Thread: "World Court" vs. Texas

If a US citizen is accused of spreading christianity in Saudi Arabia, what would the punishment be? How about smuggling drugs into Turkey? Vandalism in Singapore? Do those states apply our laws on them or their laws?

You went off on a tangent there. Don't turn this into a debate about the death penalty.

The Vienna convention says that foreign citizens must have access to their consulates. The Mexican was denied that. My question is, why?

Originally Posted by gamercube

The Vienna convention says that foreign citizens must have access to their consulates. The Mexican was denied that. My question is, why?

He refused. It was as simple as that. Texas asked the condemned did he want to meet with the Mexican consulate. The condemned said no. There is nothing to say that Texas has to forced the condemned to mmet with the Mexican consulate.

If that is so, then how come Mexico contends that their citizens were not allowed to speak with them? Someone is obviously lying here. Why would the Mexicans refuse to meet their embassy officials? It doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by gamercube

If that is so, then how come Mexico contends that their citizens were not allowed to speak with them? Someone is obviously lying here. Why would the Mexicans refuse to meet their embassy officials? It doesn't make sense.

Would you meet with Mexican Officials who would give evidence that you left their country without a passport?

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Nothing purported about it they are states that submit cases; the same states that ratified the UN Charter in 1945. A treaty is binding on a state unless it says so otherwise. Leadership of those states may and will change but the decisions are not bound to the leaders.

If a state has a territorial dispute like Cameroon and Nigeria did it can be resolved through this court. If that idea is repugnant to you well I suggest you take it up with the leadership of this country, or refine your notion of Westphalian nation-state sovereignty as bit by bit it is being eroded away.

I'm sorry, sir, but while states generally have territorial extent, they are not corporeal. It is individuals that bring cases forward, and those individuals are subject to all the influences and weaknesses of any other persons.

I am certainly aware that the fundamental concept of national sovereignty is being eroded. There are educated but base and venal people in every country, and the diplomatic service unfortunately seems a natural and, indeed, often convivial haven for them to build a very profitable career of self-service, to the detriment of the nations that they purport to serve.

And you are incorrect about the powers of enforcement of other courts. The US Supreme Court, for example. commands a small number of armed Court Officers, not subject to any other branch of government (except in terms of pay), so they do have a limited ability to enforce their decisions in the face of the other branches of government. This situation is mirrored in the states, where it is more common - albeit rare - to have court officers and state police face off, or to have a legislature take posssession of a court building or defund court operation.

Would you meet with Mexican Officials who would give evidence that you left their country without a passport?

Is illegal entry a bigger crime than murder? Besides, I thought that the purpose of providing consular access was to help the accused in question, not to give evidence against them in a foreign court!

Originally Posted by gamercube

Is illegal entry a bigger crime than murder? Besides, I thought that the purpose of providing consular access was to help the accused in question, not to give evidence against them in a foreign court!

Doesn't matter one way or the other. Access was provided and denied by the accused, not by the state. That has been documented to no end. The state is not obligated to force the accused to meet with Mexico. It is as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

He refused. It was as simple as that. Texas asked the condemned did he want to meet with the Mexican consulate. The condemned said no. There is nothing to say that Texas has to forced the condemned to mmet with the Mexican consulate.

No one denied him access, it was just that no one told him he had that right. As such he didn't get that access. The US federal government seems to agree that that's a treaty breach but they can't enforce it.

Eventually if you break the small rules you open the floodgates. What happens if tomorrow US citizens are denied consular access? I think its a bad precedent. But then again he's a first rate slime ball.

Also interesting to me is the status of international treaties. What kind of status do they have with regard to local law? Does local law always take precedence?

Originally Posted by gamercube

You went off on a tangent there. Don't turn this into a debate about the death penalty.

Wait, that's not a tangent. It's a valid comparison. Do you not see that?

Mexican committed a crime here which is a capital offense.

American committed a crime there which is a capital offense.

Further, the American teen who committed a misdemeanor in Singapore was sentenced to a penalty that obviously was unconstitutional. Where was his AMERICAN right?

Just don't want to have double standards here. I hate double standards. We have enough in the medial already.

Access was provided and denied by the accused, not by the state.

Can you please show me an article where it says that access was provided to him, but he refused? So far all the articles I've read on the matter are silent on whether Texas actually allowed him to meet his consular officials.

Wait, that's not a tangent. It's a valid comparison. Do you not see that?

Mexican committed a crime here which is a capital offense.

American committed a crime there which is a capital offense.

Further, the American teen who committed a misdemeanor in Singapore was sentenced to a penalty that obviously was unconstitutional. Where was his AMERICAN right?

Just don't want to have double standards here. I hate double standards. We have enough in the medial already.

Again you're off on a tangent. It's like if someone told you that a blue chicken flew to the moon, and you're arguing about the colour of the chicken rather than its flight to the moon!

I'm arguing that the Vienna convention was not followed. The Vienna convention is an international agreement that all states are supposed to adhere to. It's the Lowest Common Multiple of International law. It doesn't matter what local laws are.

Originally Posted by gamercube

Again you're off on a tangent. It's like if someone told you that a blue chicken flew to the moon, and you're arguing about the colour of the chicken rather than its flight to the moon!

I'm arguing that the Vienna convention was not followed. The Vienna convention is an international agreement that all states are supposed to adhere to. It's the Lowest Common Multiple of International law. It doesn't matter what local laws are.

What exactly did the Vienna convention say? Did it say a foreign national who commits a crime in the host country cannot be judged by the host country's laws?

I thought the argument was that the World Court says this man should not be executed because his home country doesn't have the death penalty. At least that's what I got from the original post.

From the OP:

The tribunal also known as the World Court said the executions should be stopped until the defendants’ cases can be reviewed, the Washington Post reports. Mexico contends the five prisoners were not allowed to consult with consular officials in violation of their rights under an international treaty, the Vienna Convention. The Mexican government sought the stay in a new petition.

The World Court had ruled in 2004 that the cases of 51 Mexican nationals should be reviewed for compliance with the treaty, and President Bush asked Texas courts to comply.

I wonder if these murdering scum allowed the little girls they brutally murdered the "right" to speak to their consulates Once again the criminal has all the rights and justice for the victim is put on the back burner.