U.S. broke international law by executing Mexican national, says U.N

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


He raped and killed a 16 year old child...I dont think anybody cares

reply to post by Legion2112


Huh? I think you replied to one of my posts by mistake. My position is the US did not violate international law, and that the US Federal Government had no right to involve itself in a state issue. The UN is a joke, and Mexico decided to wait 16 years while the guy was on death row before acting.

Unless I missed something, or you misread my post, Ihave no idea what your talking about.

ever wonder why mexico makes so many demands of the US? and meddles in our affairs?

because they have already been told (nay,..promised) that they are going to be annexed into the union.

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by bluemirage5

 

So, then the next time Indonesia wants to execute an American for possessing what they deem capital quantities of an illegal substance; or the next time an American is facing corporal punishment for what we would otherwise levee a small fine against here, then I wouldn't expect too much ruckus out of you.

back in the 90's, an american kid was caught vandalizing cars in singapore, also he wasn't a little kid. (shoulda known better)

punishment was caning, 5-10 strikes, can't remember but it was a big deal here.

they went ahead and whacked him even though a crap load of people tried to stop it from the states.

kid was guilty as hell and that was the punishment, sooooooo.

in the death case for drugs, there could be room for mercy, it was a first time thing for him, no record.

when you are in another country, even legally, learn the rules and try not to forget where you are.

this animal raped, mutilated and killed a 16yo girl and turns out to be illegal.

clinton got the gals out of NKorea coz that was a political stunt by them.

no country let's hard core criminals go free because another government asks politely.

reply to post by RelentlessLurker


Source?

This case is really sick.

Im not a supporter of the death penalty either, I just think it's inhuman for humanity to play god (supreme being or whatever)
But anyway, the UN can suck it.
He raped and killed a child. A human being, he doesn't deserve the mercy to be shipped to Mexico.
Mexico has enough problems as it is. Like they need a rapist and murderer on their hands.
Before they start whining they need to fix their country, and refocus on helping their people, instead of crying to the UN.

BTW, I am fully Mexican, and a proud legal American, born in raised in California.
But seriously, illegal or not, this thing who doesn't deserve to be called a human being, got what he deserved.
Props to Texas!

reply to post by Xcathdra


But there are other incidents which Mexico has not accused US of being in breach of International laws, for example the armament of Drug Lords within Mexico. No matter what the excuse, a substantial investigation by UN hasn't taken place, but the truth is, no investigation has ever taken place when it comes to world powers being perceived as breaching International laws. I stated that Israel has always been targeted by UN to give it credibility, but that has been exposed as a talk the talk, but never walk the walk.

That is why I stated, in my opinion such shenanigans are nothing but a PR campaign for UN. UN has lost its credibility.

I don't know the relationship between Mexico and US that well, and I'll take your words for it as I have always seen you as credible. One thing I do know is that both nations are complicit on the "war on drugs" which is being played out as we speak.

Sorry if my post doesn't make sense, kinda tepsie ..

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by felonius

 

It's not about the individual incident, it's about whether or not this is applied across the board. Let's remember that until this man was convicted of the crime, he was still considered innocent. So, what you are saying is that the ends justify the means...this time. Next time, it might not be a guilty person.

Again, this person was denied access when he was still considered innocent. The fact that he was found guilty is moot.

At which point was he "innocent"?

He started off as a felon when he crossed the border.

First off, let me state I am a PROUD American! I love my country and every one of its LEGAL citizens. However, if an American decided to go to another country, rape, tourture and murder a young 16 year old girl, I would hope that the country he/she was in would put him/her to death much quicker than Texas did with this monster. For god sakes, HE GOUGED HER EYES OUT, INSERTED A STICK IN HER VAGINA AND SMASHED HER HEAD WITH A CINDER BLOCK! He has lost all sense of humanity and thus is a monster and should be treated like one. We kill monsters...

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


Too bad he can't be put to death twice.

What a scumbag.

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by felonius

 

It's not about the individual incident, it's about whether or not this is applied across the board. Let's remember that until this man was convicted of the crime, he was still considered innocent. So, what you are saying is that the ends justify the means...this time. Next time, it might not be a guilty person.

Again, this person was denied access when he was still considered innocent. The fact that he was found guilty is moot.

He was held as an American Citizen, because he was thought of as an American Citizen. He was given all the rights there of. Yet, when the defense had nothing left, they played the other side of the fence to try to get this scum of the earth off.
He was put to death, and rightly so.

reply to post by fooks

I don't recall anyone saying that they would let him go. He was found guilty. I think the point was in that period of time prior to standing trial, he should have been allowed counsel. Because it is not every single time that an accused person is found guilty.

That is my biggest point. If someone is found guilty, it does not negate their "until proven guilty" period when they are "considered innocent".

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by fooks

 

I don't recall anyone saying that they would let him go. He was found guilty. I think the point was in that period of time prior to standing trial, he should have been allowed counsel. Because it is not every single time that an accused person is found guilty.

That is my biggest point. If someone is found guilty, it does not negate their "until proven guilty" period when they are "considered innocent".

edit on 11-7-2011 by Sphota because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2011 by Sphota because: spelling

He was provided counsel, American Lawyers at the cost of the State and Tax payer.
The argument of he was denied anything is BS. He, his family and the defense had more then enough time (13 years to long) to provide info to the Mexican Govt.

The guy was allowed council from start to finish. The technical argument is he should not have been put to death because he was never able to contact the Mexican Consulate. There is NOTHING the consulate could have to to change the outcome of the charges or the case.

All the Geneva convention on Consular affairs does is allow a foreign citizen to contact their government representatives in the host country, and nothing more.

The consulate is then empowered to monitor the case and nothing more. The intent is to ensure foreign nationals are allowed access to the same laws and defenses citizens are.

The US legal system does not differentiate between a US citizen and a foreign national in terms of full access to the law. If a foreign national is arrested and charged, they are allowed to use every, any and all means available that are available to citizens.

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by fooks

 

I don't recall anyone saying that they would let him go. He was found guilty. I think the point was in that period of time prior to standing trial, he should have been allowed counsel. Because it is not every single time that an accused person is found guilty.

That is my biggest point. If someone is found guilty, it does not negate their "until proven guilty" period when they are "considered innocent".

edit on 11-7-2011 by Sphota because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2011 by Sphota because: spelling

You obviously do not know the facts.

This occurred in S.A., TX while I was still living there.
The accused was appointed an attorney at his araignment, within hours of his arrest. At US citizens' expense.
(I know the attorneys - plural - who defended him. They are "death-qualified" and had established defense practices. I know the trial judge; the defendant was accorded every right, and more, that any US citizen would deserve, and MORE than he's get in Mexico!)
The accused was permtted a trial-by-jury; and, 12 of his "peers" found him guilty. At US citizens' expense.
The convicted murderer was appointed experienced appellate counsel, at taxpayer expense; who perfected appeals on his behalf at every state court appellate level. At taxpayer expense.
The murderer was afforded federal counsel to take his case from the state level to the federal level, at taxpayer expense.
The murderer's conviction was affirmed upon appeal at over FOUR levels of state and federal review at taxpayers' expense.

Tell me, what would the Mexican Consul have done? How would it have made a difference?
The Consul could not have forced his release; illegal aliens are tried in US courts every day in every state!

What are you whining about?

jw

reply to post by Sphota

I don't recall anyone saying that they would let him go. He was found guilty. I think the point was in that period of time prior to standing trial, he should have been allowed counsel. Because it is not every single time that an accused person is found guilty

I think your confusing "counsel" with "consul". The case would never had made it past the first appeal court if he had been denied "counsel".

As has been so correctly pointed out, "consul" does not represent the defendant. They only monitor the case.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I was agreeing with you. Sorry. I'll make sure not to do that in the future