Texas government being idiots

[Obsoleet]

<snip>
Texas accomplished nothing good by their actions. They have dishonored the word of the United States and given foreign countries the justification not to honor US rights.<snip>

Texas is a mess.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think we need to look past the specifics of any particular case, look to how we want American citizens to be treated abroad. We won't get what we want w/o reciprocity.

And therein lies the rub wrt Texas. In the most technical sense, they aren't bound to allow consular services to the accused. They exploit a longstanding loophole in federal procedures to do that, one that needs to be closed. We'll see who stands in the way of that as Leahy's bill is considered in Congress.

Texas luvs being ornery, and different, & luvs their death penalty, too, spending enormous sums to implement it over what would seem to be more pressing priorities.

Stupid is as stupid does, however, and the rest of the country can either wise up & insist that Texas follow our treaties, protect Americans abroad in doing so, or stay stupid along with 'em.

I suppose there's some solace in the fact that most civilized countries have abolished the death penalty, even Mexico, but the fact remains that Texas' actions encourage other countries when they decide they want to railroad any American citizen into some shithole prison for a few decades...

"So you want to see the people from the American Consulate, Senor? I see you're from Texas, so, uhh, just STFU and get in the cell..."

 

[Schadenfroh]

So because of Texas' bloodlust, all Americans may be denied access to US embassy when traveling? Thanks, Perry.

Unlikely, Americans, in general, bring loads of tourist cash into certain areas. If they start holding Americans without allowing them to contact an embassy for trivial offenses, then tourists will avoid those countries like the plague and they will lose revenue.

The U.N. (specifically, countries with massive human rights violations (Libya, Syria, Iran, etc.)) loves to cite stuff like this when bashing the world police that we have allowed them to shape us into. Mexico will complain, but it will be forgotten in about a month and nothing will change.

 

[werepossum]

Obama sure is different he let Felipe Calderón run down Arizona Immigration Law and was greeted by a round of applause by the Dems.

The only thing I can say in Obama's defense is that he did not bow to Felipe

Felipe suggested the United States and Mexico work together to create more jobs for Mexicans in their home country to discourage migration.

Per Obama the shovel ready jobs he planned weren't really there. When he tried job creation in the US am I wrong to say the cost per job was over $200,000 per job?

I am afraid at that cost we are not going to be able to create jobs for Felipe.

That's true, but Obama is arguably being Mexico's bitch a bit more intelligently. For example, concentrating on criminals.

There is no point in trying to create jobs in Mexico as long as Mexicans are free to move into the United States. Who wants to stay and work in a corrupt narco-terrorist state when you can be in America?

 

[spacejamz]

Texas is a mess.

and this is coming from someone from Chicago??? LOL

 

[spacejamz]

I think we need to look past the specifics of any particular case, look to how we want American citizens to be treated abroad. We won't get what we want w/o reciprocity.

And therein lies the rub wrt Texas. In the most technical sense, they aren't bound to allow consular services to the accused. They exploit a longstanding loophole in federal procedures to do that, one that needs to be closed. We'll see who stands in the way of that as Leahy's bill is considered in Congress.

Texas luvs being ornery, and different, & luvs their death penalty, too, spending enormous sums to implement it over what would seem to be more pressing priorities.

Stupid is as stupid does, however, and the rest of the country can either wise up & insist that Texas follow our treaties, protect Americans abroad in doing so, or stay stupid along with 'em.

I suppose there's some solace in the fact that most civilized countries have abolished the death penalty, even Mexico, but the fact remains that Texas' actions encourage other countries when they decide they want to railroad any American citizen into some shithole prison for a few decades...

"So you want to see the people from the American Consulate, Senor? I see you're from Texas, so, uhh, just STFU and get in the cell..."

I am willing to bet that Americans in prison were getting railroaded in 3rd world shitholes before this dirtbag was executed...You really think a 1st world country is gonna pull this kinda chit?

 

[Jhhnn]

I am willing to bet that Americans in prison were getting railroaded in 3rd world shitholes before this dirtbag was executed...You really think a 1st world country is gonna pull this kinda chit?

I dunno- Why would we expect them to act any differently than, say, Texas?

Think about it...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I dunno- Why would we expect them to act any differently than, say, Texas?

Think about it...

I think that given a choice between Texas and Turkish prisons you'd pick Texas.

This isn't going to change anything.

 

[MotF Bane]

And your fact-free name calling has you one step from going on virtual ignore. You can't back up your own points, it seems. If you're going to make the attack, back it up.

Shall one of us pull up the last few dozen times you've called someone an idiot?

Now, I'm not quite that bored myself, but you know you've done it, so does everyone else here, so hey, have a good day, you hypocritical... idiot. :awe:

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that given a choice between Texas and Turkish prisons you'd pick Texas.

This isn't going to change anything.

As if your remark has the slightest bearing on the subject at hand. It's more the petulance of a child.

 

[Craig234]

I am willing to bet that Americans in prison were getting railroaded in 3rd world shitholes before this dirtbag was executed...

That's how a lot of right-wingers research facts, isn't it?

You really think a 1st world country is gonna pull this kinda chit?

Why wouldn't any country do the same thing? Funny you agree the action is "chit".

In other news, no one has explained the justification for the Medellin v. Texas ruling allowing states to ignore 'the Supreme Law of the Land'.

When you read the constitution, it doesn't say anything about requiring 'enabling legislation', it says the treaty is the same as if Congress passed a law.

You'd at least think Congress could pass a general 'enabling bill' saying what the constitution already does, that 'enables' every treaty without further legislation.

I did some checking into Medellin, and found no good basis for it yet. It rested on other 5-4 decisions, such as Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon.

This treaty says, to quote the actual language:

(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 be forwarded by the said authorities
without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his
rights under this subparagraph;

(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 judgement. 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.

So, "authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights" to have his consulate notified without delay that he is in custody; and both the person and their consulate "shall be free to communicate" with each other, and the consulate "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".

Seems pretty black and white - and yet this treaty, which explicitly grants rights to the person in custody, to be informed of his right to notify his consulate without delay he is in custody, to communicate with them, to have them provide legal assistance if they choose to - some say 'grants no rights to the individual, only to the state'. Hard to see how that's not a totally false interpretation.

In the case at hand, while the guilt of the person does not seem in question and it does not appear the consulate would made a difference in his conviction - not that that's the point in the law being followed - it appears he had terrible representation that could have affected his being sentenced to be killed (even in Texas). What was being asked for was a review to determine whether the treaty not being followed was likely to have made a difference. If not, nothing would change. If so, perhaps he'd have been re-sentenced.

There was another issue in another trial:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/documents/Vazquez4-24-06.pdf.

In that trial, where a different state, Virginia, charged a man from another country, Honduras, with murder, they again failed to notify him as required by the treaty.

He claimed that another man, who had fled back to Honduras, had done the murder, and had witnesses saying so, but the prosecution mocked the claim, saying the other person named 'might not even exist', and he was convicted. Then his team learned of his not being notified of his rights, and reportedly learned of a videotaped confession to the murder by the other man in Honduras. They said if his rights had not been violated, the consulate could have assisted his defense - such as confirming the existence of the other man the prosecution had questioned existed. The Supreme Court same five ruled that the state's rule against raising an argument that hadn't been raised at trial took precedence over the treaty.

The five ruled that the treaty's provision that the right 'shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations' of the state to have the rule mentioned above.

But as the four dissenters pointed out, they just ignored the rest of the treaty, which reads in full on this:

"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 (my bolding)."

So the four IMO reasonably and correctly argued that the five were wrong in giving a blanket exemption to violate the treaty with this clause.

They said "sometimes state procedural default rules must yield" to the Convention's requirement that domestic laws give it "full effect."

Finally, in the Oregon case above, the person received their Miranda rights, but not their rights under the Vienna treaty. They were arrested based on statements they made.

His defense claimed his statements should be excluded because of the error.

The same five Justices ruled that no, they shouldn't, as the other countries don't even have the exclusionary rule, so they aren't going to do that.

Now, I have to say about that, the right-wing got massive press coverage attacking the moderate justices in another case for 'considering what other countries do' in a ruling.

And yet, here are these five Justices even more strongly IMO citing what other countries do as the basis for their ruling - and yet not a peep from the media.

If the US has concerns about the exclusion of evidence when its citizens are not notified of their right, they can raise the concern with the same ICC that ruled against the US - but the US doesn't seem to have other countries ignoring the treaty for US citizens the way the US does.

But on the issue of exclusion, this seems a case where it makes sense to consider, when you have states simply disregarding the rights of people, as a remedy.

The four other Justices agreed, saying that the violation of the right 'might sometimes' create justification for exclusion.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_10566

A guide for prosecutors examining many issues and rulings:

http://www.waprosecutors.org/MANUALS/Vienna/ch1.html

Don't cherry pick from it, it has information supporting a variety of positions, and is more about what the rulings require, than the debate about who is right.

Brief for the Oregon and Honduran cases:

http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/bustillo.pdf

List of cases related:

http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/civil84a.html

The 9th Circuit Appelate Court rulings, with different opinions, one saying the exclusionary rule should be, another saying it should be an option:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1438730.html

There's some more to look into but this is plenty at the moment.

It all still boils down to Texas government acting like idiots, denying rights to people for no good reason.

A commentator opined that Perry appearing to do what Democrats or another country want would hurt his presidential primary chances more than executing an innocent.

That seems right.

 

[spacejamz]

As if your remark has the slightest bearing on the subject at hand. It's more the petulance of a child.

Uh...you are the one who stated that Texas would act no differently than a 3rd world country. So would you rather be jailed in Somalia or in Houston? Which jail do you think you would be treated more fairly?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Uh...you are the one who stated that Texas . would act no differently than a 3rd world country. So would you rather be jailed in Somalia or in Houston? Which jail do you think you would be treated more fairly?

You have to understand his point of view. Texas is now acting as bad as third world countries, but comparing real world prisons to real world prisons has nothing to do with anything. He"s a petulant child.


BTW note the OP argument has changed to where we're dispensing with legal precedent and appealing to original language in the Constitution. I'm OK with that actually, because that takes care of how liberally the Commerce Clause has been applied. The most egregious misinterpretations of the Constitution seem to come from that. There will be an end to the call for taxation because people aren't acting as the government insist. The problem with the health care mandate is that it sets the standard where if the government wants you to do something that it does not directly have the power to do it can now ruin you financially until you do and there is no limit what they can do with it. "Think this, do that or we will bleed you". Who's to say they can't? Certainly not the authoritarians. This is their dream.

States Rights have made a dramatic comback. Yeah, right

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, not that it matters, but I think a foreign national should be allowed to contact his consulate, however Texas and the SCOTUS have followed the legal procedures and precedents. If it were up to me I would have allowed free contact however like everyone else I have to live with "idiots" who want a whole host of things.

 

[spacejamz]

Oh, not that it matters, but I think a foreign national should be allowed to contact his consulate, however Texas and the SCOTUS have followed the legal procedures and precedents. If it were up to me I would have allowed free contact however like everyone else I have to live with "idiots" who want a whole host of things.

Funny how Craig has never addressed the issue of how the police were 'supposed' to notify him of his right to speak to the Mexican consulate even though they don't ask what nationality he is when he is arrested?

Exactly how are they supposed to know he is here illegally, I mean know he is a Mexican citizen, if they are not allowed to ask him??

He didn't even divulge his citizenship until he found out that it could be used as a possible way to avoid the death penalty...pretty sure that was coincidence though [sarcasm]...

 

[werepossum]

Oh, not that it matters, but I think a foreign national should be allowed to contact his consulate, however Texas and the SCOTUS have followed the legal procedures and precedents. If it were up to me I would have allowed free contact however like everyone else I have to live with "idiots" who want a whole host of things.

But as I understand it, the progressive position in this case is that the state of Texas has an obligation on his behalf to tell him he has a right to contact his consulate, and did not. Progressive dogma requires that illegal aliens must be treated as citizens until it is advantageous to be treated as aliens.

 

[thraashman]

But as I understand it, the progressive position in this case is that the state of Texas has an obligation on his behalf to tell him he has a right to contact his consulate, and did not. Progressive dogma requires that illegal aliens must be treated as citizens until it is advantageous to be treated as aliens.

Actually progressive dogma has it that people, regardless of their nationality, should be treated as human beings. And that any people who have been guaranteed rights by our Constitution, treaties, federal law, or state law should be granted those right regardless of what we think of them. This man was a monster, no one argues against that. However, this man was guaranteed rights through a treaty as set forth in the US Constitution. To deny him those rights is to take a massive shit on the Constitution, which is what conservatives do every time they make almost any fucking decision.

 

[JockoJohnson]

To deny him those rights is to take a massive shit on the Constitution, which is what conservatives do every time they make almost any fucking decision.

And when you make massive stereotypes like, everyone pretty much knows to ignore anything you say.

 

[thraashman]

And when you make massive stereotypes like, everyone pretty much knows to ignore anything you say.

I'm sorry, I over generalized the way I wrote that statement. I'm actually referring to conservatives in the context of the Supreme Court as I've noticed that the current conservative justice on the SC are the most incompetent in the history of the US Supreme Court (as well as being the most activist).

 

[werepossum]

I'm sorry, I over generalized the way I wrote that statement. I'm actually referring to conservatives in the context of the Supreme Court as I've noticed that the current conservative justice on the SC are the most incompetent in the history of the US Supreme Court (as well as being the most activist).

Yeah, the four liberal justices plus Kennedy were certainly being admirably observant of our Constitution when they decided in Kelo v. New London that government at any level has the right to seize one person's private property and give it to another, richer person from whom they'll collect more taxes.

Dumbass.

 

[spacejamz]

Actually progressive dogma has it that people, regardless of their nationality, should be treated as human beings. And that any people who have been guaranteed rights by our Constitution, treaties, federal law, or state law should be granted those right regardless of what we think of them. This man was a monster, no one argues against that. However, this man was guaranteed rights through a treaty as set forth in the US Constitution. To deny him those rights is to take a massive shit on the Constitution, which is what conservatives do every time they make almost any fucking decision.

Again, I ask you how are law enforcement officials supposed to know he has this right as an illegal alien, I mean Mexican citizen, if they are not allowed to ask him if he is in the country illegally?

First, the libbys get their panties in a wad because they feel that asking for this information is profiling and now they get offended because their rights for being a mexican citizen are not being observed (since LEO's cant ask the suspect what his nationality his)...

Can someone please straighten this out for me???

 

[Craig234]

Funny how Craig has never addressed the issue of how the police were 'supposed' to notify him of his right to speak to the Mexican consulate even though they don't ask what nationality he is when he is arrested?

Exactly how are they supposed to know he is here illegally, I mean know he is a Mexican citizen, if they are not allowed to ask him??

So you need people to do your research for you to clean up your messes. The State Department's guidelines to law enforcement are to establish nationality quickly on arrest.

You appear to have some pet peeve against the processes to protect people's rights you're trying to push on this situation, so you just make things up.

 

[thraashman]

Again, I ask you how are law enforcement officials supposed to know he has this right as an illegal alien, I mean Mexican citizen, if they are not allowed to ask him if he is in the country illegally?

First, the libbys get their panties in a wad because they feel that asking for this information is profiling and now they get offended because their rights for being a mexican citizen are not being observed (since LEO's cant ask the suspect what his nationality his)...

Can someone please straighten this out for me???

Um, once someone is arrested and charged determination of their citizenship status is obtained. No one is against that. No one ever said they were against that. I understand you're ... we'll be nice and say slow, but making up stuff to try to win an argument is just silly.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Yeah, the four liberal justices plus Kennedy were certainly being admirably observant of our Constitution when they decided in Kelo v. New London that government at any level has the right to seize one person's private property and give it to another, richer person from whom they'll collect more taxes.
Dumbass.

Nothing in the Constitution precludes the New London action. Eminent Domain is explicitly authorized, as is the seizure of property if due process of law is observed. So long as the owners were properly compensated for their property, it was all legal.

FWIW, I think the use of eminent domain in this type of case is reprehensible, but it is up to the legislatures to proscribe it, not the courts.

 

[spacejamz]

Um, once someone is arrested and charged determination of their citizenship status is obtained. No one is against that. No one ever said they were against that. I understand you're ... we'll be nice and say slow, but making up stuff to try to win an argument is just silly.

Funny, he provided a Texas Driver's License, a Social Security number and provided a Texas address when he was arrested...