Thread: "World Court" vs. Texas

why do ppl here have problems with executing a murderer??????
i,m sure mexico would not give two sh...ts about those scumbags, they had a trial, they were convicted, that is it.

too bad they weren,t shot during arrest, would save lots of money, and elliminate current problems.

Originally Posted by Speedy

So the federal U.S. government cannot make individual U.S. states abide by international treaties the federal government have signed?

If that is the case why bother having a federal government?

If the federal gov't had no right to make the treaty in first place, then they can't, or at least shouldn't. Not saying that's the case here, but if an international treaty includes clauses which overstep the bounds of federal power, then the states shouldn't have to abide by them.

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.

why do ppl here have problems with executing a murderer??????
i,m sure mexico would not give two sh...ts about those scumbags, they had a trial, they were convicted, that is it.

Some could argue that unless the due process of law was followed, the accused cannot be branded a murderer. In this case, letting them avail of their right to meet with their consular officials could be argued to be part of the due process of law-and since they were not given that right, it would be a non-starter to even refer to them as "murderers".

Originally Posted by gamercube

Some could argue that unless the due process of law was followed, the accused cannot be branded a murderer. In this case, letting them avail of their right to meet with their consular officials could be argued to be part of the due process of law-and since they were not given that right, it would be a non-starter to even refer to them as "murderers".

that is load of crap. (nothing personal)

they entered the country illegaly, they commited a murder, they had a trial.

now they will be desposed of, like garbage they are. period.

no consular officials will change the fact, that a girl was killed, and they did that. it has been proven in court beyond resonable doubt.

So, there are people walking this earth who have killed and until they are brought to book are not classed as murderers The second you take someones life in the act of crime you are a murderer.

no consular officials will change the fact, that a girl was killed, and they did that.

It doesn't matter. It's the due process of law. For example, even if the cops know that a certain person is a murderer, they cannot enter his house illegally to obtain evidence. Even a suspected murderer has rights. IMO, A clever lawyer could easily pounce on this point and say that the rights of the Mexicans were violated. That's exactly what transpired in the World Court, and that's why the court ordered the US to review the case to make sure that they did not violate their treaty obligations.

The second you take someones life in the act of crime you are a murderer.

Not at all. You're not a murderer until you're proven to be so by a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty is a basic tenet of common law.

Originally Posted by dave lukins

So, there are people walking this earth who have killed and until they are brought to book are not classed as murderers The second you take someones life in the act of crime you are a murderer.

Innocent until proven guilty. Humans are not omniscient.

Originally Posted by gamercube

It doesn't matter. It's the due process of law. For example, even if the cops know that a certain person is a murderer, they cannot enter his house illegally to obtain evidence. Even a suspected murderer has rights. IMO, A clever lawyer could easily pounce on this point and say that the rights of the Mexicans were violated. That's exactly what transpired in the World Court, and that's why the court ordered the US to review the case to make sure that they did not violate their treaty obligations.



Not at all. You're not a murderer until you're proven to be so by a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty is a basic tenet of common law.

they were proven guilty.

they were proven guilty.

But the due process of law was not followed. Ergo, it should have been declared a mistrial except for the fact that it seems that international agreements are not binding on the states, which is a glaring 100 ft loophole.

Originally Posted by gamercube

But the due process of law was not followed. Ergo, it should have been declared a mistrial except for the fact that it seems that international agreements are not binding on the states, which is a glaring 100 ft loophole.

well, god bless us than

Originally Posted by gamercube

But the due process of law was not followed. Ergo, it should have been declared a mistrial except for the fact that it seems that international agreements are not binding on the states, which is a glaring 100 ft loophole.

Question: what would Mexican councils have done differently? Let's say the accused was given, and accepted the council of his nation, and he's legally in the US. Would he have been given a different trial? A trial using Mexican laws? That would be unfair for the rest of the US because we have the death penalty.

It is fair and just if this man was found guilty using the same procedures as we have used on our own citizens. World Court means nothing in this case.

Originally Posted by gamercube

But the due process of law was not followed. Ergo, it should have been declared a mistrial except for the fact that it seems that international agreements are not binding on the states, which is a glaring 100 ft loophole.

Yeah, for some crazy reason we think (well, most of us still do) our laws take precedence over other people's laws. Go figure.

-dale

The World Court verdicts or opinion has no jurisdiction on nations.

Though it would have been correct to allow consular access.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

An unenforceable law isn't a law. There is precedent in international law for this.

What a conundrum, eh? Puts your arument in some difficulty.


That's not the key, those are merely facts, and not very relevent ones, at that. KEY is that they were given a fair jury trial and were found guilty according to the laws of the state in which they committed their crimes. THAT is THE KEY.


Let me show you how you got that part wrong, too.
Not all grievances are legitimate, and this one isn't, either. These murderers committed capital crimes in THIS COUNTRY, which happens to have a possible penalty of death to the convicted. Their act of coming to this country as well as the capital crimes each committed were freely-made choices and their situation is entirely of their own making.

So, you and the Mexican government can cry all you'd like about what Texas law permits the state to do to people that chose to commit crimes while there, but I don't grant any legitimacy to their argument or yours that it must be entertained as 'legitimate', because that's a risible assertion.

In fact, I'm laughing at your gross misunderstanding of what you conceive the word 'legitimate' to mean right now.


You're simply awesome in your encyclopeic knowledge of US criminal acts in the eyes of the World Court, and I bet you could go on for DAYS about it. I'm not so sure you'd be able to argue a case that the US is absolutely the Number One upholder of international treaties and discharges its obligations around the world with a fidelity to the letter and spirit of those instruments that far outpaces any other contender, though. In fact, I submit that you disagree that the US's word and honor are worth ANYthing, and you'd likely be the first guy in any crowded room to make the case condemning the breaches that you must imagine are complete and continuous.

I'm right, aren't I? You ARE that guy, aren't you?

I'M FOR THE DEATH PENALTY...It seems the dangerous precedent is following the International law.

Can you imagine if any old immigrant coming to the US is able to circumvent our laws by this International law. How about terrorist from other countries?

All this international law stuff seems to be in favor of the law breakers. He sentence that 14 year old girl to death...for some gang initiation?
If it was my daughter and I knew the bloke murdered my daughter, the state of Texas would not have to execute him. I would be going to jail for executing him...



Ivan