[Bob J]

This has been discussed and after relfection the SC set a precedent that may help Presidents avoid pitfalls in the future.

Presidents have the right to sign international treaties, they need to be ratified by Congress. But I think few would disagree that foreignors arrested in foreign lands should have the right to confer with their embassies.

What strikes me is how so many on these threads have turned this into a high five fest because they think they scored one against illegal aliens from Mexico. The question goes far beyond and is far more serious than getting a good slap in on a few illegals.

[PAR35]

But I think few would disagree that foreignors arrested in foreign lands should have the right to confer with their embassies.

In this case, the criminal didn't raise the issue in a timely fashion. So the question basically was, 'Do illegal aliens have greater rights than do American citizens?' Bush said yes, the Court said no.

[A Texan]

“What strikes me is how so many on these threads have turned this into a high five fest because they think they scored one against illegal aliens from Mexico. The question goes far beyond and is far more serious than getting a good slap in on a few illegals.”

100% agree. I did not read anything in the decision distinguishing illegals from legal people in a country and I have seen anyone really answer the question of what rights will US citizens have if we get arrested in a $hithole third world country. I think you are playing a chess game and many others are playing checkers.