Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 04/02/2004 View Thu 04/01/2004 View Wed 03/31/2004 View Tue 03/30/2004 View Mon 03/29/2004 View Sun 03/28/2004 View Sat 03/27/2004
1
2004-04-02 International-UN-NGOs
Mexican President: U.N., World Court Must Take Action
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve 2004-04-02 3:40:01 PM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 "the International Court of Justice and the United Nations will have to take action..."

I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing.
Posted by Matt 2004-04-02 4:39:24 PM||   2004-04-02 4:39:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I guess we'll have to hurry up and kill 'em. God forbid, we'd have to face the wrath of the International Court of Justice AND the UN, but I think I could live with the consequences.
Posted by tu3031 2004-04-02 4:55:47 PM||   2004-04-02 4:55:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Here is a link to the ICJ, and here is the current composition of this esteemed judicial body:

President
Shi Jiuyong (China)
Vice-President
Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar)
Judges
Gilbert Guillaume (France)
Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone)
Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation)
Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom)
Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela)
Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands)
Francisco Rezek (Brazil)
Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan)
Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America)
Nabil Elaraby (Egypt)
Hisashi Owada (Japan)
Bruno Simma (Germany)
Peter Tomka (Slovakia)

Registrar
Mr. Philippe Couvreur (Belgium)

It is so reasurring that Presidente Fox has such concern for his convicted murdering countymen. This is simply a power play on his part. Try getting some justice as an American in a Mexican jail.
Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-04-02 4:56:45 PM||   2004-04-02 4:56:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Mexican President Vicente Fox said Friday the International Court of Justice and the United Nations will have to take action if the United States doesn't comply with a ruling that it review the cases of 51 Mexicans on death row.

Take action??? And what, pray tell, is this "action" going to be?

Note to GWB: this is what you get for your efforts to be buddies with a sleazoid like Fox. You may want to think long and hard about that little amnesty plan of yours.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-04-02 5:30:09 PM||   2004-04-02 5:30:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I respectfully disagree here. The Vienna Conventions of 1963 is an internation treaty the United States have signed. Hence it needs to follow them. Let's take a look at the paragraph in question:

Article 36

COMMUNICATION AND CONTACT WITH NATIONALS OF THE SENDING STATE

1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State:
(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;
(b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph;
(c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and
correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or
detention if he expressly opposes such action.

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.

What does this mean: The detainee has the right to request consular assistance AND he MUST be informed about this right. And as individual the states and their laws may be, they HAVE to enact this.

I'm sorry, but in this case the U.S. has simply violated the Vienna Convention it signed, if it didn't inform the Mexicans of their right and/or denied them consular assistance.

This is critical, not only for Mexicans. Imagine that an American gets arrested somewhere and is denied those rights. How would you react to that? (It happens but if revealed the U.S. usually stirs up big shit.) And when your life is on the line, you WANT to make sure that these conventions are enforced.

The ICJ has ordered stays of executions in other cases (including German nationals) which have been ignored by the U.S. The United States have argued that, even though admittedly the convicted foreign nationals had not been informed of their rights under the Vienna Convention, this omission was not deliberate and the assistance of consular officers would not have altered the outcome of the proceedings brought against them, so that in consequence they had not been prejudiced by the absence of notification.

If these were singular, rare cases, the argument could be considered valid. (The U.S. offers an apology to the offended state and thats that.) The problem is that there seems to be a pattern of behaviour: Foreign nationals are frequently and deliberately denied those rights. And this makes it a matter of the ICJ. Of course the U.S. can ignore this ruling again, but by doing this the question arises whether the United States is willing to honor treaties and conventions it signed in general or whether it can ignore them with impunity, thus invalidating them anytime it sees fit.

You lose more than a few Mexicans who aren't executed because of this. You have released proven criminals because they were not read the Miranda rights. The principle of promoting the public's confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system was, in the case of the Miranda Rights, felt to weigh more than the extremely annoying fact that a criminal may walk free. It should be the same with international treaties you sign. Or they mean nothing.

If you are so unhappy to follow ICJ rulings, let the U.S. Supreme Court enforce the Vienna Conventions.
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 6:36:22 PM||   2004-04-02 6:36:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 TGA: What do you want to bet that these Mexican citizens are in the US illegally, and thus have already committed a Federal crime? Murder, however, is inevitably a State crime, and the State didn't sign no Vienna convention.

If the perps were tried in a Federal court, the Convention would apply. Not that having a Mexican mouthpiece would help much, probably.
Posted by mojo  2004-04-02 6:58:39 PM||   2004-04-02 6:58:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 mojo, this has nothing to do with State or Federal crime. This would be like saying that the U.S. signs a convention against torture and then claims this convention doesn't apply to state police, only to the FBI.

The Vienna Convention protects citizens of free democratic countries abroad much more than the other way round, which is obvious. The U.S. signed it to protect its citizens abroad but this comes with a few drawbacks.
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 7:23:41 PM||   2004-04-02 7:23:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 TGA, the United States Congress (both houses) would never ratify the signing of a treaty like the Vienna Convention.
It is against our federal Constitution and that of our 50 states.
This goes for the ICC and Kyoto, too.
A rogue POTUS such as Bill Clinton can pretend to sign it on the U.S's behalf, but he didn't have that kind of power. God be thanked!
Posted by Jen  2004-04-02 7:27:27 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-02 7:27:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 This would be like saying that the U.S. signs a convention against torture and then claims this convention doesn't apply to state police, only to the FBI.

I see your point, TGA, but this was precisely the reason I had to pay California income tax on Australian income I earned in Australia after I moved there from California. I did not owe federal taxes on this income. "The United States has a tax treaty with Australia. California does not," was what the California tax man told me.

This was quite an eye-opener, especially since it was my impression that it was illegal for individual states to actually enter into separate treaties with foreign governments.
Posted by Angie Schultz 2004-04-02 7:43:52 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]  2004-04-02 7:43:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Jennie, the United States ratified, without reservations, the Vienna Conventions in 1969. The Federal government has responsibility for the ratification of international law and treaties.

Imagine an American being arrested in Germany. He claims his rights and the Germans say: Forget it, you were arrested in Bavaria and Bavaria didn't ratify the conventions, Germany did.

Sorry, Pacta Sunt Servanda
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 7:46:00 PM||   2004-04-02 7:46:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 TGA, if an American were convicted of a crime of heinous murder(as all these pieces of shit were) in a foreign country that required all the safeguards and defenses and appeals that the U.S. requires prior to execution, I would have no problem with them going through with it. We don't want them back, citizen or not. I doubt Mexico does either, and their justice system is based on Napoleonic law: guilty until proven innocent. I doubt Fox wants em back, but I say we call their bluff and offer to release them to HIS custody...as long as they stay with his wife and kids
Posted by Frank G  2004-04-02 7:53:59 PM||   2004-04-02 7:53:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I'll probably get flamed for this, but TGA is probably right. There's nothing in this segment of the Vienna Convention that violates the US Constitution and the case law is, IIRC, that foreign treaties trump federal and local law. The case law was in regard to some migratory bird treaty we signed with Canada many, many years ago. One of the states took the Feds to court over it and the Supreme Court swatted them down.

There are two real problems here as I see it:

1. In one of the most disaggregated federal systems in the world (even our states are federal systems) how do you make sure that the Possumtrot, Tennessee constable knows that this is the law of the land? An almost impossible task.

2. Fox, more so than any of his predecessors, seems to be enabling illegal immigration to the US and eroding US sovereignty in the border states. The matricular consular cards, voter drives among the illegal population (to vote in Mexican, not US elections), the ongoing drives to get illegal immigrants driver licenses, and the documented cooperation between Latino politicians on both side of the border on the above issues and more. He's in weak position, so a lot of it may be pandering -- being more PRI than the PRI. This has a lot of citizens here pissed, TGA. I'm half Mexican. I spent a good portion of my adult life in Latin America. I know exactly how corrupt and racist the Latin culture is. I don't want it imported here. Unfortunately, that's what Fox and his allies on both sides of the border seem to be pushing. The consular notification thing is just one little pixel of a much larger picture.
Posted by 11A5S 2004-04-02 7:56:56 PM||   2004-04-02 7:56:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Your states in Germany, like Bavaria, don't have the same powers that our states do--The laws of the federal government aren't allowed to abridge, supercede or override the laws and rights of the 50 states except for special exceptions (see Amendments).
No Senator or Congressperson worth their salt will ratify a treaty that allows our national sovreignity and our laws to be challenged.
If JFK signed it, more fool he.

You're claiming to be German won't help you if you murder someone in Texas.
If convicted, you'll go to Death Row, Vienna Convention or no.
Might as well have said Vienna sausages.
It's called the Law of the Land, which every person must respect, including tourists and illegal immigrants--that's why we require passports and visas.
Every visitor knows he or she becomes subject to the laws of the place they're in, "fair" or not.
Vicente Fox is an ungrateful whiner, as our these Mexicans who killed Americans while they were enjoying the benefits of this country illegally and want to be let off.
Posted by Jen  2004-04-02 7:58:12 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-02 7:58:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Jennie, sorry to contradict: Germany has a rather pronounced federal structure. Police in Germany is a state (länder) thing. But they would not dream of denying foreigners their right to consular assistance. And this is not an issue about foreigners being above the law or anything like that, it is about a (mutual) right that has been granted.

The convention was obviously signed by Richard Nixon (1969), not JFK.
I bet the Americans did not sign it because they wanted a better protection of Mexicans in the US, but a better protection of Americans in Mexico (or elsewhere).
I think you don't understand what the Vienna Conventions were about. Consular assistance does NOTHING that could put U.S. federal or state law in jeopardy. All it does is to grant foreigners access to information. Imagine a German arrested for something he may or may not have done. He doesn't speak any English. So he is at a clear disadvantage. He might easily be tricked or coerced into something an American would not fall for. (Let's not assume that every law enforcement guy is an angel.) But he has the right to get consular advice. Most of the time the consular officer will just tell him what his rights are, give him the addresses of lawyers who speak German and watch the case. No sovereignty affected.
And again, the Vienna Conventions are far more important for Americans abroad. Sometimes the embassy or consulate may be the only lifeline for him if he gets arrested in some shithole. In countries like the USA the Consular assistance most of the time is a mere formality, in shithole places it can mean the difference between life or death (because of corrupt legal systems).

If the U.S. violates the conventions, shithole countries will feel a lot less obliged to honor them... and the U.S. would be in a much weaker position to enforce them. The Shithole State could just say, oh yeah, we signed it, but Camel Shit County did not, so there.

Giving the Mexicans access to their consulate (which will probably do shit for them anyway) is a very minor trade off, don't you think.
I won't speculate about Fox' true motives. But Vienna Convention Violations by the U.S. brought Germany to sue the U.S. at the ICJ. And it won. The U.S. still ignored the rulings and executed the German brothers LeGrand. Now those brothers were guilty as hell, but that's not the issue. It's a matter of principles, honored treaties and international relations.

Once again: Claiming to be German doesn't save me from Death Row if convicted. It grants me the right to consular assistance. It has nothing to do with law fair or not. In Saudi Arabia an American may still get his lashes for drinking alcohol. But consular assistance may see to it that the American gets a lawyer who is competent enough to get the American out of trouble, if he didn't drink alcohol in the first place. And the first think that consular officer would do is to tell the American: Don't sign curlywurlies you don't understand.
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 8:32:46 PM||   2004-04-02 8:32:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 You know, I know you're in EUroland, liebchen, and therefore are so immersed in Transnational Progressivism that you can't think straight (except for your visits to sanity here at RB!), but there is really no such animal as "international law."
Vicente Fox can whine all he wants to, to the ICJ and UNSC: it won't do him any good.
Dunno about consular help, but how can Mexicans seek consular help if they're here illegally?
And they were all given fair jury trials with bilingual help and legal advice.
Trust me: we've got plenty of that here, too.
I'm sure we could find German-speaking lawyers for you, too, should you break the American law.
Heck! I'll bet we'd let you ship in your own lawyer from Deutschland.
Don't know about what Nixon signed--don't care.
You come to the US and break our laws, especially murder, and you're going to pay the price, i.e. death penalty.
Ask Roman Polanski when the last time he visited our fair shores?
Is molesting an underage girl OK? Not in the state of California.
Just because the EU and Mexico don't like the death penalty doesn't give them more excuse to whine or get off.
Fox should just shut up.
If there was ever a "shitty little country," it can be Mexico.
G-d knows what he and President Bush had to say to each other in Crawford...Bush:"Adios, pendejo."?
Posted by Jen  2004-04-02 8:46:01 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-02 8:46:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 TGA's points and expertise are hard to discount - I'm buying!

One quibble (lol!): in Saudi the consular officials could do this, but wouldn't bother. What happens is that every JVC company, middlemen who actually employ us so they can take a cut from whomever is paying for our actual time & expertise, always employ one or more facilitators. Native Arabic speakers from one of the GCC countries.

These guys do the work of getting your tail untangled. You want to be on good terms with them. If you're not a big money-maker for the JVC, they are not terribly swift to come to your aid. But they do have a large "deposit" at stake, for they are responsible for your behavior in-kingdom - and various laws allow the Gov't to fine them... they will eventually come to your aid if the charge allows for it. Usually the problem is solved with baksheesh and never reaches beyond the local station of the "police" who've arrested you. They'll pay the guys upstream.

If you're arrested by the religious police, the mutawas, well then, it can get very sticky. Only 3 nationalities can usually expect to get off the hook with a small handslap, overnight jail stay, or deportation: US / UK / CA. Every other passport is less likely to be given such a pass. Nor are their companies held in such esteem for they are providing the "lesser" imported talent and so they will choose not to intervene at times, to save their business interests and show proper cowardice to their Saudi Masters. It can be very rough, indeed, for some nationalities.

The UK guys who were tortured for the siddiqi (alcohol - Arabic for "friend") business ran afoul of Saudi partners who were connected - so they got "special case" treatment from Nayef's boyz. If nothing else, the Saudis look out for each others' business interests. When these guys were deemed troublesome or whatever, they found out how dangerous it is to do illicit biz in Saudi with Saudis.

Oops, too windy. Sorry!
Posted by .com 2004-04-02 8:52:02 PM||   2004-04-02 8:52:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Well...this is the third time within five years that a country has instituted proceedings against the United States over alleged violations of the 1963 Vienna Convention in connection with the death penalty. Each of the previous times resulted in an execution. TGA want to take bets on what happens here?
Posted by Valentine 2004-04-02 9:16:12 PM||   2004-04-02 9:16:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Jennie, I'm afraid you still don't get it. This is not an attack on the U.S. legal system which probably is just fine. It also is not about "international law". It is about a thing the U.S. agreed to, signed it, ratified it. Hell if the U.S. signed that every Mexican gets tacos in jail it would be BOUND by that signature.

The U.S. signed the conventions to protect its citizens abroad. Tit for tat. Nobody is questioning your laws. Roman Polanski broke it, so nobody could have complained if he had landed in a Californian jail. In California prostitution is illegal, in Germany it is not. Yet no German could complain about going to court for solliciting a pro in downtown L.A. But he has the right to call his consulate (which probably will be enthusiastic to help him but anyway).

You don't care what your presidents sign? If you don't like it, don't sign it. Nobody forced Nixon to sign it.

Btw it doesn't matter whether you are in the country legally or not (that just adds another offense, thats all).

.com, yeah Saudi is a real legal shithole. Reality is often very different from treaties and conventions but still. Of course, the smaller and unimportant the country the easier it may be to enforce these consular regulations. Americans running into trouble in Honduras will really appreciate the consulate's help.
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 9:27:03 PM||   2004-04-02 9:27:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 TGA, you still don't get it: these Mexicans are going to get it and by it I mean the death penalty.
Period.
Posted by Jen  2004-04-02 9:29:34 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-02 9:29:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 valentine, every time the U.S. breaks treaties or conventions it signs AND ignores rulings of the ICJ, other nations will lose a little more trust in the validity of U.S. signatures.

An example. It is universally understood that in battles, the guy coming up to you with a white flag is the guy who wants to negotiate and you don't shoot him. Sometimes he may get shot anyway. But if you systematically shoot the guy with the white flag, they won't come anymore.

Both sides lose. Because those guys can be quite useful.

And in one of those days you might really need a guy with a white flag...
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 9:35:48 PM||   2004-04-02 9:35:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Jennie, I don't care about those Mexicans, I care about the United States losing more and more trust in international relations when they ignore treaties they sign.

I hope you never travel abroad...
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 9:38:38 PM||   2004-04-02 9:38:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 TGA, you're babbling about rules of warfare.
Here's the bottom line on Mexicans: The ones Fox is talking about were here illegally, enjoying all of the benefits of American citizenship with none of the duties, like paying taxes.
We are not going to let them do all that and murder actual American citizens with impunity.
Period. It's not going to happen.
Vicente Fox is just working the "soft" Liberal Tranzi EU political climate because it's against the U.S. as you just demonstrated by your sweeping statement of distrust about our "international relations."
That is Bullshit. Scheiss.
The whole world knows that the U.S. keeps its word.
I'm sick of tired of America being the Designated Adult for a globe full of bratty, spoiled children but I guess that's the way it is.
Posted by Jen  2004-04-02 9:44:04 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-02 9:44:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 And yes, I travel abroad alot.
In fact, I've been around the world twice.
Posted by Jen  2004-04-02 9:44:57 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-02 9:44:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Sigh... Jennie you should know me better.
What is the first thing YOU would do if they arrested you in a country with a language you don't understand, where you know nobody, where you might not have a clue what they want from you.
In those countries you might not enjoy the right to call a lawyer, or your husband, or your hairdresser.

But due to the Vienna Conventions you can insist that your Consulate is informed about you and has access to you.

Why should those countries honor the Vienna Conventions if the U.S. doesn't?

It's not about illegal, murder, liberal or anything else.

And yes, especially the Designated Adult is expected to keep his word.

Treaties are not only for the others to keep. And if I remember well the disregard for the Vienna Conventions was the only thing Germany ever sued the United States for in the ICJ.
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 10:06:11 PM||   2004-04-02 10:06:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 TGA, do those provisions cover one who has entered another country illegally? If they were here w/a visa as documented Mexican nationals then I contend you are right, if not, I'd wager Jennie may have an argument on ICJ authority. Just an observation.
Posted by Jarhead 2004-04-02 10:11:17 PM||   2004-04-02 10:11:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Apples and oranges, TGA--the Vienna Convention doesn't apply here and Fox knows it.
The accused weren't here as visitors or tourists, but as illegal workers.
When I travelled to Europe, Asia, Egypt, the Soviet Union and Red China, I knew that I was then at the mercy of my host government and wasn't depending on some high-flown treaties signed for photo ops by world leaders.
Not only have I travelled extensively, but I've lived in the United Kingdom twice and Paris twice.
I made sure not to break the law which is what these poor bastards should have done.
I've even visited (West) Germany--went to Der Passionspiel in Oberammagau which was very pleasant, but I threw up in the München airport on the way.
My dad liked Germany a lot when he was there liberating it from National Socialism--being a tall, blonde, I think they thought he was Aryan.
Posted by Jen  2004-04-02 10:13:29 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-02 10:13:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Jarhead, if the authorities KNEW that they were Mexicans (or the Mexicans told them) then the Vienna Conventions apply. (Imagine an American accidentally crossing some non recognizable border and getting arrested, he would have the right to consular assistance.)

If the Mexicans were trying to pass as Americans (or witheld information about not being Americans), that would indeed change things.

I don't believe that anyone gets sentenced to death without being properly identified, right? So when the authorities learned about the nationality they had to inform the Mexicans of their right to inform the consulate. The Mexicans could have waived the right though. But if they weren't told they couldn't waive it.

As ICJ rulings are not binding the U.S. can ignore them. That's the case with most international treaties. But you have good reason to keep treaties, even if they are annoying at times.

You had a reason to sign them in the first place. No regrets later.
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 10:28:52 PM||   2004-04-02 10:28:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Jennie that would be like arguing that the Mexicans had no right to Consular assistance because they were doing something illegal... which would defy the whole purpose of the Vienna Conventions.

Those conventions are not "high-flown treaties", they regulate a lot of important things, including the protection of your ambassador from being arrested in the host country and so on.

Oh btw, sometimes it's damn difficult NOT to break a single law in the country you are travelling in. Especially U.S. states have some of the weirdest laws in the world ;-)
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 10:40:53 PM||   2004-04-02 10:40:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Mein Gott, you are stubborn.
Consulates are for visas and passports for legal visitors, guests and tourists.
Texas alone has millions of illegal Mexican immigrants.
The fact that they live, work, and have children here illegally subjects them to the same laws as the rest of us.
The Vienna Convention signed in '69 was about Treaties.
Henry Kissinger, a German Jew by birth and a genius about American power and its uses, would have never allowed President Nixon to sign anything that would have truly compromised American power or thrown the law of the 50 states into conflict with "international law."
I imagine that Germany's pretty lax with its Turkish illegal immigrant criminals, but if a German murders someone in Turkey, betcha you get the death penalty there...after you call the German consulate.
Posted by Jen  2004-04-02 10:44:56 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-02 10:44:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Jennie, who is the stubborn here?
Are you trying to tell me that Nixon never signed the Vienna Conventions?
Or that they don't apply to people who live in the States illegally?
Sorry, that's not even the position of the current U.S. government.

Damn, why don't you understand that THERE IS NO conflict of law here. Not a single federal law, not a single law from any of the 50 states. Nobody questions the fact that those Mexicans are subject to the same laws than U.S. citizens.

But being Mexicans, they have the right to call their consulate. They have that right because the U.S. wanted THEIR citizens to have the right to call their consulate.

Their presence in the U.S. being legal or illegal is completely irrelevant.

Btw in the German case the German citizens in question were living legally in the U.S.
Posted by True German Ally 2004-04-02 10:59:04 PM||   2004-04-02 10:59:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#31  Hell if the U.S. signed that every Mexican gets tacos in jail it would be BOUND by that signature.

Here in California, they probably do anyway. :)

I do see your point about treaties, and if those Mexican nationals are legal immigrants, I would say that U.S. authorities should have provided what was due them under the treaty. However, if these people are illegal immigrants, I'd say that's another story. (no details on this were provided in the linked piece, so I just put forth my takes on either scenario)
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-04-03 12:49:34 AM||   2004-04-03 12:49:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 "Their presence in the U.S. being legal or illegal is completely irrelevant."

Actually their presence being illegal or LEGAL is EXTREMELY RELEVANT to the case at hand. The Vienna Convention of 1963 doesn't even address whether that foreign national may be in a state illegaly or legally, it merely addresses his apprehension and the procedure that should happen afterwards.

Considering that Mexico is pushing for getting illegal's across the US's border and trying to get them drivers' licenses as well as other forms of ID even though they aren't supposed to have them you can bet your bottom that the US public won't give a horses ass what the rest of the world thinks when the world tries to tell them how to act.
Posted by Valentine 2004-04-03 1:16:32 PM||   2004-04-03 1:16:32 PM|| Front Page Top

19:05 Anonymous4100
11:40 ex-lib
10:46 Anonymous4020
22:18 .com
21:31 Anonymous3999
13:16 Valentine
13:03 Zenster
01:25 .com
00:50 Beau
00:49 Bomb-a-rama
00:34 Zenster
00:18 Zenster
23:48 Zenster
23:43 Barbara Skolaut
23:29 .com
23:17 Phil_B
23:07 Anonymous2U
23:04 Anonymous2U
23:03 RWV
22:59 True German Ally
22:56 Alaska Paul
22:51 Traveller
22:44 Jen
22:44 Edward Yee









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com