I just look at my current US passport and it says: "while in a foreign country, you are subject to its laws".
The naive idea of US embassy personnel will bail you out if/when you are in trouble = pipe dream. And some of the rights we taken for grant in the US are big no no in a few countries, such as assemble, speech, question the authority, etc.
You can request/demand to see the US consul but if the local cops won't let you, you are in deep doodoo.
<<------have been to a few countries and continents and always careful with oversea trips.
Come on, get a little informed before posting.
I could go do your research for you and get a nice summary of what the embassy will and will not do, but why shouldn't you do it yourself?
The embassy is not there to call the foreign head of state and say 'you have our citizen, we have guns and money, we can make a deal'.
It is there to monitor the situation, and sometimes to provide some communications assistance, to get more involved possibly if your rights are violated, and other things.
You think the embassy does nothing for, say, the Americans held in Iran?
There is speculation inside Iran that Mr. Bauer and Mr. Fattal will eventually be released after back-door negotiations with the United States.
Who do you think is doing those 'back-door negotiations'?
People keep posting things that are correct - 'the embassy doesn't avoid their laws, it doesn't get you special deals' - but missing what it does do.
For most cases, people are simply defendants in the foreign justice system, however much it is worse than the US system, and there's little for the embassy to do but keep a record.
But it can protest problems - not ones based on 'the foreign laws violate your rights if you were in America', but typically if they violate your rights under the foreign laws.
They might be able to help you understand some law, to help refer you to a lawyer, etc.
Where there are more politics, they might get more involved - and for Mexico, these Mexican defendant who are not getting their Vienna treaty rights are more political.
That's why Mexico went to the ICC about 51 of them including this case. It's why they are pushing the issue diplomatically - with the US State Department and Presidents agreeing.
When a country doesn't even have capital punishment for its own worst criminals, watching a foreign nation violate a treaty and execute people with suspicion they had a half-ass defense is probably going to upset them. Imagine if we had a treaty to protect Americans from, say, torture, and then the other government tortured them saying, 'sorry, the treaty only binds our federal government, not the local government, a 5-4 court ruling decided, and we asked them not to but they didn't listen. What can you do, darn states'.
'Oh, we had a federal bill to enforce the treaty, but our federal legislature voted it down twice. So, ya, the treaty promise we made is pretty worthless. Oh well.'
'Oh, and the fact the ICC, the international court for this, ruled that our government had to follow the treaty? Well, we agree, but our court said they don't get to tell us that.'
Ya, it's pretty shaky ground for following our agreements at that point. It's easy to see why they and other countries are upset.
If Texas had not refused to notify embassy when they learned this defendant was a Mexican citizen, probably nothing would have changed as far as his being found guilty, and possibly even the sentence; and if it had changed, it would only been for the right reasons that our system found it should, because the embassy helped with resources of some sort that gave him a fair trial. Either way, it's nothing for us to complain about.
It's sad how many people are so clueless about why countries should have contact with their citizens in other countries, and simply seem to 'hate illegals' so they say 'screw em'.
Any rights violations get the same response - 'he was a bad murderer so screw his rights'.
Like our right to convict and execute him isn't enough - where is the line drawn on how we can violate his rights? No lawyer? Torture him? Have guards rape him with objects? (Hey, he raped that girl, so that's justice). Why not put his family in jail too? (He hurt that girl's family, so we'll hurt his). That mentality could justify all these things.
There isn't going to be 'justice' whatever is done, because justice is for the crime not to have been committed. Nothing provides 'justice' in response, including execution.
But they can try to have some part of 'justice' - and that includes some rights on both sides.
While these Iranian hikers are getting more embassy assistance, there are plenty of Americans sitting in foreign jails with almost none - because they did not have their rights under the foreign laws violated. Some are even executed in those few countries who still kill people. The embassy doesn't prevent that, unless it feels their rights under that country's laws, and that includes treaties, are violated, in which case it can do anything from a diplomatic complaint to suggesting we go to war over it.
Hasn't happened, but it's theoretically possible, in an egregious case. Think the American hostages in Iran under Carter, who the new Iranian government could view as 'criminals'.
They had served in ways supporting the Shah, a dictator, who tyrannized the people, who had been put in place by the US in the first place - we've certainly treated people like criminals for far less. When we've had 'regime change' in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, simply having served in the government for the previous leaders - the Taliban, the Baath party - was enough to put you at risk for punishment.
Facebook
Twitter