Rogue State Violates International Law, Executes Foreign National!

Users who are viewing this thread

I wonder how much Perry will be laughing when every other non-European nation starts jailing and executing American tourists without due process.

GkTzY.jpg
 
Raedwulf said:
Sir Saladin said:
That's why I always encourage all of the homicidal maniacs and serial rapists that I meet to visit Australia. Let them worry about cleaning his cage and feeding him I say.

Well we did start out as a nation of British convicts and redcoats  :grin:
interesting, good to see how much you all have came along in terms of human rights. See we started out s a bunch of proletarians here in America yet we are staggering socially.
 
Jhessail said:
I wonder how much Perry will be laughing when every other non-European nation starts jailing and executing American tourists without due process.

GkTzY.jpg
He was given due process in regards to US law, but there was an oversight of International Law. Get over it.
 
What, because the man was in the US long enough to get a citizenship if he so desired? Enough Americans are treated like **** or worse in Mexico that I don't think that this is an issue. If it was say, a European who raped and murdered people within a month of arriving in the US who was tried and executed without observing the terms of the Vienna Convention, I would care more.
 
National law still trumps international law, though. In fact, there are many countries in which you will not be extradited for crimes committed in that country.
 
MadocComadrin said:
What, because the man was in the US long enough to get a citizenship if he so desired? Enough Americans are treated like **** or worse in Mexico that I don't think that this is an issue. If it was say, a European who raped and murdered people within a month of arriving in the US who was tried and executed without observing the terms of the Vienna Convention, I would care more.
That's the American perspective that causes problems. You totally lack the capability of looking at the bigger picture.

No one cares about the fact he was a Mexican, or that he was a rapist. All that matter is that the treaty was broken. That's all.
 
MadocComadrin said:
He was given due process in regards to US law, but there was an oversight of International Law. Get over it.
No he wasn't. Under US Law foreign nationals are entitled to Consular assistance. That's what ratifying a treaty usually means :roll:
 
In this case, what assistance do you think they could have provided? I agree that they should have done so, but it is highly unlikely to have made any difference to the result.
 
Arch already mentioned that it wouldn't have actually affected the case, and I agree, but that's not the point.

The treaty doesn't have a special clause stating, 'If you're getting bored and the interpreter won't actually make a difference, feel free to ignore.'

 
Mage246 said:
In this case, what assistance do you think they could have provided? I agree that they should have done so, but it is highly unlikely to have made any difference to the result.

Assistance tends to vary by case and individual. At the very least they'd ensure they had adequate legal representation, access to any financial or similar assistance they might be entitled to from their home country and inform any relatives or friends in their country of the trial, usually facilitating any communication between the two countries.

As said though, it's not whether the assistance would have made any difference that's the issue, it's the fact it was denied. One of the main reasons the convention is there is to assure the foreign country that the trial has taken place under due process of law, and you're not for example waterboarding one of their citizens on the quiet because he happened to have a funny beard. I mean it's no big deal when it's Mexico, but I'm sure people would be happier if WW III didn't get started because Texas locked up a bunch of Chinese people without telling anyone.
 
Austupaio said:
That's the American perspective that causes problems. You totally lack the capability of looking at the bigger picture.

No one cares about the fact he was a Mexican, or that he was a rapist. All that matter is that the treaty was broken. That's all.
So, instead of caring about removing the man from society so he can't kill or rape again, all the people who "see the big picture" are worried about a clause on a piece of paper? No, there is no big or small picture here: you have to swallow the whole thing (giggity). The whole picture here is that it was an oversight, a mistake. With the (over-sensationalized) attention this is getting, you can be sure it won't happen again unless someone is doing it with malice aforethought.

No he wasn't. Under US Law foreign nationals are entitled to Consular assistance. That's what ratifying a treaty usually means
Fine, I'll be more specific. He was treated as if he was a US citizen instead of a foreign national.

 
It's not like everyone forgot he was an International, it wasn't an over-sight. The governor knew exactly what he was doing and he was told not to do it. Repeatedly.
 
Then why get upset at America as a whole? Or even Texas as a whole? The problem is with the Governor. What cause is there for such a blanket emotion? Get over it.
 
Pretty much. It's a wild over-reaction, and also a huge exaggeration as to what the consequences will be.
 
Not really, no one is excited* and no here is exaggerating the consequences either. I just think a good anecdote or two will come of this and I believe that's what Arch is insinuating as well, feel free to correct me.

*Except a bunch of Mexicans.
 
Back
Top Bottom