Texas execution 'violated international law', UN says

[HunterICX]

Gee....all this because a Child raper&murderer got zapped?
I say good riddance one less to worry about and that leeches of the taxpayers.

I honestly don't give a damn about someones nationality when it comes to child rapers and murderers.

and the I see the UN seems to care more about a rapers&murderer's rights then the victim he had his way with....way to go UN

HunterICX

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Gee....all this because a Child raper&murderer got zapped?
I say good riddance one less to worry about and that leeches of the taxpayers.

I honestly don't give a damn about someones nationality when it comes to child rapers and murderers.

and the I see the UN seems to care more about a rapers&murderer's rights then the victim he had his way with....way to go UN

HunterICX

/thread winner!

[Skybird]

I simply don'T care.

Ten years ago I would have cared. Today I don'T anymore. Vienna treatie, international courts, Islamophile human rights authorities, international watchdogs that want to push their ideologic views through evberywhere, and take it upon them tpo demand that all and every nations and people must obey them.

I don't care. I applaude them - in the irrational hope that this will anger them even more, and they< become red faces and their tiny little yelling heads one day just make "popp!" - and gone they are.

Why I don't care anymore? Because I realised that mentioned institutions and attached moral "authorities" have lost the credibility and trustworthy they claim for themselves. Corrupted institutions remain corrupted, no matter how them call and describe themselves.

The crime this guy carried out, was a very brutal one. He got the penalty the laws in the place where he committed it called for. What somebody in Vienna thinks about that - is not relevant by content. It is up to Washington now to not allow getting engaged in a discussion with "international partner" about it, but to simply show them the cold shoulder.

[MH]

Don't you just love UN.
99% of countries are signed on the convention but all they can do is power struggles with free countries that obey low but still maintain some individuality.
They always have to stir the pot in wrong places.
I wouldn't worry about American citizens arrested in western countries as for the others...it doesn't matter whether they signed the convention or not anyway.

[mookiemookie]

Every one of you who's claiming "they killed a rapist, good I have no problem with that!" needs to go back, re-read and understand what the issue is here because no one is claiming he should have gotten off, he didn't do it or he didn't deserve to die. We are discussing the ramifications of the process used to find him guilty. Put your emotions aside because they are not germane to the question and put on your rational and logical thinking caps.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Texas is not bound by a foreign court's ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the treaty was not binding on the states and that the president does not have the authority to order states to review cases of the then 51 foreign nationals on death row in the U.S.

So, that's it. Obviously, the US Supreme Court says the International Court of Justice, has no authority in the US. That's good enough for me, I'm an American citizen, not an "International citizen." The treaty is not binding, and therefore was not violated.

I'll ask you the same question I asked August earlier. If you were dating a girl (i.e. a signatory) and not married to her (i.e. not in a binding and ratified treaty with her) does that make it proper to cheat on her? What is the point of being a signatory to a treaty if that means you're going to flaunt it and act in complete contradiction to it? Why does that status hold no weight in Texas?

Originally Posted by August

Also I find no validity in the argument that this would increase the chance of someone else doing the same thing to an American. Any foreign nation who finds it convenient to deny an American similar rights will do so regardless of this case.

Then why recognize the status of any treaty at all? That's a position that makes absolutely no sense. You're going to ignore a treaty because there's a chance that someone else would be an a-hole and ignore it. Don't you see that makes us the a-hole?

[MH]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Then why recognize the status of any treaty at all? That's a position that makes absolutely no sense. You're going to ignore a treaty because there's a chance that someone else would be an a-hole and ignore it. Don't you see that makes us the a-hole?

Technically you are 100% correct but as far as this case it seems to me that its no more than political mud fight.
Someone had an interest to make fuzz out of it for political reasons-nothing more.

[Dan D]

"International Treaties -- How Far Apart Are We?" /Andrew Hammel
http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/germ...y_decides.html

Good and easy-to-read summary of the legal situation by a Texan law professor who teaches law in Germany:

Extracts:
"...In 1999, Germany sued the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on behalf of two German nationals, Walter and Karl LaGrand, who had been convicted and sentenced to death in Arizona for 1982 bank robbery in which one man was killed and a woman severely injured. The ICJ issued an order requesting the United States to stop the executions, but the State of Arizona concluded that this order was not binding upon its own justice system, and executed the brothers even before the ICJ had issued its final judgment. The decision itself is somewhat complex, you can read a summary of the case here. The case was extremely controversial; German Green Claudia Roth condemned (G) the United States as "arrogant" and claimed it was setting itself above international law...

...Paraguay and Mexico have also sued the U.S. on behalf of their nationals before the ICJ and received judgments favorable to their legal positions. To avoid more of these embarrasing judgments, the President withdrew the United States from the jurisdiction of the ICJ on March 7, 2005. (For the record, I disagree with that decision). This means that the U.S. is still bound to obey the Vienna Convention, but cannot be sued in front of the ICJ for a violation...

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

and the I see the UN seems to care more about a rapers&murderer's rights then the victim he had his way with....way to go UN

Where do you get that from? What is more in the UN's purview - a murder trial, or international law?

It's scary how so many people are happy to throw law and due process under the bus and let emotion take over. Cause you know, that's the best way to achieve justice.

And apparently you're all ok with the same thing happening to innocent Americans who are accused abroad.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

But was she an American? I didn't check her citizenship.

That should not matter, for better or worse anyone on US soil is granted the protections of US law. If we start thinking about such crimes as "well it was a Mexican on Mexican crime so its their county's problem" its becomes a very slippery slope for US law and jurisdiction of it.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Where do you get that from? What is more in the UN's purview - a murder trial, or international law?

It's scary how so many people are happy to throw law and due process under the bus and let emotion take over. Cause you know, that's the best way to achieve justice.

And apparently you're all ok with the same thing happening to innocent Americans who are accused abroad.

Exactly. It's the mark of a mature mind to be able to separate the emotional component from the factual and precedent-setting component of the case. The ramifications for this are unsettling.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Then why recognize the status of any treaty at all? That's a position that makes absolutely no sense.

By recognize you mean Ratify?

We ratify treaties because our system of government requires it. They are not binding until we do that.

You're going to ignore a treaty because there's a chance that someone else would be an a-hole and ignore it. Don't you see that makes us the a-hole?

No, I'm going to ignore a treaty because I don't feel we should be accountable for not granting a confessed child murderer/rapist a privilege that we didn't know he was entitled to under a 40 year old treaty that we never ratified. Other nations will either ignore the treaty or abide by it irregardless of our actions.

Are you claiming that other signatories will ignore their own treaty responsibilities because of this?

[August]

Originally Posted by Dan D

This means that the U.S. is still bound to obey the Vienna Convention

The US is not bound by a treaty it did not ratify.

[MH]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

It's scary how so many people are happy to throw law and due process under the bus and let emotion take over. Cause you know, that's the best way to achieve justice.

So what is due process?
What the rapist convicted in some mocked up court or according to TX criminal law.
Just an example if US citizen is smuggling drugs into Singapore should in give him some immunity or he does it at his own risk.
(not talking about morality of capital punishment for drug trafficking)
At the end of the day it seems its all about US arrogance.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by MH

So what is due process?
What the rapist convicted in some mocked up court or according to TX criminal law.
Just an example if US citizen is smuggling drugs into Singapore should in give him some immunity or he does it at his own risk.
(not talking about morality of capital punishment for drug trafficking)
At the end of the day it seems its all about US arrogance.

This guy was never going to be tried in any court other than in Texas, and under no laws but Texas law. He was going to be granted no immunity at all. He was just going to have access to Mexican consul.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

The US is not bound by a treaty it did not ratify.

But being a signatory does signal a country's intention to honor a treaty. The state of Texas has unilaterally decided against that. Is that interpretation incorrect? What, in your mind, is the point of signing but not ratifying a treaty? Why would a country do that? If they're going to act contrary to it, why even sign it at all?

We're going in circles here and you won't answer the question I've posed twice in this thread and instead you keep repeating yourself. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na-na-na-na can't hear yoooooou!" so what's the point?