Both, but mostly the first.
It’s insane to set this type of precedent. Letting it be set, let alone asking it to be set, is indicative of an absence of conservative principles.
Yeah, it's called fealty.
If the guy committed the crime in the US he should be under US law. There was a similar case a few years ago in Minnesota where a Mexican illegal raped, murdered and mutilated a 12 year old girl. He was tried in Minnesota convicted of murder and given a life sentence without parole (it was too bad Minnesota didn’t have capital punishment). I suppose the bleeding hearts are wringing their hands that this poor immigrant is getting the death penalty.
As I understand the Vienna Convention, all foreign nationals have the right to contact their Consulate for advise, etc. If, in fact, the perp was restricted from contacting his Consulate representative then the High Court may rule in his favor.
There was a case a few years ago in Texas(and this may be same guy) who was on death row. If I remember correctly he was never executed because he was kept from contacting his Consulate after his arrest.
While I think that the perp should fry he is entitled to due process under the Vienna Convention.
The ICJ has no legal standing in US court cases and never should.
Bush is in clear violation of the 10th Amendment by siding with the ICJ on a case yet to be heard by the Supremes.
Very, very bad move by Bush.
It is bizarre to come to the defense of a dangerous pervert who raped and murdered two young girls. Bush failed to put this amount of effort into saving Terri Schiavo who had harmed no one. And he has so far rejected stepping into the cases of BP agents who were framed. Almost sounds as if he has a fetish for illegal aliens.
Remember that his beliefs are now conflicted. That is, he probably has no problem with this bird being fried, but as President, he has to worry about a quid pro quo, other governments, not just the Mexicans, doing the same to US citizens over there.
It’s pretty common practice overseas in less than honorable countries, to round up Americans on trumped-up charges for political reasons. And that gives the US only two options—invoking international law or going to war. And our case for international law is a lot better if we are in compliance with it.
And the international situation isn’t getting better, it’s getting worse. What with that kangaroo court of the ICC, European wide arrest warrants, and local judges who decide to arrest Americans they think are CIA agents because they don’t like them, etc.
But the bottom line is that Bush, or any President, cannot stop Texas from executing murderers; but he has to at least ask.
More comments here - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907733/posts
YES, again.
Let me see if I understand this. If this had been a US citizen, same crime, same sentence, there’d be no beef. So essentially, Mexicans can come into this country, rape and murder young girls, and get away with it? And US citizens who do the same thing, well, tough luck for them—they get the punishment they deserve.
“Medellin was born in Mexico, but spent much of his childhood in the United States. He was 18 in June 1993, when he and other members of the Black and Whites gang in Houston encountered two teenage girls on a railroad trestle.”
Spent much of his childhood in the US. Just a murderer playing the system. American when it suits them, and Mexican when trying to dodge US law.
I don’t see how Jorge can ignore the ICJ when it suits him, but use it for his purposes when it suits him. That’s about the only sensible strategy in dealing with the UN, but it seems all these offshoots like the ICJ should be entirely ignored or we’ll be constantly entangled with who knows how many of these international bodies in the future.
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.
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.
and yet he lets two border agents rot in jail.
Bush loves the murdering criminal invaders far more than his countrymen.
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.