TURTLE yes I read the story DID YOU?
Yes, I did. Before Chef posted it, in fact.
just because when you read it and some how took it to mean that bush pushed congress to write this legislation does not make it true!I bet youre the only one that took it to mean that.
Do you seriously think my entire breadth of knowledge about this case and this subject comes solely from this one article? That's pretty funny.
For one, I did a college dissertation on the combined 1961 "Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations" and the 1969 "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties". It was what helped me get one of my college degrees. So this case caught my interest from the time he was convicted last year, but also before that when the issue came to light that he was a capital murder candidate who was nor afforded Consular access as per the 1969 treaty (and the Avena decision), and I've been following it, as well as several others which are related, ever since. Two, I guarantee you that I did not read this article and conclude that Bush pushed Congress to write this legislation, especially since the article doesn't mention anything of the sort. Clearly, the bulk of your knowledge on this subject comes from this article.
Contrary to public opinion, I don't know it all, but I do know that 111 nations were signatories to the 1969 Convention, and thus far the US is one of fifteen countries yet to ratify it as a binding treaty, mainly because of bickering in Congress and, of course, because of the legal ramifications of State's Rights. This legislation is and has been going through the same bickering, and is now in about the 10th iteration. The reason the courts have ruled that the treaty is not binding over the states is largely because the treaty hasn't yet been ratified. Even then it's iffy because it will probably take legislation from Congress to make it actually binding, and only then will it be binding in certain situations. State's Rights must be accounted for and respected.
The US fits right in with the other fourteen countries who have failed to ratify the Convention, as the list reads like a Who's Who of Incompetence and Buffoonsmanship: Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Iran, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, and Zambia.
The current bill was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and would simply provide for federal review of capital cases involving foreigners denied consulate contact. Leahy's first bill was introduced at the behest of Bush in 2004 right after the 2004 U.N. world court decision, stemming from a Mexican lawsuit against the United States, that hearings be held for dozens of inmates to determine if their cases had been hurt by their inability to contact their consulates.
Not sure if Congress could really do anything when it comes to State courts, in 2005 Bush also called for the hearings to take place in State courts. Texas, of course, appealed, having already ruled on these cases in the first place, saying in effect, "What happens in Texas stays in Texas, and don't mess with Texas you Bush dood, you, even if you are from Texas." As a result of Texas' appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that, ta-da, only Congress could order such hearings, that the treaty was not binding on states and that the president does not have authority to order review of cases of foreign nationals on death row in the U.S. And getting Congress the ability to order such hearings is exactly what Leahy's current bill is trying to accomplish.
If you remember, and I'm sure you don't, in 2008, Texas executed Mexican citizen Jose Medellin for the 1993 strangulation of two Houston teenagers, over the objections of Bush many governors and an official protest from more than a dozen current and former US ambassadors, and used the same reasoning as in this case. After the Medelin execution, there were almost instant repercussions for US citizens in Mexico where US citizens were arrested and denied Consular access, and there were also incidents in Peru, Chile, Romania and India of the same sort.
No, I don't think Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr should get off easy. He raped a 16 year old and then bludgeoned her to death with a chunk of asphalt. His bite marks were also found on the girl. But I think for the greater good of the American citizens and this country as a whole, his sentence should be stayed or commuted to life without parole. He could also be retried, especially since his confession was never a part of the trial, anyway. If he's retried he'll be convicted again, and it will be done so with the benefit of Consular access and no one can pitch a fit over it like they are doing now, and like they will do after he's executed on Thursday.
So don't for one second think I don't know what I'm talking about and that I'm just makin' stuff up or coming to wild, unfounded conclusions.
