Freethinkeruk’s Weblog

UK Political weblog

U.S. International Renegade

For a so called ‘civilised’ nation the United States still continues with the barbaric practice of capital punishment which is a euphamism for killing people.

Jose Medellin, 33, was executed by lethal injection on Tuesday for admitedly a foul crime commited 15 years ago. The International Court of Justice backed up by Ban Ki-moon the UN Secretary General, requested the US to put a hold on his and another 50 executions as there should be new hearings to determine whether the Vienna Conventions were violated during their arrests.

Jorge Montano, a former Mexican ambassador to the US, said that the US should respect international law.

“The biggest lesson once again for the rest of the world, the US is not prepared to respect any ruling when that ruling is not in their favour and that, for me, is like the law of the jungle once again. If we don’t respect the international legislation, then how can we ask other countries to do so?”

Indeed!

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

7 thoughts on “U.S. International Renegade

  1. The Texas Hangman on said:

    I have a solution – we will ship all these mad dogs to live with you .

    Do you really know what this piece of human garbage and his friends did to these girls? I remember when this happened here in Houston and they deserve what they are getting.

    As for the Mexican’ambassdor’s comment – Mexico should abide by our immigration laws, but they don’t.
    They ignore them…

  2. I guess your login name says it all really.

    If these ‘mad dogs’ as you call them were indeed shipped to the UK at least they would get a fair trial in accordance with international law and without being tortured first. If found guilty they could be imprisioned for life but not barbarically killed to show that killing is wrong.

  3. The Texas Hangman on said:

    The young girls he helped kill were the ones tortured, not him. He got the easy way out.

    The outcome of the his trial would not have changed even if the Mexican consulant had been involved, it was an open/shut case. No way to wiggle out of the noose he chose.

    Hopefully you and those you care about never encounter people like him and his associates. If you do, you had better be ready to KILL to survive.

  4. I’m not arguing the rights or wrongs of this particular case which is obviously horrific. My point was and is that the US claims to believe in the rule of Law and yet when the Law does not suit it then the US simply ignores it.

    With what authority can the US then urge other countries to operate under law? It cannot and that is the great shame.

  5. The Texas Hangman on said:

    I doubt there is a country on Earth that follows “the Law” to the letter. The USA does a fair job, but we aren’t perfect.

    And in this case…the Law got in the way of what is right….justice for two brutally murdered girls left to rot in the Texas Sun.

  6. Dudley Sharp on said:

    The execution of Jose Medellin: Texas fulfilled their obligations to the law
    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

    The only treaty violation was that Texas failed to notify the rapist/torturer/murderer, Jose Medellin, “you can contact your consulate if you wish”, as per the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VC) (1963) (1).

    Some may ask “Is that it?” Such a reaction is understandable.

    One or all of the following errors have marked the coverage of this case.

    1) “The US/Texas denied Medellin consular access” or
    2)”The US/Texas failed to notify the Mexican consulate of the detention” or
    3) “The US/Texas denied Medellin a hearing on the notification issue”

    As to the first claim, Medellin was never prevented from contacting his consulate. Medellin and his attorneys were free to contact the consulate or consulate attorneys, whenever they so desired. Medellin and his attorneys chose not to contact the Mexican consulate for 4 years.

    The US admitted its error, that it violated the VC, by not informing Medellin that he could contact his consulate. As a simple matter of practicality, who doesn’t know they can contact their own consulate?

    In addition, Medellin grew up in Texas and spent his later 15 years in Texas, prior to committing these heinous acts when he was age 18. He attended Texas schools. Texas did not know Medellin was a Mexican national. (2)

    The second claim would, specifically, violate the intent of the VC. In the debate, prior to VC ratification, it was decided that only the detained party should be given the option of contacting their consulate. I suspect this was done in order to protect the detained party, in case they were in trouble in their own country.

    For the third claim, there is this:

    As the US never denied violating the notification provision, the real issue before the The Internal Court of Justice (ICJ) was “what remedy exists for that violation?”

    The ICJ instructed: “(Texas/US must) provide, by means of its “own” choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the [affected] Mexican nationals,” “with a view to ascertaining” whether the failure to provide proper notice to consular officials “caused actual prejudice to the defendant in the process of administration of criminal justice,”

    Several courts (3) and judges thoroughly reviewed the notification claims, including extensive oral arguments. The did this, even though there were procedural bars, because of the timing of the claim. No prejudice was found.

    An additional formal hearing wasn’t held because a claim has to reach a certain level of credibility or weight before a hearing is granted. The appellate considerations found that there was no prejudice and that the error was harmless, Therefore, a formal hearing was not held. In fact, as a matter of law, it was also barred.

    Based upon the case facts, an additional review of the same material in the same case would have had the same result. In addition, the legal process had determined that the ICJ did not have authority over Texas courts to force an additional hearing or any hearing. Texas said no to the ICJ and all other denouncers because there was no need to repeat a process that had already taken place.

    Texas met the ICJ and VC burden in the three court reviews, inclusive of the oral arguments.

    Texas did so, in response to its own due process.

    A violation of a treay occurred. A remedy was prescribed and carried out. The Texas/US treaty obligation was fulfilled.

    Medellin was justly executed and had 15 years of extraordinary due process protections.

    Some say that US citizens may be subject to additional abuse because of Texas’ decision to execute this rapist/torturer/murderer. Why?

    An equal “abuse” would be to (1) arrest US citizens for just cause; (2) fail to tell them “you can contact your consulate, if you wish to”; and (3) give them the extraordinary due process provided to Jose Medellin.

    While all citizens would like to get consul notification and those party to the treaty are entitled to it, did all the States (parties to the treaty) give such notification to all detained US citizens and other detained foreign nationals since 1967? Of course not.

    Texas didn’t know Medellin was a Mexican national. Even if it did, almost no US police officers had even heard of the Vienna Convention, prior to 1997. Were many police, anywhere in the world, aware of the Vienna Convention since 1967? Unlikely. Did they recite it when they didn’t know the detainee was a foreign national? (2) Also unlikely.

    Would the world condemn the US and punish US citizens for the same violations they have committed, only because their violations have not been adjudicated? Soe will and some won’t.

    That said, the treaty should be honored and all States should provide such notification.

    My opinion is that Mexico brought this case to the ICJ, as an anti death penalty cause, and, possibly, with a wee hint of anti-Americanism, and not as a principled stance in support of consular rights.

    Fact: Mexico, intentionally, included only death penalty cases and avoided all other non death cases of detained Mexican nationals within the US.

    Fact: Had this really been about consular rights and the honoring of treaties, Mexico would have filed ICJ lawsuits against every country that had violated the rights of Mexican Nationals under the VC. Mexico didn’t.

    Fact: Mexico only singled out the US, strictly avoiding non death penalty cases. The VC applies to all cases of detention. Any lawsuit, based upon principle, would have been directed at all violators and for all cases. Mexico didn’t do that.

    In other words, absent the death penalty, Mexico never would have filed the lawsuit.

    Wouldn’t we all like to see what percentage of foreign nationals, detained in Mexico, since 1967, had been properly notified: “you have the right to contact your consulate, if you wish.” What do you think? 1% or less?

    NOTE: The VC specifically states that it does not infer individual rights, but is intended to facilitate consular relations.

    The only human rights violation in this case was the hour long gang rape/torture/murder of two wonderful girls, Elizabeth Pena, 16, and Jennifer Ertman, 14.

    Remember them?

    Take a look. http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html

    (1) Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), Article 36, paragraph b, last sentence

    (2) From a practical standpoint, is there no obligation on the part of the detained party to notify the authorities of their foreign national status? Or, are all the world’s police supposed to be clairvoyant?

    copyright 1999-2008 Dudley Sharp
    Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
    e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
    Houston, Texas

  7. Very interesting comment(s) and seems very familiar being the sort of convoluted legal niceties much beloved by American lawyers.

    I repeat my comment response earlier:- “My point was and is that the US claims to believe in the rule of Law and yet when the Law does not suit it then the US simply ignores it.”

    All that needed to be done was to abide by the ICJ request and after a short delay Texas could carry out their barbaric ritual killing, happy in the knowledge that they had acted within the Law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: