Posted on 10/08/2007 5:38:19 AM PDT by imd102
Sounds like you have the best answer.
But considering he was only Governor for just under six years, I doubt many if any of the prisoners executed during his terms were convicted and sent to death row while he was Governor. The office of Governor in Texas has very limited power especially with regard to pardons and clemency. He couldn't have done much to slow down the pace of executions even if he had wanted to.
The crux of the matter is that under the Vienna Conventions, foreigners must be allowed to contact their consulates if they are arrested. Yes, this does look like pandering to Mexico, but it is critical to international relations. If we go the route that whoever gets busted here can’t contact their consulate, then Americans traveling abroad face the same problem. They could be arrested and held without notification. There is a much bigger picture here than simpleU.S.-Mexico relations. I am on Bush with this one.
If they *should* be allowed to contact their consulate for “advice” then their consulate should also provide legal services.
My bet is he never gave up he was an illegal and chose not to contact “his” consulate as it would dime him out.
You, sir, need a padded room, pronto.
You have the same incomprehensible post answering any post or subject.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=+mission-so-possible+
I wonder what triggers you. Why did you join FR?
From what I know, this scumbag deserves to die for what he did to Jennifer Eartman & Elizabeth Pena. Bush should keep his nose out of state law issues !
1. Does the Vienna Consular Convention provide an individually enforceable right?
This is a purely legal issue (and frankly somewhat novel). Who knows how the Court will decide this issue?
2. If the Vienna Consular Convention provides an individually enforceable right, was the defendant's right violated?
This seems like a purely factual issue. An important question is when the defendant informed law enforcement that he was a foreign national. If a defendant waits until after trial to let someone know that he is a foreign national, it seems that he has forfeited his rights. We cannot require LE to be mind-readers.
3. If individually-enforceable rights were violated, did it make a difference?
This is also a purely factual issue. Had the defendant been able to contact his consulate, would it have made a difference. Would the defendant obtained better representation or would the outcome be different?
I think this where the Supreme Court is going to toss out most of these claims on the grounds that, given the evidence, contacting the consulate would not have made a difference.
I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to find per se harm from a Vienna Consular Convention violation.
“The crux of the matter is that under the Vienna Conventions, foreigners must be allowed to contact their consulates if they are arrested.”
The illegal alien murderer never asked to contact his consulate, and his attorneys never raised the question during his trial. He was not denied the right to contact his consulate. This sounds more like an international Miranda case where arresting authorities might be required in the future to inform foreigners of their right to contact their consulates. Assuming, of course, they are in a city where it’s legal to inquire about their legal status.
“Medellin was arrested a few days later. He was told he had a right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, but the police did not tell him that he could request assistance from the Mexican consulate.”
Just an international Miranda case.
Do you also want to extend this right to those with dual Mexican/US citizenship, which the Mexican government is greatly encouraging, giving that group greater rights the mere American citizens??
The Constitution makes no distinctions as to who receives the benefits of Constitutional rights. The restrictions on the government infringing on people's rights are universal within the jurisdiction of the United States.
The fact that he has broken the law does not remove the government's obligation to respect his inalienable rights.
He's not due the same treatment. He apparently is entitled to far more legal rights than a citizen.
The whole point of why the State Department is supporting his appeal before the Supreme Court is that we want to insure the same right for Americans to get help from the American consulate if they are arrested while abroad.
How can we expect other countries to respect the rights of our citizens to seek such aid, if we don't respect the rights of their citizens to do the same?
If this slimeball's appeal is successful, he will get a new trial and another day in court. He isn't receiving any more rights or protections than any US citizen would receive, and the whole point is to guarantee the rights of American's traveling abroad.
Additional comment: If illegal aliens are arrested in sanctuary cities, the arresting officers are prohibited from inquiring about legal status. I think Houston is a sanctuary city, so those officers could not have informed the murderer that he could contact his consulate.
Jorge may have second thoughts when that’s considered. He might not have thought this one through as well as he thinks. To inform the arrestee that he can contact a consulate, they must ask questions as to citizenship and status in the US, which is prohibited in most large US cities.
and yet he lets two border agents rot in jail.
Was Medellin prohibited from contacting the Mexican consulate? The Mexican government obviously knew about this from the start. Where were they at the start? Did he tell anyone that he was a Mexican national? He is being granted special rights because he is a Mexican citizen. Bush has sold us out to Mexico at every chance. This is just another example.
Bush loves the murdering criminal invaders far more than his countrymen.
He was tried in the USA, thus he had a lawyer. He could have had his lawyer contact his consulate anytime he chose to do so. The SCOTUS should find that this is a moot point.
Calling it an international Miranda case is interesting and it sounds like a reasonable label. However, this is not simply a case of more righs for Mexicans. This case is critical because Americans have the same rights when they are outside of the U.S. To deny these rights to foreigners here means to deny these rights to Americans abroad. No group has more rights than another.
We’ll probably end up with a longer Miranda statement: And if you are a foreign national, you have the right to contact your consulate for legal advice. That way, arresting officers still won’t have to ask about nationality or legal status.
But, I still wonder:
Will dual citizens have this right to consult the consulate of their other citizenship? No way that they should be able to, because that does give special rights to one group; not equal rights.
I was tempted to post “Jorge Boosh” jpegs on this thread, but after reading some of the replies, it seems that Bush is actually doing the right thing in this case, not just pandering to Mexico yet again.
I expect, at worst, that the SC will send these cases back simpy to review whether it would make a difference.
As an independent, sovereign nation, foreign law holds no jurisdiction here. I find it almost amusing that Mexico would petition an “international” court concerning the treatment of her citizens while living in this country. The dirty little secret is no other place in the world would this individual be treated as fairly as he has been here. He received a fair trial, and received a fair punishment for his crime. I humbly suggest the sentence be carried out as soon as possible, so the final Judge may determind His final and ultimately most just ruling.
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.