Texas governor defends Mexican's execution

[Cereal Kyller]

Source: AP via Yahoo News

HOUSTON (AP) — Gov. Rick Perry rebuffed criticism Friday from the United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for Texas' execution of a Mexican man whose lawyers said he was not informed he could have sought legal help from the Mexican government after he was arrested for the murder of a San Antonio teenager.

"If you commit the most heinous of crimes in Texas, you can expect to face the ultimate penalty under our laws," Perry's spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said a day after convicted killer Humberto Leal was put to death in Huntsville.

In Geneva, the U.N.'s top human rights official said Leal's execution amounted to a breach of international law by the U.S.

The Texas governor has the authority in execution cases to issue a one-time 30-day reprieve, an authority Perry and other governors in the nation's most active capital punishment state rarely have invoked.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/texas-governor-defends-mexicans-execution-205123845.html

---

Flame at will, but I don't think that kind of fuckup justifies leniency for the rapist and killer of a 16-year-old girl. Sorry.

[Vincardog]

1. WE are either a country of LAWS or we are not

[atreides1]

4. We're supposed to be

But reading the different threads here on DU about this particular execution, some would look the other way just to get that pound of flesh. I guess it's pick and choose when you want to follow a law or binding treaty and when not too.

[DissedByBush]

22. We are, and that's why he was executed

Congress never passed a law implementing the notification clause of the treaty, and the president never signed one.

Bush tried the same thing with Jose Medellin in 2007, and then the Supreme Court allowed the execution and said a law was needed to implement the notification clause.

Still they didn't pass a law implementing the notification clause.

Democratic Congress and Obama president for two years, no notification law passed.

There was plenty of notification and time for the federal government to enact the law necessary to be in compliance with the treaty.

They failed.

[hack89]

35. That is the issue - we never passed legislation to make this treaty US law

the treaty in question is not a self executing treaty - Congress had to pass enabling legislation to make it part of US domestic law. Perry broke no laws nor was he legally required to grant a stay.

[Vincardog]

45. A treaty that is ratified becomes the law of the land, the Constitution says so. Perry broke the law

[hack89]

47. The Supreme Court would disagree with you

this very issue was addressed 3 years ago:

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

[Vincardog]

63. The SCOTUS does NOT trump what the Constitutions SAYS.

[hack89]

64. The SC interprets the Constitution

if they didn't there would be no right to an abortion for starters.

[Vincardog]

65. Where does the SCOTUS get the authority to "interpret' the Constitution?

[hack89]

67. Through 200 years of tradition and actually doing it.

Though there are justices like Scalia who would agree with you. I personally tend towards agreeing with justices like Ginsberg.

Look - this is not an argument you can win. Like it or not, in America the Supreme Court assumed the role of interpreting the Constitution a long time ago and it is not going to change. Besides, do you really think the Constitution is such a black and white document that it does not require interpretation? If so, show me the language that justifies Rove V. Wade as an example.

[Vincardog]

69. this is not an argument you can win.

[hack89]

72. So how do you plan to stop them from doing it? nt

[Romulox]

78. Marbury v. Madison. nt

[aranthus]

71. True, however, the treaty obligated the Fed to act, and it didn't.

That means that although Texas may not have violated the law, the US did violate the treaty. That's got consequences beyond this case.

[hack89]

75. Texas has rights the Federal government cannot infringe upon

if Congress had done their job it would not have been an issue - they had three years to fix the problem and did nothing. It is not Texas' problem.

[aranthus]

73. True, but Texas didn't violate any law. Congress hasn't passed it yet.

The treaty obligates the Federal Government to enact legislation pertaining to consular access. It doesn't directly obligate the State of Texas. Why didn't Congress pass the activating legislation for three years? Why did two Administrations (Bush and Obama) fail to push the legislation? The fault here is with the Congress and the White House; not Texas or the Supreme Court.

[baldguy]

2. What's one more broken treaty, right?

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_Relations

"Article 36. Foreign nationals who are arrested or detained be given notice "without delay" of their right to have their embassy or consulate notified of that arrest. If the detained foreign national so requests, the police must fax that notice to the embassy or consulate, which can then check up on the person. The notice to the consulate can be as simple as a fax, giving the person's name, the place of arrest, and, if possible, something about the reason for the arrest or detention."

By any reasonable definition, the US is in violation.

[PATRICK]

11. I wanted to ask a question

about the squeamishness of the WH to actually do something when it is ready to take mucho lives while bending, braking and bypassing laws. The greater good here is not Texas state rights over the lives of Mexicans but federal treaties with that country. Would the president in effect have been breaking the law to intervene with commuting the sentence, even as a temporary ploy?

Moot question now. The lesson here is never become fodder for the power establishment in the USA.

[Igel]

58. Yes, he would have been breaking the law.

This is similar (but the inverse) of a lot of teacher responsibilities and authority. They have the responsibility to do achieve certain things but they don't have the authority to do it.

In this case, Obama had the responsibility to make sure that the treaty was properly implemented and enforced but he didn't have the authority. Since 1963 there have been various parties in power in one or both houses of Congress and in the WH, but the clock only really started ticking in 2007. That's when it became obvious that a bit of implementing legislation was needed.

House, Senate both (D). A year and a few months after it became obvious a chunk of legislation was necessary, the WH became (D).

Now that it's suddenly a big deal again, when people are playing specifically for a certain subgroup of the electorate, they'll take action. Perhaps 2007 and 2008 would have been a better time.

[hack89]

76. It would have been an impeachable offense

for him to intervene in Texas judicial issues using the power of the Presidency. It would be a gross violation of the Constitution.

[laser_red]

18. that stuff does not apply in Texas

in the US, the Vienna Convention of 1963,
is not self-executing.

the good news is, Senator Leahy,
working at his usual breakneck speed,
has introduced legislation enacting the Vienna convention.

the Senate is expected to consider the legislation
sometime in the 25th century

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=5F4B8B0E-D975-4AA7-94D5-8860DE1A6BC0

[awoke_in_2003]

19. we have broken every treaty...

made with native americans- what is one more :sarcasm:

[hack89]

37. It is not binding domestic law

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

The entire issue is that Congress has had 3 years to pass enabling legislation and has not.

[christx30]

68. The question is...

are you comfortable with the police asking about immigration status? If not, as in SB1070, then how are the police supposed to know that the guy is a foreign national?
Plus this guy has been in the US since he was two years old. So he was legally a mexican citizen, but had lived here all of his life. The US is the only home he's ever known. He probably didn't know about his rights because he had never been told.
He did know that rape and murder were illegal and might result in the death penalty. I mean... he lives in Texas. He has to know our reputation. But made the decision anyway. He raped that poor girl with a piece of wood and killed her. He got caught. Maybe his rights were technically violated by not calling the Mexican consolate right away, maybe they weren't. But the fact is that he made a poor decision and a young woman died horribly as a result of his decision. He was tried, convicted, sentenced under the laws that he has been living under for all of his life.
The Mexican government eventually learned about the case. Could they have helped him if they found out about it earlier? Who knows? But when people come to the US, they live under our laws and face the consequences for violating those laws. Same if we go to another country. If you are a woman you won't be allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. If you don't like that, don't go to other countries. People don't want to risk the death penalty, don't kill people in the US.
I don't root for death for anyone. I'm anti execution. I'm in favor of life in prison for someone like this. I think the execution would be more like escape for someone that did something like this. He doesn't have to live with it. I think he should be put into a cage and left there 23 hours a day until the day he dies. But the fact is that he lived here all of his life, made a poor decision, and paid for that decision under the laws he lived under. Mexico and the UN have no say in this.

[rpannier]

3. When an American is arrested for any offense overseas and isn't allowed access to their embassy

I don't expect to see you leveling any criticisms at the offending government.

[emilyg]

8. He and his lawyers

had many, many years to do this.

[rpannier]

20. And I don't expect to see/hear from you either nt

[juxtaposed]

21. he never knew about it, he never knew he could deal with his country and his

lawyers never told him he had a right

[greiner3]

27. Leave it to a Christian;

To promote killing.

[emilyg]

54. Not wise to male ass-

umptions. You don't know my religious affiliation - if any.

[WatsonT]

33. Arrested and given a fair trial at their expense

and allowed to talk to their embassy any time they request it.

But if they get to treat our citizens the way we treat theirs does the reverse hold true?

[hack89]

38. If they get a fair trial like this guy did, I won't complain. nt

[Angry Dragon]

5. Dragons are good at flames

I have heard no one suggest that he should have gotten off no leniency.
There is a treaty, it should be followed.
Would have 30 days made a difference to kill him??

So now when you or someone you love, travel overseas and someone does not care to follow any treaty, who are you going to blame??

[Dreamer Tatum]

7. When I go abroad and KILL someone, all bets are off. nt

[Angry Dragon]

12. It does not even have to be that severe

The laws are different in all countries so it could be something as minor as a fender bender, anything

[DBoon]

15. when you carry liquor filled candy into Saudi Arabia

do you expect to be beheaded?

[Angry Dragon]

16. I would refer you to posts #13 and #14

they say it better than I can

[customerserviceguy]

26. Well stated

If I have a rational fear of having my rights violated when I go to another country, then maybe I should reconsider that trip.

[ET Awful]

30. Actually, in most countries, you still have access to the US Consulate

[Cereal Kyller]

6. Read the link

Leal admitted his responsibility.

[madville]

9. He admitted his guilt

and the punishment was light considering his crime. The federal government allows the states to enact capital punishment if they want to and Texas is the express lane. International law doesn't affect the states unless the federal government enacts it through Congress.

[ashling]

14. I question your last point

The Supreme Court has defined a “self-executing” treaty as one for which “no domestic
legislation is required to give the force of law in the United States.” Trans World Airlines, Inc.
v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243, 252 (1984). Under the Restatement view, a ratified treaty is
“self-executing” so long as it is not “non-self-executing,” and treaties are non-self-executing
“(a) if the agreement manifests an intention that it shall not become effective as domestic law
without the enactment of implementing legislation, (b) if the Senate in giving consent to a treaty,
or Congress by resolution, requires implementing legislation, or (c) if implementing legislation is
constitutionally required.” RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE
UNITED STATES § 111(4) (1987)


I know of no reason that this treaty should not have been self executing.

[hack89]

53. One good reason is the Supreme Court has said it is not self executing

This very issue was addressed 3 years ago:

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

[ashling]

77. Actually, there are some questions as to what Medellin really means

You contend, as do others, that the Court ruling means that at least this part of the Vienna convention is not self executing. You rely on the quote in your post ( in fact you have reposted that quote several times)

I would respectfully suggest that the quote you offer does not say that the treaty is not self executing, as you maintain. It says that "an international commitment ... is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is 'self-executing'." Thus the Court says that one of these is condition precedent to an international commitment being binding domestic law. The Court does not here address whether or not either of these conditions were met.

The statement goes on to state that "decisions of the ICJ are not binding domestic law" and that "the POTUS lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the ICJ." In fact, these latter two questions were the only ones upon which certiorari was accepted. They are, therefore, the only issues open which the decision of the Court is law.

The question of whether or not the treaty was self executing was not squarely put to the Court, nor did the Court directly address it. Roberts circuitously talks around it, but that is all.

[hack89]

81. The SC specifically addressed it when they rejected the Government's request for a stay of execution

from the original OP:

"Texas is not bound by a foreign court's ruling," Cesinger said. "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."

In its ruling Thursday about an hour before Leal's execution, the Supreme Court's majority opinion pointed to the IJC decision, saying it's been seven years since then and three years since the previous Texas death penalty case that raised similar consular legal access issues.

If a statute implementing the provisions of the international court ruling "had genuinely been a priority for the political branches, it would have been enacted by now," the majority ruling said

Had the White House and dissenting justices been worried about "the grave international consequences that will follow from Leal's execution ... Congress evidently did not find these consequences sufficiently grave to prompt its enactment of implementing legislation, and we will follow the law as written by Congress," the ruling continued.

Leal's appeals lawyers had pinned their hopes on legislation introduced in the Senate last month that applied to the Vienna Convention provisions and said Leal should have a reprieve so the measure could make its way through the legislative process. Similar bills have failed twice in recent congressional sessions. "Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be," the court said.

You should have no doubts now as to what Medellin really means.

[ashling]

82. This segment talks only about

Congressional action and the validity / enforceability of a "foreign court." It does not address the self executing nature of the treaty and it's supremacy to state law.

I agree that Bush's ham handedness was ineffective to force state court action...as a procedural issue. He wanted to have it both ways: he wanted this provision to apply, but he did not want to agree that it was applicable because of the supremacy clause and the self executing nature of the treaty. So he tried to get around it. He failed to address the issue head on - which is arguably what this decision does. It deals with procedural issues.

Elsewhere (ie., not in this case) Scalia asserts that a defendant can be executed even if they are not guilty as long as 'due process' was accorded. His idea of due process, however, leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. The same is true here.

The Court did not here accept - nor did it address - the issue of whether or not the treaty was self executing. It simply did not rule on this issue. Whatever the Court might have said in regard to it was dicta and not binding law.

[hack89]

83. How can it be self-executing if it requires enabling legislation to become binding law? nt

[ashling]

84. It doesn't

and the Court never ruled that it did - that issue was not before the court. The decision turned on two issues of procedure, not whether or not legislation was required.

The Court said that enacting legislation to this effect would have made it enforceble. I agree that such legislation would have ended the question. However, the enforceability of the treaty was not before the Court. The procedural issues were.

[hack89]

85. Are you sure of that?

Looks like they explicitly stated in the original case that it was not self-executing.

The majority held that the Avena judgment is not enforceable as domestic law. A treaty is not binding domestic law, it said, unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it is "self-executing."<24> None of the relevant treaties—the Optional Protocol, the U.N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute—were self-executing, and no implementing legislation had been enacted, the Court found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

[emilyg]

10. His last words were telling

the girl's family he was sorry he did.

Facts of the Crime:

Convicted in the abduction, rape and bludgeoning of 16-year-old Adria Saveda of San Antonio. Saveda was raped with a piece of lumber and her head crushed by a 35-pound piece of asphalt after being abducted from a party by Leal. Her nude body was found near a creek off Reforma Drive with the piece of lumber still protruding from her vagina. When arrested, police found scratches and cuts on Leal’s face and body.

[COLGATE4]

34. You insist on keeping missing the point. There is no question

that he was guilty - he confessed. So all that is irrelevant. The only issue is whether the US respects its signature to an international treaty that states that a foreign national who has been arrested should have access to his/her consulate. That was the issue here, nothing more.:banghead:

[emilyg]

46. I'm not missing the point - well

aware of what you're saying. He had lived in the US since he was 2 years old. Suddenly he becomes Mexican?

[COLGATE4]

50. So what? Either he's a Mexican or he's not. My understanding

is that he IS. If so, he is as entitled to his country's Consular protection as the Mexican tourist who just arrived at LAX. And once again, HE, who he is and what he did is irrelevant to the question. The only issue is whether the US is going to honor its international treaty obligations regarding Consular notification or not. Here, we did not. Now we get to sit back and wait until some American is busted in some foreign country, asks that his Consulate be notified and is told that "since the US doesn't obey the conditions of the Vienna Accord, we don't either". Sound good to you?

[Igel]

59. What the US did followed US law.

The treaty didn't overwrite large stretches of American law, nor did it give the international court jurisdiction deep into the political system of the United States.

In other words, the US violated what many believed the treaty required. The way the treaty interacted with US law, however, means that the many were completely wrong. The treaty didn't grant Congress and the president more authority than they already had, and they chose not to use that authority. The treaty only means what it's interpreted to mean. We can argue that it was interpreted differently before 2007, but after 2007 steps should have been taken to bring what the US legal system said the treaty meant with what the "many" said it meant. Nobody did that. That is the real problem here.

Moreover, Leal for years didn't say he was a Mexican national. The only way to find out he was an illegal immigrant would have been to say, "Ah, he's brown-skinned and Hispanic-surnamed, he may be an illegal immigrant, let's run his ID through INS and see what they say." At the time there was no program of ID checking like Secure Communities, one that many progressives consider racist.

What needs to be asked is the following: If, during the trial, Leal had said, "I'm a Mexican national, I demand to contact my consulate," would he have been allowed to? I have no reason to think Texas wouldn't have voluntarily complied with the treaty provisions. It has in many other cases, so it's a reasonable assumption to make--meaning that Leal denied himself by not declaring himself a foreign national. We can't assume that the US federal government is omniscient and just knows that a given arrestee is a foreign national. Yet that's the assumption--by not acting on information not available, there's intentional breaking of a treaty. That's a strained accusation, much like my telling my wife, "You've done it again--you forgot to pick up the milk I forgot to ask you to get." When I say it I know I'm really directing the blame at myself. If only those blaming the US over Leal had the same kind of honesty, they'd really be forced to blame the victim. Why? Because victims aren't always without responsibility.

Now, for much of the time he didn't know, it would appear, that he was a foreign national. He was denied that knowledge, and whoever denied him that knowledge effectively disallowed his consular access. To grant a new trial based on his not saying he was a foreign national sounds good--but it automatically means that any foreign national could also use the same gambit intentionally, making sure that instead of one trial they get two trials.

[vrp]

13. And sorry to you

Tough guy Perry lifted his middle finger to the international community and put the guy to death anyway. There is a very good reason why there is a requirement to notify the embassy when a foreign national is arrested, but it's a mute point now. We can no longer complain if one of our own citizens is arrested in a foreign country and denied access to our embassy, thanks to Perry and our own weak State Department.

Beyond that, why do we support Capital Punishment? First, it doesn't deter crime. If it did, Houston would be the safest place on the planet, but we all know it's far from it. Second, I sincerely believe that if we had a more just society there would be less violent crime. Isn't that what we Democrats believe in? A more just society.

Perry is an asshole, just like Bush before him. Kill as many as you can and look tough. For what's its worth, even Bush understood this issue and called on Perry to put the execution on hold. Was Bush worried about being arrested overseas for committing war crimes?

[Lordquinton]

25. Let's remember this and hammer Perry on foreign policy

Great point to get him on.

Also, it's "Moot point" just a grammar note.

[Igel]

60. Texas actually has a decent record.

When they know they've arrested a foreign national the consulate's contacted.

The problem is that the "requirement to notify the embassy when a foreign national is arrested" presupposes that the person arrested is known to be a foreign national. If not, how do you implement the treaty? Contact every embassy whenever anybody's arrested, just in case the person's a foreign national even though he says he's a US citizen (or assumed to be one because there's nothing pointing to his being anything else)?

It's also "moot" point. "Mute" and "moot" aren't even pronounced the same way in American English.

[alp227]

17. Wash. Post: Mexican national’s execution in U.S. prompts diplomatic disappointment

The top United Nations human rights official said Friday that the execution of a Mexican national in Texas was a breach of international law, while diplomats, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, expressed disappointment in the outcome of the case.

Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., who had been convicted of raping and killing a 16-year-old San Antonio girl in 1994, was executed by lethal injection on Thursday night, shortly after the Supreme Court denied the Obama administration’s request for a delay.

The administration had filed an amicus brief in the case because of concerns that Texas authorities, in failing to notify Leal of his right to access Mexican consular officials, had violated the United Nations’ Vienna Convention.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled that Leal and other Mexican nationals facing execution had been denied their rights under the treaty.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/mexican-nationals-execution-prompts-diplomatic-disappointment/2011/07/08/gIQAxkzP4H_story.html

[tcaudilllg]

23. So glad we have what we need to send Rick to his destiny in a Hague prison cell.

[jmowreader]

24. Translation of Cesinger's remarks: That's the way we do it here

And to see how they wish they still did it:

[Harry Callahan]

28. I'll imagine it was a really tough sell...

Now, if he had let the guy go, he could have tested his ability to defend the indefensible.

[ET Awful]

29. Who said anything about letting the guy go? Please list all sources.

There's a huge difference between postponing an execution, commuting it to a life sentence, allowing someone access to their foreign consul, and "letting the guy go".

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ET Awful]

32. Because he is covered under an international treaty to which the US is a party.

The US Constitution explicitly states that any treaty ratified by the states becomes the supreme law of the land.

The desire for retribution does not trump the Constitution.

[hack89]

36. It is not that simple

many treaties require enabling legislation by Congress to make them part of US domestic law - the Supreme Court has already ruled that this is the case here. Congress failed to pass legislation - the treaty is not binding.

[ET Awful]

41. It is that simple.

Do you agree with all of the 5-4 cases the Supreme Court has decided in the past 15 years or so?

You know, the cases like Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc. Do you agree with all of those as well, or just the ones that involve executing people?

[hack89]

43. Totally irrelevant

my opinion (or yours for that matter) does not have the force of law. The opinion of the Supreme Court does.

He still would have been executed - it was pretty clear cut that he was guilty.

[ET Awful]

48. So you do only bother to disagree with them when it doesn't involve execution. n/t

[hack89]

49. I am saying it is irrelevant whether I agree or disagree with them

their word is the force of law - therefore Perry was not breaking any law. Congress has had three years to fix the problem - any criticism should be directed at them.

[COLGATE4]

51. Read post # 14 in this thread. It may be that no enabling law

is required.

[hack89]

52. Read post # 37 - this very issue has been addressed by the SC. nt

[S_B_Jackson]

56. And Congress, on clear notice of the need to enact supporting legislation since 2008

has done what in the intervening time-period? Surely there was a some time that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could have done from the period of 2008 - 2010 instead of simply engaging non-producting finger pointing.

Rethugs, Democrats - both have sat on their hands and done nothing whatsoever.

If any here are truly concerned about this issue, get in touch with your Representative and your Senators and demand that they get off their asses and do their damned job!

[Igel]

61. Read that again.

"Supreme law of the land" doesn't put it above other laws of the land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

Not every law enacted by Congress immediately applies to the states, it has to be explicit and at least partly justified; at the time, the Constitution didn't apply to the states (it took an amendment to the Constitution to do that); why should treaties automatically apply in their entirety?

But, in any event, treaties don't override laws or the US Constitution just by virtue of being a treaty. Many act like somehow that semicolon is used like a modern semicolon and want to read it as though there's a new clause, so that the subject of "shall be the supreme Law of the land" is just "all Treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States." It's not a modern semicolon. It's a glorified comma. Put in a more modern style, "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in accordance with it, as well as all Treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. The judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything to the contrary which is contained in any State's Constitution or laws notwithstanding."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. Do you feel lucky, punk?

[The Blue Flower]

40. Not an either/or

It does not boil down to "If he'd been allowed his legal rights, he would have gotten off." If he did the crime and was tried in a fair trial, he still could have been punished accordingly. The point is, the state of Texas did not follow the law, so the conviction was tainted.

[Igel]

62. Texas did follow the law, as interpreted by the judicial branch.

The judicial branch is the branch that gives authoritative interpretations of the law.

The point is, the state of Texas didn't follow the law as many private citizens or people in other countries interpret the law, so they think the conviction was tainted. It all boils down to whether the judicial branch is authorized to make authoritative decisions about a law's meaning or whether a minority of popular, non-judicial-branch opinion is to be taken as authoritative.

[Taverner]

42. If in fact he did it

Sounds like there was some significant reasonable doubt there

[democrat2thecore]

44. He confessed. -nt

[Hepburn]

55. I am so shocked he is defending this...

...NOT!

[t0dd]

57. Love the moral absolutists here..

[dembotoz]

66. one of the cable channels has a tv show about being caught up

in foreign countries with their laws and awful prisons.

perhaps they should do a couple of episode about people getting caught up in the american system.

remember when we used to at least pretend to follow international law

[aranthus]

70. There's a bigger issue than leniency.

Under treaties signed and ratified by the Federal Government, he had the right to contact with the Mexican consulate. By violating the treaty, Texas has opened up the possiblity that other countries could deny that right to Americans on the pretext that the US has already abrogated the treaty by violating it. That's not a good thing for Americans traveling abroad who get in trouble.

Also, the issue isn't leniency (you're right, the scum didn't deserve that), it's about whether he should have be granted consular access before being executed.

[Nossida]

74. Jeez

And did the christian Perry hold a
prayer meeting over the killing of
the man. No doubt. Those republicans
always pray before killing someone.
Pious Pompous Riff Raff.

[Trajan]

79. There was a day when Liberals were against Capital Punishment

I suppose those days are over ? .... at DU they seem to be ....

The desire to kill runs pretty strong here .....

[Judi Lynn]

80. DU has been infested at times. Hope to see it cleansed one day.

Democrats have never been considered the radical, reactionary, violent, hate-filled ones.

That would be a completely different kind of critter altogether, some group from the not-at-all-mysterious right.