Thread: LA Times Op-Ed

I'm not sure if this has been commented on or not yet, but I felt it needed addressing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sun ... 6717.story
Notice how these 51 Mexican Nationals were being held on Death Row for NO REASON! Not a single word about the VICTIMS!
Maybe if we had a closed border, this SCUM could have committed thier murders in Mexico.

Originally Posted by PatriotofPast

I'm not sure if this has been commented on or not yet, but I felt it needed addressing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sun ... 6717.story

Notice how these 51 Mexican Nationals were being held on Death Row for NO REASON! Not a single word about the VICTIMS!
Maybe if we had a closed border, this SCUM could have committed thier murders in Mexico.

I'm confused? Is this for or against criminal illegals here?
Mexican National commit MANY crimes here! I could care less if they are given the death penalty.The guy just killed never said for many years that he was a Mexican National.

Why don't I get their point and your point?

Explain it to me please.

I know that the victims are usually not told about and that needs to change.

Is there a comment section for this? It bears comments.


Protecting them protects us
Why you should care about what happens to 51 Mexican nationals on death row.
By Jeffrey Davidow
August 4, 2008


In one of his earliest comedies, Woody Allen had a stereotypical pompous U.S. ambassador bellow to an equally stereotypical group of thuggish Eastern European cops that no American could be dragged off and shot without his personal approval.

The ambassador's shout was an understandable, if tortured, explication of something we all know and value: Our diplomatic and consular officials overseas have a primordial responsibility to protect the rights and interests of our citizens traveling and working abroad. The right of people traveling abroad to have immediate assistance from their consulates is so basic that it is enshrined in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a global treaty endorsed by the United States and about 170 other nations.



No citizen is more in need of consular support than one who faces the terrifying ordeal of arrest and imprisonment under a foreign legal system. Immediate access to a consular representative provides trustworthy guidance through the morass of a bewildering judicial process and affords a secure link to home. In some parts of the world, consular assistance is all that stands between foreign prisoners and abuse, torture or even death in custody.



Because thousands of U.S. citizens are jailed abroad every year (sometimes for no good reason), anything that diminishes the power of American consuls to assist them in their time of need is cause for concern. Yet current developments in our own nation are threatening the power of American consuls.



At issue are the cases of 51 Mexican nationals who were arrested, tried and sentenced to death in the United States but were denied consular notification and access. Mexico sought a remedy for these U.S. breaches of the Vienna Convention at the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial arm of the United Nations and the international body that the U.S. and other Vienna Convention signatories had agreed would resolve such disputes. The United States was the strongest proponent of the court at the time of the formation of the United Nations and was the first nation to invoke its jurisdiction related to the Vienna Convention, in a case filed against Iran during the 1980 hostage crisis.



The court heard the case filed by Mexico and, after hearings that involved the full participation of the United States, directed a modest remedy consistent with our nation's commitment to the rule of law: a judicial proceeding in each of the cases to determine whether each defendant's case was prejudiced by not having consular access. In 2004, the Bush administration attempted to enforce the court judgment by directing states to provide that judicial review.



The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in the Medellin vs. Texas decision issued in March, held that although the United States -- and its individual states -- are indeed bound by international law to comply with the International Court of Justice decision, neither that decision nor President Bush's directive is directly enforceable in domestic courts without action on the part of Congress. On July 14, legislation was introduced in the House calling for the implementation of the ICJ's judgment. On July 16, the U.N. court again issued an order directing the United States to prevent the imminent execution of five of the Mexican nationals on death row in Texas.



Thus far, Texas has refused to stay its hand until Congress can act, and instead is proceeding toward the execution Tuesday of Jose Medellin, one of the Mexican nationals.

So we now find ourselves on the brink of an irrevocable violation of the most important treaty governing consular assistance for our citizens detained in other countries. A failure to comply with this most basic of treaty commitments would significantly impair the ability of our diplomats and leaders to protect the interests -- individual and collective -- of Americans abroad. Were the tables turned -- American citizens arrested abroad and denied consular access, with an ICJ judgment requiring review of those cases for prejudice, and another nation refusing to comply -- our leaders would rightly demand that compliance be forthcoming.



I am not personally opposed to the death penalty. But this case is not about the United States' or Texas' rights to implement criminal laws. This case is about our unequivocal treaty obligation to comply with an International Court of Justice judgment and the Vienna Convention, which has allowed diplomats such as myself to save hundreds if not thousands of American lives.



The proposed legislation in Congress is a laudable step, but Congress should move swiftly on it to ensure this country's commitment to its treaty obligations. Meantime, Texas should not move forward with its planned executions while the political branches of the U.S. work to ensure compliance with the ICJ's judgment. A failure to honor our obligation here may undercut our ability to protect our own citizens overseas.



Jeffrey Davidow, president of the Institute of the Americas in La Jolla, served as U.S. ambassador to Zambia, Venezuela and Mexico in the Reagan, Clinton and both Bush administrations.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sun ... 6717.story

Note: Please include articles/editorials -sometimes links are 'no longer available.'

Originally Posted by WorriedAmerican

Originally Posted by PatriotofPast

I'm not sure if this has been commented on or not yet, but I felt it needed addressing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sun ... 6717.story

Notice how these 51 Mexican Nationals were being held on Death Row for NO REASON! Not a single word about the VICTIMS!
Maybe if we had a closed border, this SCUM could have committed thier murders in Mexico.

I'm confused? Is this for or against criminal illegals here?
Mexican National commit MANY crimes here! I could care less if they are given the death penalty.The guy just killed never said for many years that he was a Mexican National.


Why don't I get their point and your point?

Explain it to me please.

I know that the victims are usually not told about and that needs to change.

Why don't I get their point and your point?The man who wrote this BELIEVES the United States should abide by the rulings of the World Court (United Nations).
If you truely believe this, then we might as well fire our Supreme Court, our Border Patrol and give our ENTIRE Sovereignty over to the United Nations.
Why don't I get their point and your point?

enough with this anti-American rag. All it peddles is utter nonsense designed to placate foreigners and undermine America.

There will NEVER, EVER be a supranational entity telling America what to do! Get over it Marxists idiots and if you are not happy with that then move to another country!

Originally Posted by alamb

enough with this anti-American rag. All it peddles is utter nonsense designed to placate foreigners and undermine America.

There will NEVER, EVER be a supranational entity telling America what to do! Get over it Marxists idiots and if you are not happy with that then move to another country!

Ditto! The LA Times is a pro-illegal invader rag that absolutely adores illegal invaders. They make no apologies for that position either, much like LA's mayor, Antonio (never met a gang-banger I didn't love) Villareconquista.

Hence, why I no longer subscribe to this garbage pit they call a newspaper! If I want to see what illegal invader SOB story is running on any particular day, I will search the on-line copy.

I'm going to side with the author on this one albeit for selfish reasons.

I believe this should help lead to a revisit of the 14th amendment and a clarification of:

‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’

Logic would dictate that if an IA criminal is eligible for consular support of a foreign government then their offspring should be too. (Then also those who qualify for such rights but commit no crime are also covered.) So if we concede them this right we can take away the 'Anchor Baby' rights.

Here's an interesting link on the 14th Amendment:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisi ... ction.html

I think Messr. Davidow's fuzzy point was what goes around comes around, or that we should be careful what we do to other country presicous nationals before US citizens end up in the same situation overseas.