NationStates Jolt Archive

[/sarcasm]

The father of a 14-year-old Texas girl who was raped, sodomized and then strangled with a belt and shoe laces, wants to know why President Bush supports halting the execution of the Mexican national who confessed to killing his daughter and her friend.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300686,00.html - full article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300686,00.html).

Makes me wonder. Between amnesty for illegal Mexicans, unfair (for the USA) trade deals with China, and all their dangerous exports, I wonder one thing: When George Bush 43 decides to build a presidential library, will it be in Mexico City or Beijing?

Bush refusing to execute some one? Something is fishy here...

I don't approve of it, but I think he's obliged by international law and there were procedural flaws in his hearing or something.

The vienna convention is a treaty signed by the united states government and as such, is binding on the united states. Our constitution states quite clearly that all treaties entered into by the United States are to be considered american law, as per the constitution. If a treaty is violated in such a way, this raises large constitutional concerns.

As a foreign national living in the US he has certain rights under the vienna convention, including the right to be informed of his rights upon custodial interrogation. Therefore, if he was not informed of his rights upon the time of custodial interrogation, the police broke the law. If he had not been informed of his right to speak to the mexican consulate until AFTER he was already sentenced to death, that's a serious, SERIOUS problem, and, while I don't say this much, Bush is damned right to try and put a stop to an execution if this man's rights were violated.

edit: vienna convention, not geneva convention

The geneva convention is a treaty signed by the united states government and as such, is binding on the united states. As a foreign national living in the US he has certain rights under the geneva convention, including the right to be informed of his rights upon custodial interrogation.

Therefore, if he was not informed of his rights upon the time of custodial interrogation, the police broke the law. If he had not been informed of his right to speak to the mexican consulate until AFTER he was already sentenced to death, that's a serious, SERIOUS problem, and, while I don't say this much, Bush is damned right to try and put a stop to an execution if this man's rights were violated.

I guess we'll ignore the fact that the man already confessed to his crimes, judicial procedure-correctness or not. :rolleyes:

I guess we'll ignore the fact that the man already confessed to his crimes, judicial procedure-correctness or not. :rolleyes:

If his rights were violated? Damned right we ignore it. Just as we'd ignore any confession from you after you were beatten by the cops in a locked interrogation room.

For a confession to be valid it must be freely given, with full knowledge of ones rights and free of coercion or threat. If the allegations are true, he did not have full knowledge of his rights, ergo his confession is invalid. Call it "judicial procedure-correctness" as you will, personally I think following the constitution is a good thing. Not only is it a "good thing", it is also a mandatory thing, no matter how many oh so very witty emotes you might wish to have express to the contrary

[/sarcasm]



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300686,00.html - full article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300686,00.html).

Makes me wonder. Between amnesty for illegal Mexicans, unfair (for the USA) trade deals with China, and all their dangerous exports, I wonder one thing: When George Bush 43 decides to build a presidential library, will it be in Mexico City or Beijing?

One begins to wonder if it were, perhaps wiser to vote for Kerry. *nudge* Eh?

If his rights were violated? Damned right we ignore it. Just as we'd ignore any confession from you after you were beatten by the cops in a locked interrogation room.

You are assuming that they were beaten up? I doubt it...

You are assuming that they were beaten up? I doubt it...

I have made no such assumption. I suggest you read more carefully.

One begins to wonder if it were, perhaps wiser to vote for Kerry. *nudge* Eh?

Maybe, maybe not. Before 2004, all the Democrats really wanted to do was tax your ass off. Now it's filled with a bunch of left-wing nuts. Then again the Republicans are just as bad...

Put it this way - the old Democrats (before 2004, Howard Dean, MoveOn, etc...) were good. At least better than today's Republicans.

Any evidence which is gathered in an illegal manner by the authorities or a third party, it is the courts duty to consider such evidence as not existing. A confession acquired in an illegal (out of procedure) manner, violating the rights of the suspect, is considered never to have been given...

IOW. Legally, there was no confession.

Maybe, maybe not. Before 2004, all the Democrats really wanted to do was tax your ass off. Now it's filled with a bunch of left-wing nuts. Then again the Republicans are just as bad...

Put it this way - the old Democrats (before 2004, Howard Dean, MoveOn, etc...) were good. At least better than today's Republicans.

Agreed. It's just I can't see how Kerry could spend as much as Bush.

Maybe, maybe not. Before 2004, all the Democrats really wanted to do was tax your ass off. Now it's filled with a bunch of left-wing nuts. Then again the Republicans are just as bad...

Put it this way - the old Democrats (before 2004, Howard Dean, MoveOn, etc...) were good. At least better than today's Republicans.

I think if you're posting on a political forum you ought learn a thing or two about politics and spend less time quoting talking points.

It appears that after reading the article, the person in question would have been executed if Mexico hadn't been successful in acquiring a stay of execution based on an international ruling. This is in murky waters because the accused is not an American citizen in this case.

From the article: The Bush administration was pulled into the case when Mexico sued the United States in 2003. The International Court of Justice ruled in Mexico's favor in 2004, ordering the United States to review the case. Bush wrote a presidential memo in 2005 saying that the U.S. would comply and order state courts to review the cases.
...
"The big battle is going to be over whether or not Bush's memo requires state courts to apply the rules of the treaty," said Michael Rushford, a spokesman of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
...
Kent Scheidegger, the foundation's legal director, said regardless of the International Court's decision, Texas could legally proceed with the execution. The case, he said, needs to be over and Medellin's death sentence carried out.

"If Texas courts are required to follow international law, they can still go ahead with execution," said Scheidegger.

It seems like this is a formality, given that the execution could still legally go ahead.

It seems like this is a formality, given that the execution could still legally go ahead.

it is considerably more than a formality because depending on the outcome the entire confession could be thrown out. You are right though, it's...murky.

it is considerably more than a formality because depending on the outcome the entire confession could be thrown out. You are right though, it's...murky.

Even if the confession is thrown out, there is testimony that could be acquired from the other guilty/convicted parties to the crime. As it's noted in the article, two of them had their sentences commuted given their ages, so they could easily be called upon to testify.

You've been watching Lou Dobbs, haven't you?

Because that was the question an email he received asked yesterday.

Even if the confession is thrown out, there is testimony that could be acquired from the other guilty/convicted parties to the crime. As it's noted in the article, two of them had their sentences commuted given their ages, so they could easily be called upon to testify.

sure. At a new trial. With all that it entails. And should he get sentenced ot death again, a whole other round of appeals, and we stretch this thing on for another 10 years.

Even if the confession is thrown out, there is testimony that could be acquired from the other guilty/convicted parties to the crime. As it's noted in the article, two of them had their sentences commuted given their ages, so they could easily be called upon to testify.

It would be very unwise for a prosecutor to make their entire case based upon a confession. Too many crazies have confessed to shit they didn't do.

This disgraceful murderer should be beheaded. Shame on the president for halting the execution.

It would be very unwise for a prosecutor to make their entire case based upon a confession. Too many crazies have confessed to shit they didn't do.

;) There is a reason why they're called "crazies" my friend.

hmm, what kind of an idiot confesses without getting a deal, geeze, this guy has to be pretty dumb. Its Texas, he should have known they were gonna try and get the death penalty. I say let him fry.

This guy should have been shot the day of his trail and had his body dumped back on Mexico from a plane flying over. I'm disappointed at the President on this one.

It would be very unwise for a prosecutor to make their entire case based upon a confession. Too many crazies have confessed to shit they didn't do.

I was the grassy knoll under the second gunman. :cool:

I was the grassy knoll under the second gunman. :cool:

Elvis is that you?!

hmm, what kind of an idiot confesses without getting a deal, geeze, this guy has to be pretty dumb. Its Texas, he should have known they were gonna try and get the death penalty. I say let him fry.

it's an odd matter of constitutional jurisprudence but SCOTUS has stated that once the government pursues charges that can carry a penalty of death, they can not accept any plea bargain. The accused is free to confess, but the government, once the process has begun on a crime that carries the death penalty, can not accept a lower charge.

They can't threaten the death penalty in order to get someone to confess. This is to prevent prosecutors using the death penalty as a coercive tactice to force confessions out of the innocent. Once they initiate procedings regarding a crime that carries the death penalty, they can not then reduce the charges.

it's an odd matter of constitutional jurisprudence but SCOTUS has stated that once the government pursues charges that can carry a penalty of death, they can not accept any plea bargain. The accused is free to confess, but the government, once the process has begun on a crime that carries the death penalty, can not accept a lower charge.

They can't threaten the death penalty in order to get someone to confess. This is to prevent prosecutors using the death penalty as a coercive tactice to force confessions out of the innocent. Once they initiate procedings regarding a crime that carries the death penalty, they can not then reduce the charges.

Not to bitch, but is there a specific case or something that this comes from? I'd like to know.

Not to bitch, but is there a specific case or something that this comes from? I'd like to know.

bah, i can't find a case now, so for the moment I"ll have to settle for the United States Attorney's Manual:

9-10.110 Plea Agreements
The death penalty may not be sought, and no attorney for the Government may threaten to seek it, solely for the purpose of obtaining a more desirable negotiating position. ... the United States Attorney may not enter into a binding plea agreement that precludes the United States from seeking the death penalty with respect to any defendant falling within the scope of this Chapter.

The United States Attorney, however, may agree to submit for the Attorney General's review and possible approval, a plea agreement relating to a capital eligible offense or conduct that could be charged as a capital eligible offense.

The bolded part means that they can accept a plea agreement for a crime that could carry death, which is exactly what happened here. However they can not accept a plea agreement that would preclude an otherwise valid prosecution attempt for a crime that carries death.

I'll keep looking on that case.

ah, you know what, I'm wrong, or at least a little conflated. What I was discussing is not constitutional law, but typical AG policy (as i cited).

What i was thinking of was United States v. Jackson. That case had to do with a death penalty statute that only applied the death penalty in the case of conviction by jury, as opposed to pleading.

That case said you can't do that, you can't have a situation where a punishment is death if convicted, but life in jail if you plead, because it provided unconstitutional incentive to give up your right to a fair trial and remain silent. Sorry, I was somewhat off in my earlier post. It actually isn't true, they can do it.

However, for the reasons I cited above, most attorney's simply will not.

It appears that after reading the article, the person in question would have been executed if Mexico hadn't been successful in acquiring a stay of execution based on an international ruling. This is in murky waters because the accused is not an American citizen in this case.

From the article: The Bush administration was pulled into the case when Mexico sued the United States in 2003. The International Court of Justice ruled in Mexico's favor in 2004, ordering the United States to review the case. Bush wrote a presidential memo in 2005 saying that the U.S. would comply and order state courts to review the cases.
...
"The big battle is going to be over whether or not Bush's memo requires state courts to apply the rules of the treaty," said Michael Rushford, a spokesman of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
...
Kent Scheidegger, the foundation's legal director, said regardless of the International Court's decision, Texas could legally proceed with the execution. The case, he said, needs to be over and Medellin's death sentence carried out.

"If Texas courts are required to follow international law, they can still go ahead with execution," said Scheidegger.

It seems like this is a formality, given that the execution could still legally go ahead.

I wouldn't take what the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation says at face value. It is their argument (as amicus curiae) that the execution should go forward regardless of the application of international law. That is not, however, a fact. It is merely an argument.

Not suprisingly the Fox story confused fact and argument.

Here (http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2007/medvtex) is a better source for a summary of the issues in the case.

EDIT: For anyone who really wants to dig into the details, here is a link (http://www.debevoise.com/vccr/)with links to briefs and other materials from Mr. Medellín's proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, as well as the Avena judgment by the International Court of Justice.

This disgraceful murderer should be beheaded. Shame on the president for halting the execution.

hmm, what kind of an idiot confesses without getting a deal, geeze, this guy has to be pretty dumb. Its Texas, he should have known they were gonna try and get the death penalty. I say let him fry.

This guy should have been shot the day of his trail and had his body dumped back on Mexico from a plane flying over. I'm disappointed at the President on this one.

Ah, it warms one's heart to see such devotion to the rule of law.

Oh .... wait. Snap.

Ah, it warms one's heart to see such devotion to the rule of law.

Oh .... wait. Snap.

Rule of law is rubbish, morality is nonsense. Logic trumps them both. Sadly, few posses it. :(

Ah, it warms one's heart to see such devotion to the rule of law.

Oh .... wait. Snap.

It's a beautiful thing, isn't it? Some people have trouble with the concept of fruit of the poisoned tree, don't they?

I think if you're posting on a political forum you ought learn a thing or two about politics and spend less time quoting talking points.

What I said has nothing to do with "talking points". I'm telling you from what I've seen and heard. You're welcome to try again, though.

Bush refusing to execute some one? Something is fishy here...
The guy's got connections, and/or checked that little thing at the bottom of his taxform alloting a little bit extra $ to the republican party?

It's a beautiful thing, isn't it? Some people have trouble with the concept of fruit of the poisoned tree, don't they?

You mean the fig? ... oops, the "cursed", sorry.

(Yes, I am implying that you don't possess logic either.)

is this really an implication to say that?

Rule of law is rubbish, morality is nonsense. Logic trumps them both. Sadly, few posses it. :(

Comically, your statement about few people possessing logic is backed up by no logic whatsoever, further supporting your own claim... good times....

(Yes, I am implying that you don't possess logic either.)

Another thing that I have noticed is that some people (poser liberals who hate Bush ebcause that is the popular thing to do) think that Bush should be impeached for his serious breach of U.S. Constitutional Law regarding the invasion, and subsequent military occupation of Iraq (Yes, I know that he didn't actually do anythign illegal, but apparently unpopularity is more of a reason for impeachment than purgery in many peoples eyes), anyway, they hate Bush for 'breaking the law' with Iraq, and then people are on ehre saying that Bush should've screwed the law and just had the jerk killed. Now I am not sure what political affiliation these people are associated with, I do however realize that many (seemingly most) people on NSG are ultra-liberal people, giving me the assumption tht ultr-liberals are ragging on Bush for upholding Law instead of Justice, and then turn around and rag on Bush for the Iraq thing because he 'broke the law' is it me... or has modern liberalism just become ridiculous? Waht happened to the good liberals like Voltaire? You know what I mean, the reasonable ones 'I disagree with what you have to say, but I would defend with my life your right to say it' rather than the modern liberal approach of 'love, peace, harmony, unity, and if you disagree with us you are a sub-human monster without a soul, and you deserve to die slowly!' or as Tom Lehrer puts it "I know that there are some people in this world that do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!" (He is a satirist, and wasn't being serious, merely making a joke....)

I know this was a rant, and I apologize, all I ask is that liberalism return to consitancy, and reasonability....

is this really an implication to say that?

Ummm... no, that wasn't an implication at all, that was out and out saying it, the above sentence was the one that held the implication... perhaps had you read my post thoroughly you might have picked that up... nice try though!

Another thing that I have noticed is that some people (poser liberals who hate Bush ebcause that is the popular thing to do) think that Bush should be impeached for his serious breach of U.S. Constitutional Law regarding the invasion, and subsequent military occupation of Iraq (Yes, I know that he didn't actually do anythign illegal, but apparently unpopularity is more of a reason for impeachment than purgery in many peoples eyes), anyway, they hate Bush for 'breaking the law' with Iraq, and then people are on ehre saying that Bush should've screwed the law and just had the jerk killed. Now I am not sure what political affiliation these people are associated with, I do however realize that many (seemingly most) people on NSG are ultra-liberal people, giving me the assumption tht ultr-liberals are ragging on Bush for upholding Law instead of Justice, and then turn around and rag on Bush for the Iraq thing because he 'broke the law' is it me... or has modern liberalism just become ridiculous? Waht happened to the good liberals like Voltaire? You know what I mean, the reasonable ones 'I disagree with what you have to say, but I would defend with my life your right to say it' rather than the modern liberal approach of 'love, peace, harmony, unity, and if you disagree with us you are a sub-human monster without a soul, and you deserve to die slowly!' or as Tom Lehrer puts it "I know that there are some people in this world that do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!" (He is a satirist, and wasn't being serious, merely making a joke....)

I know this was a rant, and I apologize, all I ask is that liberalism return to consitancy, and reasonability....

And a fun rant it is.

But with a faulty premise: I don't think you will find that those saying Bush should ignore international law here are "ultra-liberals."

This misses the point; namely, that divinely-ordained Presidents do not need this hobgoblin called "popular approval". Bush should be crowned lord of this land, and his every word made into an edict. To begin with, he could rid of filthy socialists like Cat-Tribes.

Expanded trade with China is one of the few good things he's done, and nearly managed to fuck that up a few times in the past. Without them, we'd be powerless to really effect any changes in Asia, let alone Russia or Central Asia.

Another thing that I have noticed is that some people (poser liberals who hate Bush ebcause that is the popular thing to do) think that Bush should be impeached for his serious breach of U.S. Constitutional Law regarding the invasion, and subsequent military occupation of Iraq (Yes, I know that he didn't actually do anythign illegal, but apparently unpopularity is more of a reason for impeachment than purgery in many peoples eyes), anyway, they hate Bush for 'breaking the law' with Iraq, and then people are on ehre saying that Bush should've screwed the law and just had the jerk killed. Now I am not sure what political affiliation these people are associated with, I do however realize that many (seemingly most) people on NSG are ultra-liberal people, giving me the assumption tht ultr-liberals are ragging on Bush for upholding Law instead of Justice,

Yes, after all, because the far left have been such ardent supporters of the death penalty.....

failed.