say something something Texas and laugh. Forgive grammer no good at texasing. Coming back wish me luck. Damn you cruel iron damn you!
I think you actually hugely underestimate what your consulate can do for you after you have confessed, been tried and sentenced of a crime. They can't pick you up and bring you home. You absolutely are subject to the laws of that nation. This guy would not have got off, or not been executed, or served his sentence in Mexico. This has happened numerous times with British citizens in the Middle East. They commit a crime, and are sentenced to some brutal punishment for some tiny offense. The UK consulate states they have no right to interfere in the legal proceedings of other countries, and states that they will ask for clemency and a fair trial. If they cannot recieve a fair trial, they will ask that they be tried in the UK. None of these requests are enforceable, and this is the limit that the law will allow.
All we would have seen happen here is that the Mexican consulate would have said "He deserves a fair trial", and since he had already confessed he was fully subject to US law. This case was a terrible one to use to set precedent, since it is easily arguable that allowing a consular appeal in this case would have been a waste of the courts time.
In summary. Commit a crime overseas, and even if you are from Switzerland or some other well behaved country, you will be subject to that countries laws and will recieve little to no direct intervention from your own government.
Posts
In regards to this case, I don't like the idea that other countries now will be prompted like little children to seek revenge on us by refusing diplomatic consular services to our citizens. But seriously, he's been here since he was 3 and he didn't ask for help from Mexico until after he was convicted condemned to death. Nothing about that relates in any way to why we have that applicable treaty in the first place. Invoking his citizenship and right to counsel at that point was clearly nothing but a stalling technique and an attempt to abuse a treaty in hopes of avoiding his sentence.
I'll assume you're joking.
I think setting up a few basic guidelines for international offenders (for instance, requiring them to inform them of their right to contact their consulate) while still otherwise allowing them to try them as they see fit is a pretty reasonable compromise.
But again, at this point it's still on the accused to, you know, mention that they're citizens of another country. And seek help from their consulate, preferably before their sentenced to death.
As opposed to this, which is pretty much what happened in this case.
I fail to see the point here. The fact of the matter is that there are Mexicans on death row that are not being represented. If you're a country, you don't go assuming people don't want consular help because they say they don't want any. How do you plan on convincing the originating country when they're wondering why you didn't notify them and simply executed 50 of their citizens? "They didn't want help" isn't really a good answer.
If someone is in your country and is not a citizen, you mean to tell me you're simply going to kill him without finding out who he is or where he comes from? What if he has diplomatic immunity? I think you're going to bloody well ask questions and get alternate parties involved, that is, unless your country or state lacks common sense.
Uh...
So if I'm arrested I should always be asked if I want consular help? Even though I'm a citizen? That's idiotic. This guy confessed to the crime before he even mentioned that he was Mexican. Isn't having the authorities ask every single brown guy they arrest if they're citizens of another country just a smidge racist?
If somebody has diplomatic immunity, I'd imagine that A) they'd know about it and
You inform them that they have a right to counsel. Because everybody has a right to counsel. Then it's on their counsel to figure out if something like consular help or (assuming they're the dumbest diplomat ever) diplomatic immunity applies to them.
If you swap it to say "don't say they want any" it makes sense.
I mean, I still don't agree, but it makes sense.
The only obligation the authorities have is to inform them of their right to consular help. No more. Well, that and allowing them to pursue it, of course. And to do this, they'd have to know that the person isn't a citizen of this country.
And no, if I have a guy suspected of rape and murder I'm not going to be too concerned with his citizenship...it's on him to speak the fuck up if he's Mexican. I'm concerned about finding out if this guy raped and murdered somebody.
No. If you would have bothered with the entire sentence instead of trying to strawman that one line, you'd realize that your response doesn't even remotely cover what I said. Let me simplify it.
Man go to country.
Man rape and kill women and little boys
Country all wtf?
Country kill man
Country do this times 50 without telling foreign country, that is, where these people come from.
Now what is that other country going to think? That all those people just felt like they were guilty and opted against consular help? Perhaps a country would common sense would cover its ass by requesting consular help anyways, you know, in case they might think we're simply lying to them. This is called "diplomacy".
Again, jumping to conclusions when you're executing people who fall under a foreign government is not very bright.
Well, we aren't talking about Liechtenstein here. I don't think that it's unimaginable that, with upwards of twenty million of their citizens in our country (and thousands upon thousands arrested for non-immigration crimes yearly), that maybe 50 would commit capital crimes and not request consular assistance.
And unless no Mexican citizens who are getting arrested are requesting consular help, it's not necessarily obvious that the US is engaged in some kind of systematic practice to deny it.
Besides which, at the time of interrogation and confession, Medellin never mentioned he was Mexican. So at that point at least the authorities had absolutely no obligation to even mention the word "consulate."
After that point, the entire thing is pretty shrugworthy. There was little his consulate could do for him once he confessed, especially given the nature of the crime. I do agree that when he finally requested it, he should probably have been given access to his consulate, so they could tell him "kiss your ass goodbye" in his native tongue.
Oh, wait. Having lived here since he was three, his native tongue was probably English. All the more reason the authorities might not have had any reason to assume he was a foreign national.
Again, you're missing the point entirely. It's not the fact that they're Mexican and it's not the fact that they're denying consular assistance. It's the fact that the U.S. is deeming itself just in executing several citizens in another country. You're simply choosing to argue semantics not to mention jumping to the conclusion that all 50 people decided against consular aid.
And in the interest of diplomacy, a country who finds an illegal citizen, regardless of their tenure within the country, and decided to put said individual on trial without even trying to determine where he comes from is ridiculously incompetent.
All I know is that considering the international treaty is basically scrapped due to the incompetence of the Supreme Court and Texas, the next time I see an expensive car with plates from the U.S.A., I'm going to jump in front of it and take them for everything they're worth.
Actually, it is the issue of denying consular assistance. Otherwise, sorry to say, but they're absolutely just in executing citizens of another country (provided the death penalty remains legal...I actually don't support the death penalty in general).
If you commit a capital crime in another country, and don't have immunity, it's not entirely unlikely that you could face the death penalty there as well, US citizen or no (and regardless of how this had turned out). When you commit a crime in another country, you are subject to their laws and their punishments. The only thing a consulate can do is either get you a better lawyer or try to exert political pressure for a lighter sentence...in this case, neither would have mattered.
The fact that we executed a foreign national is not, in and of itself, the issue here at all.
This.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
I think the greater magnitude of the crime, and subsequent punishment, means that the embassy should be even more involved, not less. The higher profile the case, the more I'd want to be sure to cross my Ts.
And just because you let the embassy help the guy file his appeal doesn't mean you have to grant it. If the consul-aided appeal lacks merit then deny it and execute him. Texas still gets their execution, and the Vienna Convention is upheld.
Right but when you go in front of the world, sign a treaty stating that you will provide consular assistance, then execute 50 members of another country without providing consular assistance all the while having the full support of the Supreme Court and Texas, I doubt you have the common fucking sense to be able to give people a fair trial in the first place. You also happen to have a legal system full of retards.
I think that you're both confused personally. I quoted that line because it doesn't make an iota of sense. McDermott said what I think you meant to say, which is "don't say" not "say they don't." The absence of statement vs the statement of absence and all that jazz.
It makes perfect sense. If someone from another country says they don't want consular representation (and in this case he did by the way), you should still contact their government regardless of that fact(in which case they didn't and executed him ignoring the treaty).
I think you're the one that's confusing things.
"Should" and "have to" are totally different things. The treaty in no way obligates us to contact the country of the accused. There are probably at least some cases in which the accused specifically asks us not to.
But in this case, he didn't ask you not to.
He appealed
It says so right here.
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.
That article is dated today.
Handmade Jewelry by me on EtsyGames for sale
Me on Twitch!
However--this guy deserved exactly what he got. If you rape and murder in Texas, which this guy confessed to, it's over. I live in state, and am just finishing up the required course on its government, so I will be the first to tell you that our judicial system is backwards as fuck and rife with problems, like defense counsel ASLEEP during death penalty cases.
But this case seems to have turned out alright, and I fail to see what Mexican consulate would've done for this guy.
But the failure to give his consulate access to him isn't the issue anyway, right?
Or, put another way, if at some point during the trial or appeals process he had been given access to his consulate (but after the confession, of course, because the police had no reason to assume he was Mexican), would you still have a problem with us executing him?
Aside from an aversion to the death penalty in general, of course...I don't agree with that either. But a problem with us executing him solely because he's a foreign national?
I can almost guarantee that, at some point during his trial, he was informed of his right to contact his consulate (by his own counsel, of nobody else). And he probably opted not to, because he figured it wouldn't do any good anyway...confession and all. The only reason he likely pursued it after the fact is because somebody told him that maybe he had a shot in hell at getting his conviction overturned...not because it would have made any difference back then.
In short, this is like the worst case ever to hang this issue on.
Nothing, likely. A consulate has no actual power in the trial...the most they can do to affect it is to hire you a better lawyer. Aside from that, their only purpose is to ensure that you rights aren't being violated in the country in which you're being tried. Which they weren't...he was afforded every right a citizen in the same situation would have been given. And given that he gave a full confession after being told he could shut the fuck up and wait for a lawyer (probably in the hopes of a lighter sentence, knowing he was guilty as shit...ooops) it's unlikely that any lawyer that Mexico might have hired for him would have had better luck. Especially not in Texas.
Given that like 10% of the people in this country are foreign nationals.
Aside from that? I don't think anything else is necessary. It can be on them to actually ask to have them contacted if it applies to them.
And in general I still don't think this is the gross miscarriage of justice it's being made out to be (other than my general objection to the death penalty). If he failed to ask for counsel before confessing it's unlikely he'd have asked to have his consulate notified, had he known he had that right.
That seems like a terrific idea. At the arraignment at the very least; I don't know how long the standard Miranda warning has gotten, so I'm not sure if I'd be terribly pissed off if the arresting officer wasn't required to note that.
Well, they're more or less required to inform them ASAP, so the arraignment would be too late. Again, this is more to deal with people who may not inform the officers that they're foreign nationals trying to use this as grounds for appeal later than anything...since while, in this case at least, it would not have mattered (again, if he didn't wait for a lawyer it's not like he's going to wait for his consulate) it can lead to silly technical issues later (along with pissing off the international community).
Why do you continue to obfuscate the issue? No matter what I said your entire argument hinged on the very fact that he denied his Mexican status. That's not the case. Texas backed up disregarding the treaty. The Supreme Court disregarded the treaty. The Americain legal system as a result is at fault. We're not talking peanuts here. They completely disregarded international law to the point where they deemed it has no hold over the state. In black in white of that very treaty it explicitly states in article 29 that it comprises the entire territory. In order for it to be any differently, they'd need the explicit consent of all parties for said treaty, which of course, they don't have.
Considering they're incompetent to the point of disregarding a treaty who's to say the 51 involved were even informed of their rights before this case came up?
ScotusWiki has a much better article on the case.
The issue went well beyond a denial of consular consultation for Medellin. If I'm reading it correctly, the Senate ratified the treaty with the understanding that it's enforcement on U.S. soil was inapplicable. Pres. Bush sought to make the treaty enforceable by Executive powers, rather than Senate ratification and in doing so, would bypass state criminal procedure, the U.S. Senate and SCOTUS. The decision was effectively a reaffirmation of an earlier decision; that the ICJ's rulings are superseded by U.S. law as a matter of national (and state) sovereignty and that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law in the United States, not the ICJ.
U.N. court rules U.S. execution violated treaty
This part stuck out to me:
I find it interesting how the feds seem to pick and choose what they feel they can force the states to do.
In those circumstances, I can't imagine why any country would be bothered entering into a treaty with the US, if that treaty is clearly intended to have effect within the jurisdiction of the signatories to same.
And of course, make sure you're never wrongly accused of something in a foreign country. I really don't see how people can see this as anything other then a horrible precedent. Completely disregarding the crime itself, and the guy they executed...
You could easily be denied access to your consulate when accused of a crime abroad.
Seriously, have you people never seen Brokdown Palace?
Denied consulate? Hell after seeing Hostel I am more worried about being kidnapped and tortured to death than I am about accidentally signing a confession detailing how I raped and killed a bunch of teenage girls. I mean both are pretty unlikely, and for random country X's police to deny me I must be suspected of doing something really bad. Heck the Sob's even had a trial. Do I get a trial in your version of events? Can it make international news?
I am quite happy with the events. First we have dead rapists. Always a plus. Second we have the fact that signing a treaty does not create law. Which means we cannot lose our rights without our government actually going through the approved process of doing so. The point is that is that after we sign a treaty it is assumed we will then follow our process of making what we agreed to law. If parts violate our constitution/cannot get passed then those parts might as well be written on toilet paper.
No, I take that back. The point is "I think we can all agree that the best course of action is to not rape and kill teenage girls."
Mind if I modify the sentence a bit? How about "The best course of action is to not be accused by a random cop in a foreign country where you don't know anyone and don't speak the language, of raping and killing teenage girls."
What exactly do you think would happen if this guy had been allowed to contact the consulate? They would have rattled their sabers (what's a Mexican saber equivalent?) and the guy would have been executed. Nothing lost.
Because, and here is the important part, signing a treaty does not create law. Do you have any idea how much worse things would be were this to be the case? Think about the amount of abuses that could take place. This is really the best outcome, as unless the government takes steps to actually make a treaty law the states are not beholden to it.
Also I never said everything would be fine, its more of a guideline really. Kinda like follow the code, don't piss on an electric fence, or if the glove don't fit your must acquit. If at any point the best course of action seems to be to rape and kill teenage girls then its time to take a step back and reexamine things.
You really think the police in any country except Mexico give a crap about this? Hell Mexico is already known for bad shit happening to people who run afoul of the local police. So given the amount of hell holes around the world I think we both agree to a compromise. 1.The best course of action is to not rape and kill teenage girls. 2. The second best course of action is to not be accused by a random cop in a foreign country where you don't know anyone and don't speak the language, of committing any crime whatsoever, but especially of raping and killing teenage girls.
To follow this, do you honestly think that an international treaty is what is preventing American citizens from being denied access to their consulate? We have other means to attempt to enforce our desires on other nations, means that are far more potent than respect for international law.
All we would have seen happen here is that the Mexican consulate would have said "He deserves a fair trial", and since he had already confessed he was fully subject to US law. This case was a terrible one to use to set precedent, since it is easily arguable that allowing a consular appeal in this case would have been a waste of the courts time.
In summary. Commit a crime overseas, and even if you are from Switzerland or some other well behaved country, you will be subject to that countries laws and will recieve little to no direct intervention from your own government.