Posted on 10/11/2007 12:53:56 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
Amen!
>>Medellin needs to be retried with consular assistance.<<
As others have pointed out, he was not denied consular assistance — he just did not request it.
>>Nothing in a retrial would prevent him from being convicted and executed.<<
Easy for you to say. Tell that to the families of the victims. In retrials, witnesses and evidence sometimes are not available.
>>I have certainly heard of such arrests in Mexico.<<
The trouble is that the Mexican police (with some exceptions) are so corrupt that many abuses are not reported. In some cases, if an American is involved in an accident with a Mexican driver, the American is automatically guilty. (Yes, Mexicans might get railroaded in the USA too.) I met an American who spent months in a Mexican jail before some family member paid a bribe. It’s often better for an American to pay the bribe, because
1) That is the only way out
2) No criminal record. But Mexico’s records are kind of shaky anyway, so who knows if that would make any difference. I suppose that Mexican officials might make a determined effort to keep records of those who refuse to pay bribes.
WRT Mexico, I don’t think that US citizens always receive just treatment. OTOH, if the USA does not “review” (whatever that means) the cases of Mexicans-on-death-row-who-didn’t-talk-to-the-Mexican-Consulate, Mexico could retaliate by treating US citizens even worse. Still, in my view, to give up our sovereignty in fear of Mexican retaliation would be like negotiating with terrorists.
Bears repeating, since it seems be getting lost in the sea of Kool-Aid.
Right - look what happened to Dog the bounty hunter. If his case hadn’t received so much publicity he’d be rotting away forever in a Mexican jail - unless he bribed his way to freedom.
Agreed!
>>If his case hadnt received so much publicity hed be rotting away forever in a Mexican jail - unless he bribed his way to freedom.<<
I don’t think Bush’s DOJ was on Dog’s side; in fact, they seemed too eager to do whatever Mexico said.
I have been wondering if Bush has some secret agreement with Mexico for some time now.
You’re sure right about that. Not only the DOJ but the late Alberto Gonzales (the nation’s chief law enforcement officer - ha!ha!) was an amnestyite and utterly failed to secure our borders, not only against a foreign illegal invasion but against any terrorists. But, of course, borders don’t have any meaning to an administration that’s more concerned with the creation of the NAU and the Security and Prosperity Partnership!
“The issue here is not sovereignty - the issue here is reciprocity”
If an American citizen did to children in Mexico
what this scumbag did to our children, I could care less if he got to talk to the American counsulate.
>>Further proof that that Republicans and the American people as a whole are not as anti-amnesty as some here think.<<
Man50D was talking about Giuliani, not about the US public. Almost everyone here knows that many so-called Republicans are not to be trusted.
ROFL, I can name a thousand of them. Of course, that's assuming the Americans made it out of those notorious Mexican jails first.
Mexico has the President by the groin.
bttt
>>If Republicans and the American people are so anti-amnesty, then why arent Tancredo and Hunter leading in the polls?<<
It’s true that if 95% of the people were as opposed to the kind of amnesty that Bush/Kennedy tried to force down our throats as I am, they would take the time to learn more about the candidates’ real intentions and records. Giuliani made a statement that he was opposed to the Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill for technical reasons, and I think all of the Republican candidates have made statements opposing amnesty.
However, polls on support of candidates, in general, do not correlate that well to polls of the candidates’ true positions on issues. Hillary voted for the war resolution, Obama voted against, and yet Hillary has a huge lead. I would say that winning the general election is more important to Dems than perceived shades of anti-war commitment. Giuliani gets support from people partly because of name recognition and the feeling that he would carry states that “right wing” candidates would not.
Thanks to Bush’s bungling of the war, we might get a pro-amnesty/”pro-choice” congress and POTUS, even though I believe that majorities in both parties are opposed to amnesty. I will work to try to prevent that from happening.
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.