Hold on: The US Supreme Court refused to uphold the

[malaise]

Geneva Convention and allowed Rick Perry to execute a foreign citizen without him seeing someone from the Mexican Embassy despite the Federal Government's demand.

What the fuck is wrong with the Supreme Court? When are these treasonous bastards going to be impeached?

Rachel is discussing this now

edit subject

[myrna minx]

1. This country is so messed up and corrupt. I feel so defeated today.

Sigh.

[malaise]

8. Bob Herbert is right

Democrats better vote for Obama to sort out the Supreme Court.

If Texas isn't bound by foreign law, Perry should be tried for treason.

Herbert is good.

add

[TexasProgresive]

36. This is SOP in Texas- nothing new here just Texas business as usual

Bush did it and Perry did it - They don't care how this might affect our citizens in a foreign country.

[badtoworse]

38. Not true. Bush tried to stop Medellin's execution in 2008 on the same grounds as Obama did here.

The SCOTUS ruled the same way then

[TexasProgresive]

46. That was when he was pResident when he was governor it was

KILL KILL KILL KILL and we don't care about any treaties.

Mexican Nationals and the Texas Death Penalty

Out of a total of 25 foreign nationals now under sentence of death in the State of Texas, 17 are Mexicans. Of the four foreign citizens executed in Texas over the past ten years, three were Mexicans: Ramon Montoya, executed March 25, 1993; Irineo Tristan Montoya, executed June 18, 1997 and Miguel Angel Flores, executed November 9, 2000. In each case, Texas police failed to inform them of their right to contact the Mexican consulate for assistance, as required under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/nationalsjmedinamexnationals.cfm

Canadian Stanley Faulder on June 17, 1999

http://www.ccadp.org/stanleyfaulder.htm

[Obamanaut]

56. Here's a guy who kidnapped a teen age girl, raped her with a stick,

bludgeoned her to death, and is now complaining HIS rights have been violated.

He bought this ticket, now let him take his ride.

[myrna minx]

58. The issue whether or not we abide by treaties we sign

and the Vienna Convention, not whether or not the convicted killer is a nice guy. I guess blowing off the Geneva convention is ok too, because there's some really bad guys out there. This is how Bush justified torture.

[Obamanaut]

68. Will you and the other poster please make up your minds about which

convention to talk about - Geneva or Vienna.

The SCOTUS said the appeal was based on the Vienna Convention, and that it does not apply. That's good enough for me.

And the Geneva one has to do with wartime stuff - prisoner treatment, civilian in combat areas, et cetera.

If the guy in Texas, Leal, had really wanted Mexico to protect him, he should have thought about that prior to the kidnap, torture, and rape.

He bought the ticket, it is time for the ride. If I had my way, he would die in EXACTLY the same way the little girl did. EXACTLY.

[Harry Callahan]

80. I can't argue with that, but have you ever been to Mexico?

In comparison, the US is as pure as freshly driven snow.

[myrna minx]

81. While Mexico is a fine country, it's not used as the powerful symbol to aspire to as the USA

once was. Now we're on the heap with every other hypocritical crumbled empire.

[gateley]

2. Did it go to the Supremes? (Not watching Rachel). nt

[malaise]

4. Yes and they refused to stay the execution

so Perry violated US law and international law and killed the man.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20077712-503544.html
<snip>
By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the Supreme Court has just refused to stay the execution of convicted killer Humberto Leal Garcia, a Mexican convicted of the rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl in 1994. The Obama Administration, citing concerns over U.S. interests and treaty obligations, had asked the court to delay the execution, scheduled for 7 p.m. Eastern Time tonight.

Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the Court's unsigned opinion. He was joined by the Court's three other liberal justices.

"The Court ignores the appeal of the President in a matter related to foreign affairs, it substitutes its own views about the likelihood of congressional action for the views of Executive Branch officials who have consulted with Members of Congress, and it denies the request by four Members of the Court to delay the execution until the Court can discuss the matter at Conference in September, "Breyer wrote. "In my view, the Court is wrong in each respect."
-----------
Bryer was correct - the court was wrong in each respect.

change subject, add link, snip

[spanone]

3. this court is an affront to all things this country was built on

[malaise]

6. I have to agree n/t

[littlewolf]

5. actually as I understand it .. Perry has very little to do

with it ... the division of prisons has final word ... Perry could have asked for a stay .. but that is all .. Shrub tried it and was over ruled
but this division .... someone from Texas ... what is the real deal here .....

[malaise]

7. No Rachel says he replaced the person in charge with a loyalist

because he wanted this execution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Is Rachel raising the points I did yesterday?

I don't recognize this country any longer. And to those silly enough to think it will not come back to byte us... To those of you who travel...abroad...it should.

[malaise]

10. Yep

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Good maybe she read post

Maybe not... But since it was in the teevee it really has weight now.

[madrchsod]

16. your shadow will probably be writing about you tomorrow...

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Damn will not be here to see, traveling

[AsahinaKimi]

11. I would be interesting if Rick Perry

Found himself in a Mexican Court facing criminal charges.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. To make an example

I am willing to bet that court WILL file that silly form and make sure people know this.

Oh and if convicted they will do a prisoner exchange faster than usual.

[Fuddnik]

57. I'm sure someone would be willing to frame him.

[madrchsod]

13. i think even dicators allow the us consulate or a third party a visit

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Yep, it is the fourth protocol of the convention

If I got a buck for each time I filled form or called the consulate, I'd have s tidy sum...border town.

[Obamanaut]

48. Are you thinking of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations? Here is an article

on the Texas case that refers to that convention. Nowhere does it mention Geneva.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/in-texas-a-death-penalty-showdown-with-international-law/241480/

<snip> This right is guaranteed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, signed by the U.S., Mexico, and 171 other nations

<snip> Euna Lee, an American journalist who, along with her colleague Laura Ling, was held captive in North Korea for five months in 2009, has called the Vienna Convention a "lifeline" that helped secure her release.

Google this: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

[boppers]

15. The Supreme Court upheld their prior decision on the topic.

Congress has no law, the Supreme Court cannot write it, and an execution was not stayed.... for a law that has not been written.

Decision here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/11-5001.pdf

[badtoworse]

20. After reading the decision and Breyer's dissent, I think the majority got it right..

Courts should not rule on the basis of laws that do not exist. No one asserted any flaw in his trial, so there was no basis on which the court could legally grant a stay.

[csziggy]

27. Is the Geneva Convention a treaty that was ratified by Congress?

Because the Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties (Article II Section 2) and the Supreme Court has judicial power over treaties (Article III Section 2). And there is this:

"Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
"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."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

If the Geneva Convention is not a ratified treaty it should be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. It is and at quesiton is the Fourth Protocol

of 1948... and not only it is a ratified treaty but incorporated, FULLY into the UCMJ. It was ratified by the Senate, iirc in 1949, superseding the 1924 protocol

[Obamanaut]

49. Where is it in the Geneva Convention? Are you thinking of the Vienna Convention

on Consular Relations?

Interesting article on this Texas case here, and it makes reference to Vienna, not Geneva.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/0... /

<snip> This right is guaranteed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, signed by the U.S., Mexico, and 171 other nations

<snip> Euna Lee, an American journalist who, along with her colleague Laura Ling, was held captive in North Korea for five months in 2009, has called the Vienna Convention a "lifeline" that helped secure her release.

Google this: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

[badtoworse]

29. The basis of Leal's petition was a ruling by the International Court of Justice in 2004...

...not the Vienna Convention of 1963. In order to be binding, the ICJ ruling required action by Congress which never happened. The SCOTUS ruled the same way on a similar case in 2008.

[horseshoecrab]

33. U.S. opposes Mexican’s execution

The Obama Administration takes the rare step of urging the Court to block temporarily a state from executing a convicted individual — in this case, a Mexican national who contends that Texas violated his rights under an international treaty, the Vienna Convention.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/07/u-s-opposes-mexicans-execution/


horseshoecrab

[malaise]

45. Actually I made a mistake - in this instance it is the Vienna protocol but

your point is just as valid.

[hack89]

69. Ratification is not the issue - enabling legislation is the problem.

not every treaty automatically becomes US domestic law. Some treaties are considered "self executing" and become US law upon ratification. Other treaties are not self executing and require Congress to pass enabling legislation for it to become US law. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Vienna protocol is not self executing but Congress has yet to pass enabling legislation.

[Obamanaut]

19. Good. This is what the parents of the little girl have as a memory"

<snip>Sauceda was found beaten with a 30- to 40-pound piece of rock, strangled and raped. A piece of wood more than foot long, with a screw protruding from one end, was left in her. <more at link>

http://www.click2houston.com/news/28460239/detail.html

[blkmusclmachine]

21. "Texas. It's like a whole other country."

That's the slogan down here in Texas.

[badtoworse]

22. Read the decision, Congress never enacted legislation that made the treaty enforceable in the US

Absent that or a claimed flaw in the trial, there was no legal basis on which to grant a stay.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. I guess the supremacy clause is no longer part

of the constitution? I think the USSC blew it... but then again, they did in Bush v Gore and with Citizens United.

[badtoworse]

30. Did you not read the decision?

Legislation giving the treaty the force of law was never enacted by Congress. Absent that, it was unenforceable. BTW, as the majority pointed out, the SCOTUS ruled the same way on a similar case in 2008.

Correction required: See Post No. 29

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Read the US Constitution

They blew it, and it will come home to hunt people, who do travel abroad.

[Obamanaut]

54. Even the SCOTUS decision (linked) refers not to Geneva, but to Vienna

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/11-5001.pdf

[Hosnon]

60. I'd say execution causes irreparable harm. My understanding is that the legislation

is pending in Congress.

The SCOTUS should have granted the stay.

[horseshoecrab]

63. I agree n/t

[WillowTree]

23. OK. I feel like playing. What do you think "the Geneva Convention" has to do with it?

[horseshoecrab]

32. Actually...

It is the Vienna Treaty of 1963. The U.S. is a signatory to the treaty but has not ratified it. Being a signatory is evidence of intent to ratify. (As with the Geneva conventions perhaps some of the Vienna conventions are problematic to the U.S.?)

It is common courtesy, and is politic, for a country to notify a foreign national's consul of arrest and charge, particularly with a neighboring border country. It is also the policy of the U.S. to do so, as evidenced by its signatory status to the Vienna agreement.

horseshoecrab

(p.s. I made the same mistake about which treaty it was when discussing it with someone earlier today.)

[WillowTree]

34. That was my point.

[badtoworse]

35. What irony! An illegal alien claiming his rights as a foreign national are being violated!

If nothing else, he's guilty of first degree chutzpah.

[horseshoecrab]

37. You agree

that the U.S. being a signatory to the Vienna Treaty suggests that we ought to follow its conventions? Great.


horseshoecrab

[Hosnon]

62. As has been pointed out, it was ratified.

The SCOTUS is trying to assert authority in an arena I don't think it is "supreme". The distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing is irrelevant on the international stage.

A treaty was ratified by the Senate and is therefore supreme law.

[horseshoecrab]

64. State Dept. website

Department of State has it as never ratified. For what it's worth:
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm

Also, there was a case during the * administration, which prompted * to write to the other signatories and parties that the US would no longer comply with Article 36 of Vienna conventions. Sorry no link, but that is my understanding. * had a habit of ignoring that, first as Gov of TX then as prez.

So, I think that the Obama administration was rightly reasserting our status as parties to the Vienna conventions.

The Supreme's decision is a real shame. This treaty protects US citizens abroad as much as it protects foreign nationals in this country.

[Hosnon]

65. That link is for the status of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Not the the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ntquery/D?trtys:2:./temp/~trtyseV2bWd::

[horseshoecrab]

75. thanks Hosnon for the clarification! n/t

[malaise]

52. Vienna

my bad

[indepat]

24. My best guess as to the impeachment date: the 12th of

never. :patriot:

[EFerrari]

25. I think this is what is meant by "political decay". n/t

[Kaleva]

39. Why request a stay in order to pass a law if people say the Geneva Convention is already in force?

Technically, it's the Vienna Convention that's in question and while the US signed it, it was never ratified by the Senate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Because the Fourth Protocol of the GENEVA convention of 1948

require authorities of signatory state to inform the representatives of that other state of the arrest of one of their nationals. The Vienna Convention expanded someof the protocols. It is really a simple form filed with the DA, and the foreign office, or in the US the US Department of State that sends a cable to that other government.

But that is ok... the USSC is turing back large swaths of law, including the authority of the President to sign treaties or for the supremacy clause... over the tenth amendment. We all know how well that ended the last time the Tenthers got that much force by the way... Fort Sumpter comes to mind... and if the intent of the Federalist society is to return us to a collection of states instead of THE United States, they should go ahead and be quite open about it.

[Kaleva]

43. Then why request a stay in order to give time to pass a law?

Looking at the case before the Supreme Court, I didn't see an argument being made that the 4th Protocol applied. Maybe a stay would have been granted if the defendant's legal team had made the argument you are making.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. My view the USSC wants to destroy whole sale a lot of laws

and standing laws.

I am just telling you that the US signed that treaty... ratified that treaty and indeed, my local cops learn off it in the Academy and learn how to fill that form.

That is the truth... alas we are not in Texas...

And I know Mexico signed that treaty... and I know for a fact I filled a few of them forms, alas in Spanish, and placed the call to the US Consulate, the Polish and the Israeli Consulates... then again, I was working for the Red Cross at the time... so kind of our shtick... but the local cops also filled them. Ok there is one exception. When they picked up kids on Revolucion, often... the local jail served as a drunk tank. Not the best of them, not the nicest, but in that case... nobody bothered filling anything. They were let go next morning.

The other, if we ended up transporting a US Citizen to the border... it really did not matter at that point, so nobody bothered with the paperwork. By the time it made it's way... patient could be either at home, or your local ward in San Diego.

Oh and one more thing the Vienna Convention WAS SIGNED AND RATIFIED by the US SENATE... it is LAW. So the USSC shot up the Supremacy clause

[horseshoecrab]

59. Vienna Convention, Signed and Ratified 1969

You are right Nadin. Thanks.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32390.pdf

U.S. Implementation and Judicial Interpretation of Vienna
Convention Article 36
The United States ratified the Vienna Convention in 1969, six years after
signing the agreement.

At the time, the Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. concluded that there was no accompanying legislation necessary to effect any of the articles and the Senate voted to ratify.


horseshoecrab

[Romulox]

50. Wiki: The 4th Geneva Convention "defines humanitarian protections for civilians in a war"

:shrug:

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

[Hosnon]

61. It was ratified by the Senate on November 4, 1969.

But apparently it isn't a self-executing treaty.

[tammywammy]

40. Vienna not Geneva. n/t

[malaise]

47. I corrected it

Thanks.

[Bluerthanblue]

42. pretty sad eh?

:shrug:

[Romulox]

51. The US has not ratified the Vienna Convention...

http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm

[Hosnon]

66. Yes it has.

There are multiple "Vienna Conventions".

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ntquery/D?trtys:2:./temp/~trtyseV2bWd::

[Romulox]

73. I concede the point. I made a mistake here. However, the US *has* withdrawn

from its optional protocol.

All this may be moot inasmuch as the narrow legal ground the decision rested on seems to be the presence or absence of "enabling legislation" whereby Congress makes the treaty operative as to the States.

[Hosnon]

74. Yep. But I think the SCOTUS should have stayed the execution given the introduction

of enabling legislation.

[pampango]

53. The right wing theory is that international law diminishes our "national sovereignty" which

is to be valued over all else including human rights. :)

[Bill McBlueState]

55. in the eyes of many DUers,

the guy did something really horrible, so international law is unimportant.

I know, surprises me too.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

72. And you know what's stupid? It wouldn't have made a difference!

Some Mexican diplomat would meet with some people, a plea for clemency would be filed, and then refused. And no treaty would have been stomped on.

But noooooo, the rightoids HAD to thumb their noses at the rule of law for no good reason.

[Hosnon]

67. Just to clear things up: The Senate did ratify this treaty.

"The United States has signed and ratified the Vienna Convention, a treaty under which the United States has promised, among other things, to inform an arrested foreign national, such as Leal, that he has a right to request the assistance of his country’s consulate. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention), Art. 36, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U. S. T. 77, 100–101, T. I. A. S. No. 6820." 564 U. S. ____ at 2 (2011) (dissenting opinion).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/11-5001.pdf

ETA: The issue was the distinction between a self-executing treaty and a non-self-executing treaty. Non-self-executing treaties require subsequent congressional legislation to implement them.

ETA2: Oops, that line is from the dissenting opinion. Nevertheless, it was ratified.

[Major Hogwash]

70. Thanks for straightening it out.

It is really confusing when the Supremes don't follow the law.

[Hosnon]

71. Well they largely did, at least as far as domestic law is concerned.

This treaty is apparently non-self-executing. While there is no such distinction in international law (that I'm aware of), there is a distinction in our domestic law. Without implementing legislation, it has zero force domestically.

So pursuant to domestic law, the SCOTUS was right that it does not apply. However, I think they should have granted the stay because implementing legislation has been proposed. The opinion was very condescending and, in my opinion, unprofessionally dismissive of the other two branches of the federal government.

[tavalon]

76. Here's the problem

We here at DU are suffering because we aren't allowing ourselves to be salved by bread and circuses. So we are feeling the death of this empire with great exquisiteness. We aren't willing to take the opiates of the masses so we are stuck watching this giant child stumble and fall just as every empire does. If it's any comfort, this is a very historical time. How many Romans were actually around for the final days of the reign of Rome? How many Brits were actually around for the final days of that empire. There are many alive now who will still be here as our Empire takes it's last dying breaths but few will actually realize it. You and Me, we're watching the end with eyes wide open, painful but historically privileged.

[Rex]

77. What do you expect from the RWing controlled court?

It is the worst BENCH eva! Monkeys could do a better job.

[malaise]

78. Which is why Democrats better vote for Obama

at least he'll change the court

[Bodhi BloodWave]

79. i halfway agree, the problem is that far to many even on this site are cheering it on

in some ways I'd say they are making a mockery of the 'its only a bloody piece of paper' criticism thats sometimes used here when they think Obama is doing something they don't like

Its vital when they consider it important, but as long as its something they dislike, who gives a *bleep*