The Medellin case: What is Bush thinking?

posted at 11:20 am on October 10, 2007 by Bryan

He may be thinking that he’s the Presidente of Mexico. Or he may be thinking that world courts ought to be able to determine US criminal justice policy. Beats me what he’s thinking, but he’s wrong.

At the Supreme Court today, a dangerous principle is being asserted to help an odious man.

The odious man is José Ernesto Medellín, who is on death row in Texas for his role in the 1993 gang rape and murder of two teenage girls. The dangerous principle is that the president of the United States has the power to order state courts to set aside state law in the interest of his foreign policy.

Although Medellín has spent most of his life in this country, he is a citizen of Mexico. Under the Vienna Convention, law enforcement should have informed him when he was arrested that he could contact Mexico’s consulate. He was not so notified. Late in the appeals process he raised the issue. First Texas courts, and then federal courts, found that it would not have changed the outcome of his trial if he had contacted the consulate.

But then the International Court of Justice purported to order the U.S. to reconsider the case because Medellín (and similarly situated prisoners) were not notified of their ability to contact the Mexican consulate. President Bush followed up with a memorandum that, the administration now says, orders state courts to comply with this ruling.

The crimes at the heart of the case are awful, and are the kind of crimes for which governor George W. Bush routinely meted out the death penalty.

On a summer night in 1993, Jennifer Ertman and her friend Elizabeth Pena, both students at Houston’s Waltrip High School, took a shortcut home through a park from another friend’s house when they encountered Medellin and seven other members of the Black and Whites gang.

Raul Villareal, 17, was being initiated into the gang, which required him to fight other gang members for several minutes. Following the ritual, the teens sat in the park drinking beer.

Around 11:30 p.m., as the Ertman and Pena passed the young men, Medellin grabbed Pena and dragged her down a hill.

Testimony showed that Ertman was able to run away but she heard Pena’s cries and returned to help. The other boys grabbed Ertman, and for the next hour proceeded to rape, sodomize and beat the girls before strangling them.

The final act of brutality came when the girl’s bodies were stomped on to make sure they were dead, court testimony shows.

The boys’ were so brazen about their actions that one of them, Derrick Sean O’Brien, even turned up smiling on videotape taken by local news crews reporting at the scene.

The girls’ bodies, meanwhile, were found four days later in a nearby woods.

If not for the fact that Medellin is a Mexican citizen, the ICJ would not have intervened in the case and Bush wouldn’t have sided with them. So we’re once again in the position of seeing our president extending legal protections to foreign nationals who commit crimes against Americans that Americans don’t have. And he’s probably wrong on the merits.

As the state of Texas points out in its brief, the president is asserting an authority that intrudes on Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal judiciaries. The Senate ratified the Vienna Convention with the understanding that it created no individual rights and would not be enforced in state courts. The administration actually agrees that the convention doesn’t create individual rights and can’t be enforced in state courts. It argues, however, that the president has the unilateral power to figure out how to follow treaty obligations.

If the president’s argument wins, then as Ramesh points out, the Senate’s advise and consent role in ratifying treaties becomes meaningless: The president can just do whatever he wants.

That’s too much power for any president to have, and in this case it’s being misused to stay the execution of a brutal criminal who shouldn’t even be in the US at all. The president ought to lose this case, and he ought to be asked why he has intervened on behalf of a child killer.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

There is ONE (just ONE) questions

Do we have a treaty with Mexico stating that our prisoners from each others countries have a RIGHT to talk to the Consulate? Not CAN, not HAVE THE OPTION, but HAVE THE RIGHT a’la a Miranda Right.

If we do, we have no choice. US Treaties are superior to state law under the Necessary and Proper Clause. And there are dozens of cases where laws made to support a US treaty is held over any State law.

If we don’t, Texas and the US Government can tell the ICJ to frak off since they don’t have the power to order any court to do such.

Defector01 on October 10, 2007 at 11:26 AM

I called the White House yesterday and whomever answered (a woman) lectured me on the World Court and how I needed to study my History and how Americans are treated abroad. I thought I was going to scream. I just said, “well thank you for your time, know you don’t care, I’m sick of this with W” and hung up.
Does anyone have a clue as to what the Mexicans have on him?

Catie96706 on October 10, 2007 at 11:27 AM

The answer is obvious. The elites in Washington have so promoted a pro-illegal immigration stance that they are now in what is essentially an economic partnership with Mexico. Because of this when Mexico complains there is a need to go along with their complaints, whims and desires regardless of the circumstances and consequences. Also, there will always be a need for a very public stunt (for lack of a better words) to pander to a voting community.

And, no, it does not matter that this is about a gang rape and vicious double homicide. It does not matter at all.

GogglesPisano on October 10, 2007 at 11:29 AM

And does anyone else notice there is dead silence on the part of a number of talk show hosts? Not all, but some. Yes, the same talk show hosts who routinely critique the UN are dead silent on this. Can you imagine if Bill Clinton did this?

GogglesPisano on October 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM

So, let’s say we have to ship this guy back to Mexico. Can’t we just arrange for a slight “weapons malfunction” in the process, and deal with the problem in a most efficient and finite way? What’s Mexico going to do if that happens? Invade us? Like they haven’t been doing that for the past century…

jedijson on October 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM

467 DAYS 12 Hrs 21 Min 12.0 Sec

AND IT CAN”T COME SOON ENOUGH!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on October 10, 2007 at 11:39 AM

I am actually against the death penalty (sanctity of life argument). But Bush has upheld many death penalty cases. This case is a reason that the Republicans are not doing well among conservatives.

Conservative principles are of no consequence to Bush or the Republican party anymore. I recognize that the death penalty is a conservative stance. I recognize that the death penalty is law on the books. Under no circumstance would I imagine pardoning this death row inmate due to ‘international relations’. He broke our law, he should suffer under our penalties.

The GOP, who needs constituents, eh?

ThackerAgency on October 10, 2007 at 11:48 AM

From what Meghan Kelly is saying on Fox right now, states must adhere to the Federal law, which states we have to abide by international law on this case.

What I find ironic is that Bush will push for the rights of this illegal and supercede state rights for federal law; but, he won’t inforce other federal laws in regards to protecting our borders, cutting off funds to states that are ignoring federal law by creating sanctuary cities, etc.

Bush should be impeached over this.

moonsbreath on October 10, 2007 at 11:51 AM

In some ways Bush’s presidency is downright schizophrenic. Ironically, Roberts and Alito (justices that he appointed) will hopefully rule against him on this madness.

infidel4life on October 10, 2007 at 11:54 AM

This is one of those “Willie Horton” moments. The place where high-minded (and hypothetical) ideas meet the realities of the world.

Contrary to the sensationalization in much of the media, GWB and the administration are not personally defending this scum or his current ability to breathe. Some of the news reports make it sound as if GWB is going to give this guy a lift back to Mexico once he is freed from prison! Behind the hysteria, there really are some important principles in play. The right of the POTUS to interpret treaties. States rights. Rights of non-citizens under American law, even if illegally in the country. The right/necessity of America securing her Southern border from the scum that enters along with those wishing the nation no harm.

I come down on the side of thinking the President is wrong in this case because a technicality found in a treaty should not circumvent justice. Nevertheless, those who simply viewing this as a “Bush likes illegals” situation are being to myopic in their opinions.

highhopes on October 10, 2007 at 11:56 AM

I guess this is what happens when you leave the law in the hands of lawyers, meaning those third-rate law school graduates who go on to become legislators, whether domestically or internationally. Utterly vile.

Leonidas Hoplite on October 10, 2007 at 12:01 PM

So we negotiated a treaty that ultimately turns our national sovereignty over our judicial system over to a foreign court?

rockhauler on October 10, 2007 at 12:02 PM

It all seems very simple to me. HE WANTS HILLARY ELECTED

This way if she is elected and serves 2 Terms we will have the first Woman President,
Then Jeb Bush’s son will run for President and we will have our first Hispanic American President If he serves 2 terms then Chelsea can Run and serve 2 terms.
At this point One of the Bush twins can run for President or one of Bill Clinton’s illegitimate children can run. (odds are good that there are at least a few of these around – with probably more on the way.

The problem is that no matter who you vote for the government always ends up in office.

400lb Gorilla on October 10, 2007 at 12:06 PM

So am I correct that a) you can’t inquire as to somebody’s immigration status when you arrest them, but b) if you arrest an alien, you must advise them of their consular rights? Do we now have to expand Miranda to include “Also, if you happen to not be a US citizen, you have a right to consult with an embassy official of your country of origin”?

Blacklake on October 10, 2007 at 12:21 PM

i remember this case. what one of the local (Houston) news outlets reported is that while the girls were being killed, one of the killers had choked her with the heel of his boot.

we pride ourselves on death row – sick as it may seem to others. but we believe in justice. This is not justice.

madmonkphotog on October 10, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Re. the Mexican death-row inmate and President Bush, how about Governor Bush’s minor involvement in a similar case with “Canadian”, Stanley Faulder?

And here.

And here.

And here.

Sorry about all of the leftie links but they were the ones that were most-easily found. Hilariously, the NYT‘s link contains two appended corrections. Ah, for armies of fact checkers!

And here’s an aggregate of many such stories.

BTW, I couldn’t find the info in the Googling that I did, but it seems to me that Faulder hadn’t been back to Canada or contacted his family in something like 15 years before committing the torture-murder of the old woman. (But whatever the actual year count was, he hadn’t been in Canada for years and didn’t bother contacting his family any time during his imprisonment until a lawyer finally came up with the “informing the consulate” loophole.)

andycanuck on October 10, 2007 at 12:24 PM

What the… for years we’ve had a general, and misguided, policy within law enforcement that discouraged discovery at time of arrest of the suspect’s nationality.

Now, that “don’t ask” policy is being used to negate past legal decisions and judgments?

If we are bound by treaty to honor determinations by the International Court of Justice, then every damn suspect in custody should have citizenship determined immediately. If this International Court supersedes state and local laws, it should become the justification for the President to mandate the end of sanctuary cities and other “don’t ask” policies.

T J Green on October 10, 2007 at 12:26 PM

‘W’ is dead set on keeping the Republicans out of office in ’08. He’ll do anything to bring this outcome. You can’t count on your toes and fingers combined how many times he’s sided with the liberals since re-election. Nor can you count on those same digits how many times he’s been wrong since re-election. If Clinton’s 2nd term is combined with Bush’s 2nd term the results kinda say something about revising the term limit on the POTUS don’t it?

Griz on October 10, 2007 at 12:26 PM

The administration has to stick the “official” position, not what they personally would like to see happen.

This creep should be hung in public square. Does anyone think that will happen? The libs have emasculated us, metaphorically speaking…

The supremes will be loathe to let this guy go free, and in the meantime, cheer up, he may have a unexpected Dahmer moment…

dogsoldier on October 10, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Forgive me, my law school days are too far behind me, but Federalist Society dues are paid up. I seem to recall that the International Court of Justice provides “advisory” decisions. It appears, then, that Mr. Bush ( I won’t call him President any more) has decided to kowtow to his La Raza friends only and U. S. sovereignty be damned. SCOTUS needs to decide correctly and rule that advisory comments do not supercede U. S. law and sovereign rights. Oh, and as far as Geneva Convention agreements are concerned? Which versions and when is that last time our troops were ever protected by said Conventions?

MNDavenotPC on October 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM

King Jorge is at it again. He seems to take a certain sick pleasure in turning our country into Mexico.

PRCalDude on October 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM

I’m bi-polar on the death penalty. I go for a year following Christian doctrine and opposing the killing of another by our government, and then I remember that our military must rightfully do the same thing and I come back to support it.

Today I support it: put these subhuman vermin to death, quickly.

Jaibones on October 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Raul Villareal, 17, was being initiated into the gang, which required him to fight other gang members for several minutes. Following the ritual, the teens sat in the park drinking beer.

Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.

PRCalDude on October 10, 2007 at 12:31 PM

He broke our law, he should suffer under our penalties.

I probably should restate this because I don’t think this statement is a good idea. Mainly it is a bad idea because there may be a case in which I unknowingly break a law in a country with ‘sharia law’ and I’d want international justice rather than ‘sharia law’ to dictate my fate.

However, if this guy murdered two girls, I’d think that at a minimum he should be removed from society so that he is no longer a threat to anyone else’s life and liberty.

sorry to have to clarify my position here. I expect to respect the laws of the country I visit or suffer the consequences though.

ThackerAgency on October 10, 2007 at 12:32 PM

I’m bi-polar on the death penalty. I go for a year following Christian doctrine and opposing the killing of another by our government, and then I remember that our military must rightfully do the same thing and I come back to support it.

Today I support it: put these subhuman vermin to death, quickly.

Jaibones on October 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Uh, the Bible supports the death penalty whole-heartedly:

And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Genesis 9:5-6

PRCalDude on October 10, 2007 at 12:33 PM

I guess this is what happens when you leave the law in the hands of lawyers, meaning those third-rate law school graduates who go on to become legislators, whether domestically or internationally. Utterly vile.

Leonidas Hoplite on October 10, 2007 at 12:01 PM

I’m increasingly in the favor of the Swiss approach.

PRCalDude on October 10, 2007 at 12:35 PM

I remember that our military must rightfully do the same thing and I come back to support it.

I understand what you are saying here. But war is totally different. Generally what happens in war is kill or be killed so self defense is justified.

Death penalty is simply being God. It isn’t self defense. But like I said, I understand it is not a conservative principle. And if elected :) I would uphold the law that is on the books while lobbying to change the law.

ThackerAgency on October 10, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Death penalty is simply being God. It isn’t self defense. But like I said, I understand it is not a conservative principle. And if elected :) I would uphold the law that is on the books while lobbying to change the law.

ThackerAgency on October 10, 2007 at 12:35 PM

According to what? Which God are you talking about here?

PRCalDude on October 10, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Uh, the Bible supports the death penalty whole-heartedly:

Yeah, it’s all through the Bible. The whole ‘eye for an eye’ thing. But Christians sort of believe in a New Covenant through Christ.

Again, there is a commandment that says thou shall not kill also. There is also a commandment that says thou shall not commit adultery. But Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and was the wisest and most blessed man in the Bible. What’s the definition of adultery? Anybody know what ‘is’ is?

I just think the death penalty is barbaric in a civilized society. At the same time, killing in war can be necessary too.

ThackerAgency on October 10, 2007 at 12:39 PM

There are two dates on a tombstone generally determined by God. Date of Birth, Date of Death.

If you kill someone, you are ‘playing God’ with the second date. Also, it gives Ahmadinejad ammunition by saying, ‘we’re just like you. We have the death penalty too.’

I think you should put people away forever to remove the threat from society. But God should be the only One to determine when people die. It’s a personal opinion that isn’t popular and I understand that. I’ll agree to disagree if you will.

ThackerAgency on October 10, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Yeah, it’s all through the Bible. The whole ‘eye for an eye’ thing. But Christians sort of believe in a New Covenant through Christ.

Again, there is a commandment that says thou shall not kill also. There is also a commandment that says thou shall not commit adultery. But Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and was the wisest and most blessed man in the Bible. What’s the definition of adultery? Anybody know what ‘is’ is?

I just think the death penalty is barbaric in a civilized society. At the same time, killing in war can be necessary too.

ThackerAgency on October 10, 2007 at 12:39 P

Now you’re just compounding your exegetical errors. Let’s leave Solomon out of this, because you’re misrepresenting the Bible’s take on Solomon’s foreign wives.

The Bible distinguishes to spheres: the kingdom of God (the church) and the kingdom of Man (civil government, etc). The two are not antithetical, and God often uses the kingdom of man to the benefit of the church. However, according to Romans 13 (where the two spheres are further distinguished), God has ordained civil government to keep order and to exercise justice as it sees fit, being ever mindful that it is God’s servant. I’ve already shown that murder demands capital punishment in Genesis 9:5-6 to satisfy God’s demands for justice, but Scripture also ordains, indeed, demands, government carry out this justice.

PRCalDude on October 10, 2007 at 12:52 PM

andycanuck on October 10, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Excellent work! And to think it was Madeline Albright petitioning Governor George Bush in the Faulder case back in ’98 for a reprieve. Faulder was eventually executed in June of ’99 but your links show that many such cases are currently in the works.

JiangxiDad on October 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Do we now have to expand Miranda to include “Also, if you happen to not be a US citizen, you have a right to consult with an embassy official of your country of origin”?

Blacklake on October 10, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Careful there Black! You are skirting very close to “racial profiling” by even making the assumption that non-citizens would be committing crimes in the first place! They are here just to pick our lettuce, mow our lawns and clean our bathrooms, remember? How on earth could you suggest illegals are involved in horrific crimes or drug distribution when so many have assured us that everyone coming across the border is a honest hard-working “migrant?”

highhopes on October 10, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Again, there is a commandment that says thou shall not kill also.

No there isn’t, read a good translation from the Hebrew for once.

The hebrew verb for kill is “harag” the verb that appears in the 6th commandment is different it is “ratsha”. Ratsha is translated best as murder or killing with criminal or unlawful intent.

Darksbane on October 10, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Again, there is a commandment that says thou shall not kill also. There is also a commandment that says thou shall not commit adultery. But Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and was the wisest and most blessed man in the Bible. What’s the definition of adultery? Anybody know what ‘is’ is?

Solomon also lost favor with God. He broke covenant by doing these deplorable things–God told him SPECIFICALLY to NOT marry outside God’s Chosen People. But he did it anyway, out of “diplomacy.” Because of this, the nation sank into a deplorable state of sin for years. When he died, the kingdom was split, with the smaller piece going to Rehoboam (Solomon’s son and heir). While Rehoboam tried to follow what God requested, it was shortlived. IMO, it was because he married a woman who worshipped an idol rather than the one true God, but that’s beside the point. Anyway, the nation was in a horrible state until Asa and then Jehoshaphat came along years later.

So my point: Yes, Solomon committed adultery. And not only he, but the entire nation, paid for it.

(Sorry for the threadjack, but I felt I needed to explain this little tidbit more fully.)

jedijson on October 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM

Please don’t turn this extremely important case into a Bible lesson.

moonsbreath on October 10, 2007 at 1:03 PM

there may be a case in which I unknowingly break a law in a country with ’sharia law’ and I’d want international justice rather than ’sharia law’ to dictate my fate.

I expect to respect the laws of the country I visit or suffer the consequences though.

ThackerAgency on October 10, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Aren’t these contradictions?

JiangxiDad on October 10, 2007 at 1:05 PM

O.J. proved it for me, and there’ve been countless examples like this since which have reaffirmed it.

There is no justice in this country.

The latter half of the twentieth century proceeded to rob us of any sense of punishment fitting the crime. And now we have child rapists getting probation. “Restorative justice”.

And now we have a president who is selling out our sovereignty and our border security, and giving away rights to aliens who rape, kill, and murder our citizens.

By the end of my lifetime, the country as we know it will be gone if this does not end.

Hawkins1701 on October 10, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena, you have the right to remain silent.

That sounds cold but they (and their families) have no right to justice while these POS’s are given every right to the point that being released is a viable option.

I think I will go throw up now.

On-my-soap-box on October 10, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Uhh, this guy is EVIL. We are not called on as Christians to keep Evil alive.

EVIL EVIL EVIL. Bush, you disgust me if you don’t atleast try to push that justice is done for those poor girls. Law or not, this needs to be fought to show that we believe this is wrong and dealt with the most severe penalty that can be given. If we lose this, we need to reexamine our laws….that is unfair that we allow outsiders to come in and do these heinous crimes and they are judged on a different plane than our own citizens.

Bush did not grant (and rightfully so) karla faye tucker clemency…neither should this guy get anything less than what our courts gave him….death.

Highrise on October 10, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Do we now have to expand Miranda to include “Also, if you happen to not be a US citizen, you have a right to consult with an embassy official of your country of origin”?

Blacklake on October 10, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Right. Medellin didn’t have to be officially and individually informed. If the Mexican government asked for a list of their nationals in US prisons, and if Medellin informed US authorities that he was a Mexican citizen, then the Mexican government could have interviewed their citizen.

JiangxiDad on October 10, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Hawkins1701

It’s going a bit far to say we have NO justice in this country.

I had a professor who was an attorney teaching me law 101. I won’t forget his words: In our Judicial system, you get a CHANCE at justice.

When you look at other countries, I have to say, I’ll take America’s any day.

Highrise on October 10, 2007 at 1:09 PM

If Texas had followed the Vienna Convention, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. The benefit of participating in the treaty would seem to be protecting the rights of Americans abroad. Being able to contact the American consulate is something our citizens would value if caught up in a foreign legal system.

dedalus on October 10, 2007 at 1:13 PM

I am actually against the death penalty (sanctity of life argument).

You’re wrong. It is because of the precious sanctity of life that those who do not respect it should be put to death themselves. This is very much taught in the Bible, so any attempt to portray Christianity as being against the death penalty (when appropriate) is simply incorrect analysis.

2Brave2Bscared on October 10, 2007 at 1:34 PM

So, let me get this straight.

Someone can live illegally in our country and demand rights, suck from the social programme teat and choose to continue to live in this country while law enforcement is generally prohibited from even ascertaining their legal status; yet when they commit a heinous crime that they admit to, they can cry “I’m not a citizen” and get special treatment?

So you can argue for your rights, until that means you have to actually pay for a crime, in which case you get for different, better rights.

linlithgow on October 10, 2007 at 1:54 PM

If Texas had followed the Vienna Convention, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. The benefit of participating in the treaty would seem to be protecting the rights of Americans abroad. Being able to contact the American consulate is something our citizens would value if caught up in a foreign legal system.

dedalus

Texas, nor North Carolina, Oregon or New Hampshire, can not sign the Vienna or Geneva Convention. The Constitution prevents states from signing international legal documents. The US Government would sign it and it would be applied to all states.

Again Do we have any provision that makes this demand in our treaty with Mexico? If we do then it is for sure we have to follow it. If its a statute put in by Congress then Texas has a fighting chance to overturn it since statutory law is on equal grounds with State Law. Treaties are higher then state law.

And about all this death penalty crap, its in the torah, to take a life for taking a life. King David and King Solomon did the same. You forfeit the sanctity of your life as soon as you took another.

Defector01 on October 10, 2007 at 1:55 PM

I should clarify, when I say different, better rights, I mean you get to leverage the consulate of another country and put pressure to bear in order to get more favourable treatment.

linlithgow on October 10, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Does anyone have a clue as to what the Mexicans have on him?

Catie96706 on October 10, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Excellent question. It must be something big, for Bush to be pandering to the criminal Mexican element to such great extent. I wonder how long it will take to find out?

NTWR on October 10, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Does anyone have a clue as to what the Mexicans have on him?
Catie96706 on October 10, 2007 at 11:27 AM

It may not have anything to do with what the Mexicans have on him but more with the President is the “sole organ of foreign negotiations.” Any President has virtually unlimited authority in the area of foreign negotiations, with the exception of the advice and consent of the Senate for Treaties and Ambassadors. Consequently, the President believes that good relations with other countries begins with us treating their citizens according to the treaties that we have signed. However, the key question is one of federalism. Has the president, in his directions to the State courts, effectively commandeered them? If so, is this constitutional? I don’t think so. There is an argument that the Treaties, which are federal law and so they supersede State laws, should compel State courts to insure that defendants are allowed the protections offered by the Treaty, but you still have the problem of the President commandeering the State courts. Fascinating stuff, really.

p.s. more info can be found at:

Troy Rasmussen on October 10, 2007 at 2:14 PM

So am I correct that a) you can’t inquire as to somebody’s immigration status when you arrest them, but b) if you arrest an alien, you must advise them of their consular rights? Do we now have to expand Miranda to include “Also, if you happen to not be a US citizen, you have a right to consult with an embassy official of your country of origin”?

Blacklake on October 10, 2007 at 12:21 PM

How about this instead: The Supreme Court rules that BECAUSE OF THIS TREATY, sanctuary cities are now illegal and against public policy as a matter of law (ie, ALL sanctuary cities get ZERO federal funds) AND EVERY CRIMINAL ARREST MUST include substantiation of american citizenship to ensure we give all fair trials, and EVERY illegal alien MUST be reported to ICE.

Take THAT, muchachos.

JustTruth101 on October 10, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Again Do we have any provision that makes this demand in our treaty with Mexico? If we do then it is for sure we have to follow it.

My understanding is that the U.S. and Mexico are both signatories of the the treaty. The protection is reciprocal and the argument that the administration is making is that the president needs to be able to keep the U.S. in compliance with the treaty in order to conduct foreign policy and make sure that other nations honor their commitments.

The Supreme Court ruling will involve executive power, separation of powers, international laws, and federalism. It should be educational. It should be educational.

dedalus on October 10, 2007 at 2:36 PM

I guarantee his decision also has something to do with illegal Elvira being deported without given the opportunity to speak with the Mexican Consulate. So Mexico is going to put pressure on this case.

xler8bmw on October 10, 2007 at 3:08 PM

The liberals have been right from the start! George Bush is a moron! I can’t believe I voted for this idiot twice! I will NEVER EVER make that mistake again starting with Rudy!

sabbott on October 10, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Am I missing something? In the original report it states that Medellin had a right protected by International Treaty to contact his consulate when he was arrested. I missed the part that says he has a right to contact his consulate and then be repatriated back to Mexico after committing this crime. Would someone show me where to find that part of the treaty. I just assumed that he had the right to talk to his consulate like he would have the right to talk to a lawyer.

Guest1.1 on October 10, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Maybe somebody can help me.

According to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the ICJ can only exercise what they call “contentious jurisdiction” over signatories to the UN Charter and the statute, but then only over states that have recognized its jurisdiction independent of being a signatory to the charter and the statute. Recognition can come in several ways but it must be express. I must have missed it, but when, and by what treaty, declaration or other implementing legislation did the United States consent to the contentious jurisdiction of the ICJ?

Basically, besides being angry about the extremely dangerous precendent this could set, I don’t understand why the President even feels that the Avena decision applies to US domestic criminal law at all? Quite frankly, I don’t think it does.

Here is the Avena decision for anyone interested: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/128/1913.pdf

Also, the Respondent’s brief for the State of Texas is excellent as well: http://www.debevoise.com/publications/pdf/TexasrespondentsbriefMedellin2007.PDF

Thanks.

Russ

russcote on October 10, 2007 at 3:37 PM

. I must have missed it, but when, and by what treaty, declaration or other implementing legislation did the United States consent to the contentious jurisdiction of the ICJ?

I thought we withdrew from the optional protocols of the Vienna Treay of ’63 regarding consular notification in ’05, but after the Medellin case had begun. We initially ratified it in ’69.

JiangxiDad on October 10, 2007 at 3:50 PM

Another interesting case involving Germans executed in the US who were also not advised of their rights to consular notification.

JiangxiDad on October 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM

It’s pathetic to see people call themselves Christian and support the death penalty. Sure, they’ll attempt to say “I’m a sinner so I’m allowed to violate the beliefs I supposedly hold sacred,” but what it boils down to is a lust for blood that even a rereading of The Bible won’t cure.

Nonfactor on October 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Nonfactor on October 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Wonder if you’ll find any takers.

JiangxiDad on October 10, 2007 at 3:54 PM

I thought we withdrew from the optional protocols of the Vienna Treay of ‘63 regarding consular notification in ‘05, but after the Medellin case had begun. We initially ratified it in ‘69.

Thanks JiangxiDad. I didn’t realize the OPVCCR included an express dispute resolution delegation for that issue.

And, since we did nullify our ratification in 2005, setting a Supreme Court precedent now would effectively achieve the same result as that which we decided we wouldn’t let the ICJ achieve.

Thanks again.

Russ

russcote on October 10, 2007 at 4:07 PM

russcote on October 10, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Don’t really know how disputes were supposed to be resolved. Also, nullification doesn’t mean we are not in fact notifying consular officials now. I don’t know what we are doing, whether it’s ad hoc or institutionalized. I do know that Medellin is far from the only case.

JiangxiDad on October 10, 2007 at 4:13 PM

JiangxiDad on October 10, 2007 at 4:13 PM

The way I understand it, only signatories to the UN Charter are able to utilize the ICJ. However, in any given dispute or issue among member states, the ICJ can only exercise “contentious jurisdiction”, (as opposed to “advisory jurisdiction”) if a member state expressly recognizes the ICJ’s jurisdiction on that issue. The OPVCCR, which we ratified in 1969 as you mentioned, regulates relations between signatory member’s consulates; in this case, relating to the rights of foreign nationals to have detaining states notify them of their right to notify their home consulates that they’ve been detained. The OPVCCR also expressly grants the ICJ jurisdiction over any disputes arising under the convention.

In 2005, we nullified our ratification of the convention, and with it our recognition of the ICJ’s dispute resolution jurisdiction. Now, you’re right, it would seem that because the Medellin matter arose before our nullification, the ICJ would maintain jurisdiction over the dispute. This is where the State of Texas’ separation of powers arguments come into play. I think Texas has the far stronger argument here on the merits, especially when you couple it with the fact that the United States expressly repealed our ratification of the treaty, albeit after Medellin.

Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Medellin here and set a precedent for future incidents of this nature, it would be effectively nullifying the United States nullification: The judicial branch nullifying an executive branch treaty nullification that was arguably never implemented by the legislative branch, and the exeuctive branch then agreeing with that outcome.

This is a true test of the Roberts court.

Russ

russcote on October 10, 2007 at 4:39 PM

The judicial branch nullifying an executive branch treaty nullification that was arguably never implemented by the legislative branch, and the exeuctive branch then agreeing with that outcome.

This is a true test of the Roberts court.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous. Wish the court was not involved.

JiangxiDad on October 10, 2007 at 4:51 PM

MNDavenotPC on October 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I don’t even call him Mr. Bush. A lot of other things, not mr.

SIJ6141 on October 10, 2007 at 5:01 PM

I find it interesting reading some of the comments about international law, treaties, and so on.

Exit question: If you get arrested in Mexico, do you have a RIGHT to contact the U.S. consulate? Do you have Miranda Rights? Has anyone around here been arrested or know someone who was arrested in Mexico?

Sultry Beauty on October 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM

It’s pathetic to see people call themselves Christian and support the death penalty. Sure, they’ll attempt to say “I’m a sinner so I’m allowed to violate the beliefs I supposedly hold sacred,” but what it boils down to is a lust for blood that even a rereading of The Bible won’t cure.

Nonfactor on October 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM

The Bible ordains secular government to utilize the death penalty. That is what Romans chapter 13 teaches.

It is not a “lust for blood” at all.

It is simply correct Biblical interpretation.

By the way, I was rooting for your Packers the other day…

ColtsFan on October 10, 2007 at 6:33 PM

The Medellin case: What is Bush thinking?

Can’t figure it out for the life of me. . Is it another Bush rope-a-dope ? ? Who knows. . I know one thing , I remember that day Randy Ertman was being interviewed about his missing daughter when he heard the police found his daughter in the woods. The media just kept the cameras rolling as this poor guy went crazy wild trying to get to his daughter. It was horrible. Why any of these bastards are still breathing is a puzzlement. They should have been taken to the back of the jailhouse right after sentencing and plugged in the back of there evil heads. . .
http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html

Texyank on October 10, 2007 at 7:26 PM

One of the biggest problems with opponents of the death penalty is that, if you follow the reasoning behind their arguments, no punishments at all could be implemented. This applies to both the constitutional/legal arguments and the Biblical/Christian arguments.
For those who believe the Bible somehow prohibits capital punishment, someone please show me where it allows life prison terms, traffic fines, or even license suspensions.

Christ and His Apostles called on individual Christians to forgive, not governments. If governments shouldn’t execute criminals simply because individuals shouldn’t (or it’s “playing God” or whatever), what about throwing a guy behind bars for the rest of his life? Or even a month? What kind of punishment is acceptable?

Lancer on October 10, 2007 at 7:48 PM

BTW, the only legitimate reason I can see for Bush taking the side on this issue that he has is that he is concerned that if we don’t do it, then foreign countries might not be inclined to let Americans have access to our consulates when the situation is reversed. Which might be a worthwhile endeavour, if our State Department were actually in the business of representing US interests. As it is, however….

Lancer on October 10, 2007 at 7:52 PM

America is dying. Get out now.

urbancenturion on October 10, 2007 at 11:22 PM

One of the biggest problems with opponents of the death penalty is that, if you follow the reasoning behind their arguments, no punishments at all could be implemented. This applies to both the constitutional/legal arguments and the Biblical/Christian arguments.

Good point.

Christ and His Apostles called on individual Christians to forgive, not governments. If governments shouldn’t execute criminals simply because individuals shouldn’t (or it’s “playing God” or whatever), what about throwing a guy behind bars for the rest of his life? Or even a month? What kind of punishment is acceptable?

Lancer on October 10, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Lancer, your careful analysis and keen logic are right on track. I commend you for keeping your reasoning faithful to the Scriptures.

With the onset of the “death of theology” from most church pulpits on Sunday mornings across our nation, mere emotion or “sentimentality” of a fluffy, weird sort has replaced concern and attention for theology and logic.

You are articulating very well the Reformed “2 Kingdom View” which the Bible speaks about.

ColtsFan on October 10, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Maybe Georgey would understand if it was HIS daughters or wife. He wouldn’t be so quick to cut this piece of filth loose. I’m convinced he’s completetly off his rocker. He’s changed completely from what I thought he was. He actually is afraid of and likes the mexicans. What does he care. His family won’t be robbed or raped by these s***heads. He believes his ‘hard working wonderful mexican people’ idea. Just like he believes islam is a ‘religion of peace’. He won’t be remembered for any good he did for our country, but for the stupidity and injustice of cutting this gangbanger loose and bending over for CAIR and the islamofacists.

countywolf on October 11, 2007 at 1:01 AM

By the end of my lifetime, the country as we know it will be gone if this does not end.

Hawkins1701 on October 10, 2007 at 1:05 PM

-
I was born a fair number of years ago and the country as I knew it is already gone.

Herikutsu on October 11, 2007 at 1:27 AM

ColtsFan on October 10, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Okay, I read Romans 13 and wow. If we’re going to start basing our actions on those tripe instructions we might as well invalidate the entire Declaration of Independence and a good part of the Bill of Rights.

The authorities that exist have been established by God.
he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted

Those two sections alone ought to make any freedom loving person cringe. To me all Romans 13 sounds like is a section of the Bible that those in authority could conveniently use to control the masses.

Nonfactor on October 11, 2007 at 4:38 AM

The authorities that exist have been established by God.
he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted.

So Hitler was established by God and when we rebelled against him we rebelled against a divine institution. Sigh.

You didn’t want to mess with the Romans back then. They crucified people. What better way to get the Roman authorities on board but to issue divine commands to render unto Caesar.

frreal on October 11, 2007 at 6:58 AM

Mr. Bush ( I won’t call him President any more) has decided to kowtow to his La Raza friends only and U. S. sovereignty be damned

Yea, I don’t like this treaty… but I’ll enforce it this time?

What’s next? UN gun control? Also didn’t we appeal to someone under this treaty when the Iranians stormed our embassy? Worked out peachy for us… way to go Greorge! You have taken one more step toward tearing this country apart… I wonder if the people on capital hill realize that WE own this country, not them. (Ref: 1. Declaration of Independance 2. Constitution)

BadBrad on October 11, 2007 at 7:36 AM

frreal on October 11, 2007 at 6:58 AM

Exactly.

Nonfactor on October 11, 2007 at 3:36 PM

I go for a year following Christian doctrine and opposing the killing of another by our government

Jaibones on October 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM

That’s not a Christian doctrine at all.

2Brave2Bscared on October 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM