Posted on 05/10/2006 10:22:29 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Well, it appears Dane has showed up with the intention of either derailing the discussion or getting the thread moved into the Backroom. I would suggest that we just continue to insist that Dane actually address the allegations in the article and not rise to his attempts to start a flame war. I know it will be difficult, given that Dane appears hell-bent to outdo his usual inanity, but let's not fall for his usual stunts.
Second, DHS seems to be saying that it was compelled to disclose whatever information it may have given to Mexico by the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which President Nixon ratified in 1969.
This latter claim bears scrutiny. The consular-notification convention, and in particular its Article 36, comes into play whenever an alien—legal or illegal—is arrested in the United States. It absolutely does not require U.S. authorities to provide any investigative information or other intelligence to foreign governments. Indeed, it does not necessarily require our government to give a foreign government any information whatsoever. On the contrary, it provides that when a foreign national is detained, he has a right to have his nation’s consulate in the United States informed of the fact of the arrest. If he does not want his nation so advised, the U.S. is under no obligation to provide notice.
If the detainee does assert his consular-notification rights, the U.S. must advise the consulate of the fact of the arrest, pass along any communications the detainee addresses to his consulate, and allow representatives of the consulate to visit with the detainee.
That’s it. If the foreign government is determined to educate itself about the case, it must do so by interviewing the arrestee (just like a defense lawyer) or by open source information (just like a reporter or any person curious enough to check the public record). It has no claim on investigative or intelligence information maintained by the United States government. Of course, our government may decide to share more information with the foreign government; but if it does, that is a function of choice, not a requirement of law.
Nothing hamstrings independent, rational thought faster than investing in a political personality over political ideals.
Actually that treaty was ratified by the duly elected US Senate in 1969 and not President Nixon.
Strike out there, already misleading.
And it is the perview of the Executive branch to enforce such treaties per the US Constitution.
If you have a problem with the way that treaty is being follwed through, it is up to SCOTUS, not misleading hyperbole from a journalist.
No one is stopping you from petitoning a court on a treaty, knock yourself out.
Just being a good "true conservative" who actually reads the US Constitution and not hyperbolic journalism.
Nice try, Dane - but now try discussing the actual application of the treaty as the BP is claiming.
But, then again, you're really not here to discuss that, are you?
Uh dirty I actually know that Presidents don't ratify treaties.
Your problem is with the author of this article, Andrew McCarthy, maybe give him a lesson on which political body actually ratifies treaties per the US Constitution.
"1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State:
(a) Consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;
(b) If he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving state shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending state if, within its consular district, a national of that state is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph.
(c) Consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended."
So I posted the actual text of Article 36. Unless you wish to claim that either we never ratified the Convention in question, perhaps you could get over the mistake the author made that is irrelevant to the larger discussion, and tell me what in article 36 compels the government to give any more information to Mexican authorities than the fact that a national is in custody and wishes to notify his consulate.
Actually I am not a spelling nazi, but do know that Presidents don't ratify treaties(the US Senate does).
Like I said before take up the ignorance of who actually ratifies treaties per the US Constituion with your hero and writer of the article and "true American and conservative", Andrew McCarthy.
Have you seen Michelle Malkin's video that came out today? In the background there is a marquee warning Mexicans, in Mexico, of the location of the Minutemen.
If we knew a group was going to protest on our northern border and expected there would be a counter protest in the Canadian side and that there might be a potential for some conflict, I would expect that we would notify the Canadian government so they could have law enforcement prepared to deal with anything that might happen on their side of the border while we dealt with our side.
It's part of cooperating on border security and being good neighbors.
We do have treaties with Mexico about cooperating on border security. Mexico obviously doesn't live up to their obligations under them, and their government makes clear statements that make it obvious that they have no intention to live up to their obligations, and they are in many cases working in opposition to their obligations.
Mexico is not cooperating with us on securing the border, except for some cooperation on smuggling.
We need to stop treating the Mexican government as a ally on this issue, and start treating them as the enemy that they are in regards to illegal immigration.
Dane, once again, I posted the actual section of the Convention that applies here. Please examine it and tell me where in those guidelines that the federal government is in any way compelled to report that border groups were involved in the apprehension of an illegal alien.
So we should believe the Queen of the Hysterics regurgitation of a fifth rate rag's version of what has been said and done? This overly long attempt to support the initial LIE is a failure.
The LIE is growing larger and now the claim is that the BP is telling the Mexican Army. What next direct lines to Smuggler Central to tell it first?
It is hard to say whether this is funnier or just more stupid than the original lie which was obviously a LIE as soon as it was released by that crackerjack news organization. Its biggest story prior to that was Clem having Ellie Mae over for lunch last month.
Remarkable how the Zealots will believe anything NO MATTER THE SOURCE but can never believe an actual authority.
This wasn't written by Malkin. It was written by Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO. And he raised this issue regarding Article 36 of the Vienna Convention:
That’s it. If the foreign government is determined to educate itself about the case, it must do so by interviewing the arrestee (just like a defense lawyer) or by open source information (just like a reporter or any person curious enough to check the public record). It has no claim on investigative or intelligence information maintained by the United States government. Of course, our government may decide to share more information with the foreign government; but if it does, that is a function of choice, not a requirement of law.
And I posted the text of Article 36 in reply #42. Perhaps you would be kind enough to examine Article 36 and tell me where the government is compelled to tell Mexican authorities anything more than the fact that they have a national in custody.
Nothing funny about it. Most rational people are concerned about much more important issues and cannot spend all their time tracking down the LIES spread by the Zealots determined to bring down the president.
As soon as the story from this two-bit rag surfaced it was obvious that it was a lie. So who should care what it said. Naturally it was understood that the Zealots would buy it hook line and sinker and sure enough...
Unless, of course, the government version is problematic as well and is not substantiated by the actual text of the convention cited. Since I have posted the actual text, perhaps you can show me where the government was required or compelled to report to Mexican authorities of any involvement by border groups in the apprehension of an illegal.
Dane, should this nation have control of it's borders to the point that non-citizens cannot illegally enter the country? If so, who should do it and what means should they use to do it?
Thanks for making my point for me. There was no compulsion under the Vienna Conventions to provide to Mexican officials any information about how the illegal was detained. Therefore, if the BP did provide that information, it was not due to treaty obligations as they inferred.
McCarthy was just working from the Queen of Hysterics script clearly without realizing that there was nothing behind it except a two bit newsletter. It is his embarassment.
No one has claimed that treaty implementation always provides only the minimum required. Cooperation between friendly nations extends beyond the minimum required though in this case there has not been much more extended.
Of course, those of you who prefer to get their information from sources with no authority and little credibility could care less about any fact which does not fit in with the Obsession.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.