I completely agree with you.

If we allow a treaty with other countries to come before maintaining a decent society, it would seem that we have given away control of our country to persons that have no real interest in our society.

Despite his being a illegal alien in our country, he was afforded a trial equal to that of a United States citizen. If he could not afford an attorney, one was appointed for him. I am fairly sure that one was. At taxpayer expense too. He was not treated unfairly in that regard. He was cheated of nothing. His trial and appeals, and everything else was just as fair as that of his co-defendants. I cannot see this consulate issue as anything more than an arguement utilized to delay and obstruct his execution. This is not a new tactic, just a new arguement. Probably one of the better and well though out ones I can recall, but a tactic to stall an execution regardless. This is nothing new for the anti death penalty crowd. That is all this is. He was just a pawn in this game. There is no world wide moral outrage. There is no outcry for Jose. No, the world sees this as a man who caused his own demise. this was nothing more than a sceme by persons who for some reason oppose execution.

I knew one of these children. I know her siblings, her parents, her aunt, her uncle, her cousins, and so on. I will forever remember the days her mother spent frantic look for her missing daughter. I will forever remember the day we all found out that two bodies were found by the railroad tracks and it may be the girls. I will never forget the hour we all found out that it was my freinds daughter. I will never forget that funderal that i attended. I will never forget the horrible pain her mother and father and other family members went through viewing the disgusting evidence and testimony during the trial.

The point I’ve making is that the Supremacy Clause of the constitution is VERY important and should be preserved for the sake of our citizens that find themselves in trouble abroad – -especially our citizens that might not enjoy due process in countries with less than fair judicial penal systems.

“Technicality” is a word that is cavalierly tossed around, but we’re not talking about a technicality. We’re talking about a well established line out of one of our most sacred documents – The Constitution. Specifically it says, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States …and all Treaties made…shall be the supreme Law of the land…every State shall be bound…”. The guys that signed our Constitution took this very seriously because they believed in the rule of law. If they were alive today they would probably agree that (1) Medellin deserved the harshest punishment and, (2) that it should have been carried out in accordance with the treaty. He’d be as dead as he is today, but our ability to demand that treaties be observed by other countries would remain intact.

There are two other of your comments with which I take issue. The first is “If you don’t like the penalties of the land you walk in, you have two choices. One is to go elsewhere. Go to a more favorable land. The second is to work to change the laws you dislike.” There is no law in this instance that I dislike. Second, the penalties of the land are totally appropriate. Third, the U.S. is one of the few countries that CAN be called favorable when it comes to due process and respect for the rule of law. The problem is that a simple provision of a treaty wasn’t followed…a provision that is applicable in any other land to which you invite me to go.

The second comment that I think deserves some examination is, What I fail to understand is why is so much effort put into the defense of people who have show nothing good to society. Why is so much sympathy and labor poured out for a person who raped and killed a person?” The reason that so much effort and labour is put in to defending bad people is that in many instances, bad peoples’ cases help shape constitutional boundaries. There are plenty of cases on the books that have helped enshrine important rights that you enjoy that have their genesis in crimes committed by murderers, rapists, and thieves. This really isn’t a case about Medellin. It’s a case about treaty rights that may or may not apply to our citizens and whether the Constitution should be interpreted strictly or whether we should find “technicalities” to avoid its mandates.

Lastly, the only people in this case that were looking out for Medeliin’s interests were his lawyers. The rest of us that are pointing out the simple to understand words in our Constitution are looking at a much bigger picture: What happens when the rule of law is ignored by Texas courts? if China, or Zimbabwe, or Colombia, or Mexico see that we go back on our word what is to keep them from keeping their’s? If treaties don’t supersede state laws then why follow any other Constitutional provisions? (gun laws, voting rights, right to counsel, property rights, the right to make a profit, etc.)

Again, just so that you keep my arguments straight, Medellin deserved what he got. The problem is that in our haste to carry out the punishment we forgot to honor a treaty. He would have been executed EVEN IF he had been given the right to speak to his consulate. The questions nobody seems to be able to answer is: Why is the state of Texas reluctant to let prisoners speak to their consulate? What are we afraid of? Do we have such little faith in our own justice system that we are unwilling to say the following words after their arrest: ” You have a right to an attorney. You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. If you are a foreign citizen you have a right to speak to your consulate.”?

Many tricks were attempted to delay his execution, including this attempt, but fortunately the rule of law was upheld. That was all this was, just a trick, a technicality to try to trip up the system. A person must obey the laws of the land he walks in. He must be held accountable to the land he is in. What happened to basic right and wrong? He committed a crime. He paid the price. If you don’t like the penalties of the land you walk in, you have two choices. One is to go elsewhere. Go to a more favorable land. The second is to work to change the laws you dislike.

What I fail to understand is why is so much effort put into the defense of people who have show nothing good to society. Why is so much sympathy and labor poured out for a person who raped and killed a person? What is society to gain for this? How does trying to save the life of a person who bragged of his horrible crime a good thing? Isn’t there more we can with ourselves? A man who does such horrible crimes is not worthy of your efforts.

Randy Ertman made a point about the mess in Mexico. The crime, the drugs, etc. Although he tends to be a little rough around the edges, I have found him to have a heart of gold. He really has a good point there. Something should be done about that mess down there.

Perhaps the intellect shown by some of these posters on this board could help solve some of societys problems. Who knows, you might save both the life of a future killer and his victim. You could save two lives. Try to turn around the life of a person before they make the awlful decision to rape and kill a person. Change the life of a child before he goes bad instead of all this debating the fine details of a treaty that was never meant to be utilized to save the sorry life of a horrible mean person who was undeserving of your efforts.

Judging from some of the comments above, it looks as if there is still a fundamental misunderstanding about what the treaty requires. It is pretty simple. If a foreign national is arrested he/she MUST be told about their right to contact their consulate. That’s it. We don’t have to do anything else. Just give them a phone call. No delay in process. No delay in justice. No free pass to avoid the death penalty. Just a phone call.

Just because the murders of these little girls is horrendous does not mean that scrapping the constitution or 200+ years of Supreme Court precedence is a good idea. I’m going to quote from Justic Bryer’s opinion in this case:

“The majority’s two holdings taken together produce practical anomalies. They unnecessarily complicate the President’s foreign affairs tasks…for example…worsening relations with our neighbou Mexico [and] precipitating actions by other nations putting at risk American citizens who have the misfortune of being arrested while traveling abroad, or of diminishing or Nations reputation abroad as a result of our failure to follow the “rule of law” principles that we preach. In sum, a strong line of precedent, likely reflecting the view of the Founder, indicates that the treaty provisions before…[is] self executing. In reaching a contrary conclusion, the Court has failed to take proper account of that precedent and, as a result, the Nation may well break its word even though the President seeks to live up to that word and Congress has done nothing to suggest the contrary.”

We preach the “rule of law”, but we conveniently forgot it in this case and, as a result, have weakened our ability to request that it be followed beyond our borders.

OK. This is the part where everyone starts yelling, “but that guys is a monster and he deserves to die…” Apples and oranges my friends. Apples and oranges.

Let us take the emotion out of it. Could Texas have agreed to the International Court Review and if they did not agree with the finding executed Medellin anyways? If they are not legally required to submit to the review then it would follow that they are not bound by any finding. It would only be advisory. If the International Court found no prejudice they would agree to allow the execution to proceed regardless. The International community is satisfied, Medellin is still dead. No harm. No foul on that issue.

I’ll take a crack at it. First of all, please correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that Mexico does not have a death penalty. Well, formally anyway. It is also my understanding that for years there have been Americans “arrested” in Mexico who have been denied any rights, much less international, that is unless they can cough up enough dinero to buy their rights. It’s kind of a common occurrence to be shook down by the Mexican police (i.e., “You ran a stop sign, give me 200 pesos and I’ll let you go” true story btw) and in my view the Mexican government sure doesn’t do a whole lot to stop it. Mexico itself has not always played by the rules when it comes to arresting and detaining American citizens.

But let’s just say, theoretically, that American citizen “John Doe” entered Mexico as a child and grew to adulthood there. At age 18 he rapes and murders two young teenage girls. He fully confesses upon his arrest and does not ask for his treaty rights until years after the fact. He would dearly love to be extradited back to the US where there is (theoretically) no DP. I cannot imagine in a million years that our country would even WANT him back. As far as I’m concerned, Mexico could keep John Doe and pretty much have their way with him. We’re not talking about someone whose rights to due process were violated. They were trying to slither through a narrow legal loophole in order to help Jose avoid punishment. Where is the justice in that? Do you really think that American taxpayers should have to subsidize attempt after attempt for this guy to avoid a death much more humane that what he allowed those two girls? It IS a passionate issue because you’re talking about illegal immigrants, you’re talking about rape and murder, and you’re talking about Texas for crying out loud. I for one am very glad we did not bow down to international pressure on this one. If there was any question of his guilt, then I would applaud his lawyer’s efforts in trying to stave off his death sentence but in this case, it was long past time for justice to be served.