Replies

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.

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.

Actually that treaty was ratified by the duly elected US Senate in 1969 and not President Nixon.

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?

Here you go, Dane - here is the actual text of Article 36 that the author mentions. Now, please explain how this compels the US government to report that the Minutement were in any way involved in the apprehension of an illegal immigrant:

"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."

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.
Actually that treaty was ratified by the duly elected US Senate in 1969 and not President Nixon.

Strike out there, already misleading.

Author should have said "ratified under President Nixon," but it is not "misleading" at all:

U.S. diplomats and those from 165 other nations signed the convention in April 1963, and President Richard Nixon sent it to the Senate, where it was finally and unanimously approved in 1969.

Does not affect the argument or the information in the NRO article one whit.

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.

Suggest you re-read the article. You have apparently not digested the analysis by National Review.

I am at this juncture agnostic on the story, but the NRO piece presents sober assessment and its major points deserve response, which you have not done.