UN: Texas execution broke international law

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

nobody that matters. thats why the POS is dead.

Just remember to also not care next time an American is stoned to death or shot in the neck in foreign lands for an infraction over there.

[peejay 327]

No, there isn't. But there is a Constitution which reads in Article VI.

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.

But hey, why worry about what the Constitution says, eh? Texas surely ain't bound by it.

The state of Texas did nothing illegal. The fed asked them to stay the execution...they were not required by US law to do so.

Edited July 9, 2011 by peejay

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No, there isn't. But there is a Constitution which reads in Article VI.

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.

But hey, why worry about what the Constitution says, eh? Texas surely ain't bound by it.

Using bold does not change the meaning of the US Constitution. The Senate still has to ratify the treaty for it to have any effect on the United States as a whole, or any state in particular.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The state of Texas did nothing illegal. The fed asked them to stay the execution...they were not required by US law to do so.

So, the judges in Texas are exempt from the constitutional obligation to be bound by treaties made by the US? Interesting. Which article of the Constitution stipulates that exemption?

Edited July 9, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So, the judges in Texas are exempt from the constitutional obligation to be bound by treaties made by the US? Interesting. Which article of the Constitution stipulates that exemption?

What treaty are you talking about?

[peejay 327]

Perry defends Mexican's execution in girl's death

By MICHAEL GRACZYK

ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 8, 2011, 6:11PM

HOUSTON — 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 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.

"After reviewing the totality of the issues that led to Leal's conviction, as well as the numerous court rulings surrounding the case, including the most recent Supreme Court ruling on Thursday, Gov. Perry agreed that Leal was guilty of raping and bludgeoning a 16-year-old girl to death," Cesinger said.

Adria Sauceda was killed in 1994 in a gruesome attack in which her head was bashed with a 30- to 40-pound piece of asphalt and she was raped, strangled, bit and then left nude on a dirt road with a piece of wood stuck in her.

From the Texas death chamber Thursday evening, Leal, 38, took responsibility for the slaying, asked for forgiveness and wrapped up his comments by twice shouting: "Viva Mexico!"

He was born in Monterrey, Mexico, and moved with his family to the U.S. when he was about 1½ years old.

Mexico's government, President Barack Obama's administration and the State Department were among those asking the Supreme Court to stop the execution of the former mechanic to allow Congress time to consider legislation that would require court reviews for condemned foreign nationals who weren't offered the help of their consulates.

The high court rejected the request 5-4.

"The secretary herself is quite disappointed in the outcome in this case," Clinton's spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, said Friday. "You know that the U.S. government sought a stay of Leal's execution in order to give the Congress time to act on the Consular Notification Compliance Act, which would have provided Leal the judicial review required by international law.

"Frankly if we don't protect the rights of non-Americans in the United States, we seriously risk reciprocal lack of access to our own citizens overseas," Nuland said. "So this is why the secretary is concerned. ... We've got to treat non-Americans properly here if we expect to be able to help our citizens overseas."

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said the punishment "raises particular legal concerns," including whether Leal had access to consular services and a fair trial.

Pillay also cited a 2004 International Court of Justice ruling saying the U.S. must review and reconsider the cases of 51 Mexican nationals sentenced to death, including Leal's. In 2005, President George W. Bush agreed with the ruling but the U.S. Supreme Court later overruled Bush.

"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.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7645420.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What treaty are you talking about?

The Vienna Convention which the US ratified.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Vienna Convention which the US ratified.

What section?

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf

In March 2005, the United States pulled out of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which allows the International Court of Justice to have compulsory jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Convention. In June 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals who were not notified of their right to consular notification and access after an arrest may not use the treaty violation to suppress evidence obtained in police interrogation or belatedly raise legal challenges after trial (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon[1]). In March 2008, the Supreme Court further ruled that the decision of the International Court of Justice directing the United States to give "review and reconsideration" to the cases of 51 Mexican convicts on death row was not a binding domestic law and therefore could not be used to overcome state procedural default rules that barred further post-conviction challenges (Medellín v. Texas [2]).

Edited July 9, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The simplest solution to all of this would be to outlaw the death penalty nationwide. Its a left over of a less civilized time. Anyone who screams for someone's blood is not civilized in my book.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Sousuke

[SMOKE 1,426]

Lovely.

it ended quite lovely

Just remember to also not care next time an American is stoned to death or shot in the neck in foreign lands for an infraction over there.

if the american rapes & murders a 16 year old child. im gonna applaud them, just like i do gov. perry & the fine state of texas.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What section?

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf

In March 2005, the United States pulled out of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which allows the International Court of Justice to have compulsory jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Convention. In June 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals who were not notified of their right to consular notification and access after an arrest may not use the treaty violation to suppress evidence obtained in police interrogation or belatedly raise legal challenges after trial (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon[1]). In March 2008, the Supreme Court further ruled that the decision of the International Court of Justice directing the United States to give "review and reconsideration" to the cases of 51 Mexican convicts on death row was not a binding domestic law and therefore could not be used to overcome state procedural default rules that barred further post-conviction challenges (Medellín v. Texas [2]).

Alright then. So we have opted not to offer protections to Americans abroad either. If an American lights up a joint in China, that American will be publicly executed and we will stand idly by and not get outraged. When an American woman is stoned to death in some barbarian country, we will sit here and twiddle our thumbs since that's the right of such country to apply it's laws to our citizens. Excellent. I thought we were a bit less indifferent.

if the american rapes & murders a 16 year old child. im gonna applaud them, just like i do gov. perry & the fine state of texas.

But according to the laws of other countries, these punishments could result from offenses that you might feel do not warrant a death sentence - much less a barbaric one. But you still have to accept it since it's their jurisdiction and their laws. Why should anyone give a damn what this country and it's citizens feel? We sure don't.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[SMOKE 1,426]

The simplest solution to all of this would be to outlaw the death penalty nationwide. Its a left over of a less civilized time. Anyone who screams for someone's blood is not civilized in my book.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

it ended quite lovely

if the american rapes & murders a 16 year old child. im gonna applaud them, just like i do gov. perry & the fine state of texas.

The poor use of pronouns in this statement makes it sound like you are cheering on a rapist.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The simplest solution to all of this would be to outlaw the death penalty nationwide.

That would mean we'd have to enter civilization. God forbid. We prefer to be like the savages not the civilized elites.

[SMOKE 1,426]

But according to the laws of other countries, these punishments could result from offenses that you might feel do not warrant a death sentence - much less a barbaric one. But you still have to accept it since it's their jurisdiction and their laws. Why should anyone give a damn what this country and it's citizens feel? We sure don't.

well im thinking not being a dumbass in another country might be a good place to start if you're trying to not get in deep water there. you got a list of other countries that give a damn what we think of their justice system?