The Warring States of NPF

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)
-   Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)
-   -   Texas Executes Mexican National (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=30566)

Mannix 08-06-2008 03:00 AM

Texas Executes Mexican National
 
Link

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Times
MEXICO CITY -- Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national convicted of the 1993 rape and murder of two Texas girls, was executed Tuesday night in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant a reprieve.

"I'm sorry my actions caused you pain. I hope this brings you the closure that you seek. Never harbor hate," Medellin, 33, told those gathered to watch him die. He was pronounced dead at 9:57 p.m. local time.

Demonstrations had been held in Mexico in anticipation of the execution. The controversy surrounding his execution, as well as concern here over the fate of 50 other Mexican citizens on U.S. death rows, appears likely to continue.

"It is striking the difference of perspective between the United States and many other countries," said David Fathi, U.S. program director for the group Human Rights Watch, which had opposed the execution.

"I think that [this] illustrates the widening gap."

Medellin was 18 when he and five fellow gang members raped Elizabeth Pena, 16, and Jennifer Ertman, 14, then beat and strangled them. Medellin later boasted to friends about the deed.

The buildup to Tuesday's execution drew worldwide attention and involved a host of players and institutions beyond the United States and Mexico.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague sided in 2004 with the Mexican government's argument that the United States had violated the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to inform the arrested Mexican nationals of their right to seek help from the Mexican Consulate.

Mexico has asked that all 51 convictions be reviewed, creating the possibility for new trials or outright dismissals. The Hague court had ordered the United States not to execute any of five men on death row in Texas while the court reviewed their cases.

But the court, a branch of the United Nations, has no power to enforce its rulings. A spokesman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, has said that "the world court has no standing in Texas."

The Bush administration had intervened in support of the Mexican government, urging Texas prosecutors to reopen the death row cases.

But in March, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the administration's arguments, ruling 6-3 that under the Constitution, the president did not have the "unilateral authority" to compel state officials to comply with an international treaty.

The issue of capital punishment for Mexicans convicted of crimes in the United States is extremely sensitive here, driven by the perception that Mexicans convicted of capital crimes north of the border are more likely than U.S. citizens to face the death penalty.

Capital punishment was abolished in Mexico in 2005 during the Vicente Fox presidency.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International contend that executing foreign citizens in opposition to the court order could put U.S. citizens abroad at risk of being convicted and even executed for crimes without having access to U.S. consulates or embassies.

In a Monday opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times, former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow expressed that same view.

The heated debate in both countries over immigration policy probably has contributed to the controversy surrounding the execution.

"I think because of the politics around immigration more broadly, the fact that Mr. Medellin is Mexican rather than Swedish, does make a difference," said Fathi, of Human Rights Watch.

"It certainly does play into a bigger debate and bigger fears that many people have about immigration from Mexico."

First of all it kind of surprised me that the Bush administration attempted to intervene to stop an execution. The supreme court's decision also surprised me; if the president doesn't have that power then who does? Congress? Why didn't they intervene? I'm not an opponent of the death penalty, but I do believe stuff should be done by the book and in this case it wasn't.

Second, I don't think the fact that the guy was a Mexican had too much to do with it; Texas will execute just about anybody, and I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot of controversy regardless of where the guy was from. Texas just executed a guy without letting him contact his embassy, and that's got to unnerve anybody that has relations with the US - i.e. everybody.

As an American living abroad, this kind of thing bothers me on another level; namely I'm in a position to experience reciprocity for our shabby treatment of foreign nationals. However unlikely it may be, it's still one of those things that buzzes around in the back of my head.

Regulus Tera 08-06-2008 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mannix (Post 819779)
First of all it kind of surprised me that the Bush administration attempted to intervene to stop an execution. The supreme court's decision also surprised me; if the president doesn't have that power then who does? Congress? Why didn't they intervene? I'm not an opponent of the death penalty, but I do believe stuff should be done by the book and in this case it wasn't.

I'm not well-versed in USA internal logistics, but isn't that the whole point of checks and balances? As far as I know the executive and legislative branch only intervene in the judicial by appointing and discharging judges.

Or at least that's how it's (supposed) to be done in my country, whose Constitution and political structure is quite similar to yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mannix (Post 819779)
Second, I don't think the fact that the guy was a Mexican had too much to do with it; Texas will execute just about anybody, and I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot of controversy regardless of where the guy was from. Texas just executed a guy without letting him contact his embassy, and that's got to unnerve anybody that has relations with the US - i.e. everybody.

Being a Mexican, like you say, probably doesn't have a lot to do with it. However, it is also not news at all. The Mexican government has been denied contact with its soon-to-be-executed citizens for decades now by the Texan government. One would think that international affairs should be handled by the federal and not the state government.

Which isn't to say the guy wasn't guilty of the crime committed, but bypassing diplomacy entirely in international matters is an issue that apalls me in how long has it been waiting to be taken care of.

Mannix 08-06-2008 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regulus Tera (Post 819788)
I'm not well-versed in USA internal logistics, but isn't that the whole point of checks and balances? As far as I know the executive and legislative branch only intervene in the judicial by appointing and discharging judges.

Or at least that's how it's (supposed) to be done in my country, whose Constitution and political structure is quite similar to yours.



Being a Mexican, like you say, probably doesn't have a lot to do with it. However, it is also not news at all. The Mexican government has been denied contact with its soon-to-be-executed citizens for decades now by the Texan government. One would think that international affairs should be handled by the federal and not the state government.

Which isn't to say the guy wasn't guilty of the crime committed, but bypassing diplomacy entirely in international matters is an issue that apalls me in how long has it been waiting to be taken care of.

That's basically my question though; the Federal government generally handles international affairs, and the President has the power to sign treaties (though I think Congress has to ratify). So the President has at least a little power over treaties, and is a Fed. Even if it isn't the President's job to enforce it I still can't see that a State has the power to violate a treaty.

Wigmund 08-06-2008 10:00 AM

Man, I wish I had the knowledge and expertise to truly and fully explain all of this - the complicated relationships between the Federal and State governments; how the balance between the Executive, Legislative, and Judical branches affects these relationships; and how treaties are applied at the various national and local levels. But, I'm not smart enough to do that - so all I can mainly do is post some links to other articles about this.

Here's a couple more articles about this: CNN / MSNBC / BBC

Gorefiend 08-06-2008 10:18 AM

I believe, though, that international treaties that are ratified by congress become as binding as the Constitution. If the US has accepted the ICJ, this could (or should) lead to serious repercussions.

bluestarultor 08-06-2008 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorefiend (Post 819831)
I believe, though, that international treaties that are ratified by congress become as binding as the Constitution. If the US has accepted the ICJ, this could (or should) lead to serious repercussions.

We've made a habit of defying international treaties as of late. Bush really isn't one to talk, though I'm not saying what he said was wrong in this case. Far from it. And if the Executive Branch, the branch dedicated to enforcement of the law, doesn't have the authority to pull someone over like this, who the fu(% does? This is going to cause an incident, I'm sure, which isn't going to help our world popularity. Frankly, I think the perpetrators of all our treaty violations should be tried in international court and sentenced to whatever the world deems appropriate under international law. It'll weaken America's image, but right now that isn't necessarily a bad thing, since everyone has the idea that America does whatever the hell it pleases whenever it wants to do it. That's really gotta stop.

Regulus Tera 08-06-2008 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestarultor (Post 819853)
We've made a habit of defying international treaties as of late. Bush really isn't one to talk, though I'm not saying what he said was wrong in this case. Far from it. And if the Executive Branch, the branch dedicated to enforcement of the law, doesn't have the authority to pull someone over like this, who the fu(% does?.

The Executive Branch doesn't have the power to enforce the law. It can only enact it. What you are arguing for is completely the Judicial Branch's jurisdiction. If the Executive is really interested in this issue it should push towards a law in the Legislative that guarantees the rights of the international prisoners in Texas. Which is as likely as admitting the crimes in Guantánamo, but that's another issue entirely.

bluestarultor 08-06-2008 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regulus Tera (Post 819857)
The Executive Branch doesn't have the power to enforce the law. It can only enact it. What you are arguing for is completely the Judicial Branch's jurisdiction. If the Executive is really interested in this issue it should push towards a law in the Legislative that guarantees the rights of the international prisoners in Texas. Which is as likely as admitting the crimes in Guantánamo, but that's another issue entirely.

Problem with the Judicial branch is that they deal exclusively with the law as it's written, not actually enforcing it. In fact, Andrew Jackson once said about a Supreme Court decision, "[insert name of then Chief Justice] has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." The Judicial Branch can declare it unconstitutional for a law to be made, and they can set precedent in making new laws, but they have no teeth to enforce them. That's the Executive Branch's job. To execute the law.

Regulus Tera 08-06-2008 12:31 PM

Upon careful investigation you're actually right -it's the Executive the one who enforces the law. Still, its interpretation is solely the job of the Judicial, so, fair or not, their word is the last authority behind this issue.

I still don't see any legal means by which the Executive could've overturned this decision. Correct me if wrong.

bluestarultor 08-06-2008 12:51 PM

No, you're right there. If the Supreme Court says something, it pretty much goes. I'm curious as to why they said he couldn't put the kibosh on the executions, though.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.