PDA

View Full Version : Bush sides with Mexican rapist/murderer



gabosaurus
04-30-2007, 12:22 PM
WTF is he thinking on this? A Mexican national convicted in two brutal rape/murders, and Bush wants to take him off Death Row?

HOUSTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court stepped into a Texas death penalty case today that mixes Bush administration claims of executive power with the role of international law in state court proceedings.

The case accepted by the justices for argument this fall concerns the fate of Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national who was sentenced in 1994 to die for the rapes and killings of two teenage girls.

The state wants to go ahead with Medellin's execution, despite a ruling from the International Court of Justice in The Hague that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexican-born prisoners violated the 1963 Vienna Convention because they were denied legal help available to them under the treaty.

The pact requires consular access for Americans detained abroad and foreigners arrested in the United States. Mexico sued the United States in the international court, alleging the prisoners' rights had been violated.

Unusual for a death penalty case, the administration is siding with Medellin in asserting that the president's primacy in conducting foreign policy is being challenged.

President Bush ordered new state court hearings for the defendants based on the international court ruling. But a Texas appeals court said the president exceeded his authority by intruding into the affairs of the independent judiciary.

The administration noted in its brief to the court that Bush does not agree with the international tribunal's interpretations of the Vienna Convention. However, the United States had agreed to the Hague court's resolution of the dispute and said it would abide by the outcome.

The Mexican government and international law experts have weighed in on behalf of Medellin.

The justices agreed to consider Medellin's case once before. But they dismissed the proceeding in 2005, after Bush ordered the state court reviews. The justices reserved the right to hear the appeal again once the case had run its full course, as it now has, in state court.

Medellin has been on death row since September 1994 for the slayings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16.


The girls were raped, strangled, beaten and stomped to death after they came upon a railroad trestle in Houston where the members of a gang known as the "Black and Whites'' were celebrating a new member's initiation. The girls' bodies were found four days later.

The crime, committed by people all younger than 20, was so brutal it caught the nation's attention and shocked the city of Houston.

Five gang members charged with capital murder in the case - Medellin, Peter Cantu, Derrick Sean O'Brien, Raul Villarreal and Efrain Perez - received the death penalty.

O'Brien was executed last year. Perez and Villarreal had their death sentences commuted to life in prison in 2005 when the Supreme Court barred executions for those who were 17 at the time of their crimes. Cantu doesn't have an execution date.

Nukeman
04-30-2007, 12:37 PM
The title of your thread is a "little misleading" to say the least but than again this is nothing new for you.

What I think is actualy going on here and I will type slow for you. He (GWB) is actually looking out for US citizens who need help in other countries. If we as a nation throw out the conventions established for the treatment of foreign born individuals than we should expect no less.

He is not "sideing" with a killer but the due process involved with his case. Go back and read the whole article you posted if you have the capacity to "understand"

For what it's worth I say kill the bastard and toss his fucking body across the border or better yet put his head on a spike as a deterent for others seeking the easy prey of the US.

Trigg
04-30-2007, 01:08 PM
WTF is he thinking on this? A Mexican national convicted in two brutal rape/murders, and Bush wants to take him off Death Row?

Maybe he had a bad childhood or is mentally unaware of what he did??

Hey, I know, lets put his name on the memorial right beside the names of those children he murdered.


How can you in one thread scream about people not forgiving murderers and in another scream about people forgiving murderers??????????

Are there two of you???????????????????????????


READ YOUR OWN ARTICLES!! Look at the bolded part Bush is only doing this because of the court procedings. Dipshit.



The pact requires consular access for Americans detained abroad and foreigners arrested in the United States. Mexico sued the United States in the international court, alleging the prisoners' rights had been violated.

Unusual for a death penalty case, the administration is siding with Medellin in asserting that the president's primacy in conducting foreign policy is being challenged.

President Bush ordered new state court hearings for the defendants based on the international court ruling

Hobbit
04-30-2007, 01:34 PM
He's honoring a treaty. Nothing sinister about that.

Edit: I'd like to see this guy fry as much as anybody, but I'd rather go through the full process. If we violate this treaty, then we're putting all of our citizens abroad in danger.

Lightning Waltz
04-30-2007, 01:37 PM
He's honoring a treaty. Nothing sinister about that.

It's just amazing that he's finally choosing to honor one...and the one he chooses to honor.

Hobbit
04-30-2007, 02:34 PM
It's just amazing that he's finally choosing to honor one...and the one he chooses to honor.

Which treaties has he failed to honor thus far? We had no treaty saying we wouldn't go to war without France. We did, however, have a treaty saying that we would do our best to enforce U.N. resolutions.

You might also be referring to the missile defense treaty. That treaty was made with the U.S.S.R., a nation which no longer exists.

Hagbard Celine
04-30-2007, 02:47 PM
He's honoring a treaty. Nothing sinister about that.

Edit: I'd like to see this guy fry as much as anybody, but I'd rather go through the full process. If we violate this treaty, then we're putting all of our citizens abroad in danger.

If Clinton was the president in question you conservatives would be flinging sh*t like a rabid monkey in a kids' petting zoo. Bush cherry-picks the treaties he honors.

TheStripey1
04-30-2007, 02:53 PM
WTF is he thinking on this? A Mexican national convicted in two brutal rape/murders, and Bush wants to take him off Death Row?

HOUSTON (AP) --

...snip

The pact requires consular access for Americans detained abroad and foreigners arrested in the United States. Mexico sued the United States in the international court, alleging the prisoners' rights had been violated.

Unusual for a death penalty case, the administration is siding with Medellin in asserting that the president's primacy in conducting foreign policy is being challenged.

President Bush ordered new state court hearings for the defendants based on the international court ruling. But a Texas appeals court said the president exceeded his authority by intruding into the affairs of the independent judiciary.

The administration noted in its brief to the court that Bush does not agree with the international tribunal's interpretations of the Vienna Convention. However, the United States had agreed to the Hague court's resolution of the dispute and said it would abide by the outcome.

...snip

What I find interesting is that bush intervened in this case but not into the case of the two border guards.

now that's a WTF...

Hobbit
04-30-2007, 11:10 PM
If Clinton was the president in question you conservatives would be flinging sh*t like a rabid monkey in a kids' petting zoo. Bush cherry-picks the treaties he honors.

This logical phallacy is known as projection. This is when a person justifies his or her position by claiming that the opposition would have the same position if the circumstances were different.

What you have accused me of is horrible partisanship, which I find insulting. There is nothing out of the ordinary when a president obeys a treaty. It's typically when a treaty is not obeyed that I begin questioning the president.

I also don't like the attitude that I always agree with Bush and would have always disagreed with Clinton. I actually think Clinton did a few good things, but I can't remember what they are off the top of my head as I wasn't politically aware at the time. I have also had many disagreements with Bush, mostly concerning Mexico and North Korea.

avatar4321
04-30-2007, 11:15 PM
What I find interesting is that bush intervened in this case but not into the case of the two border guards.

now that's a WTF...

Bush might still intervene there. He is letting the process work its way out. They are still appealing. personally i think he should intervene but he has his reasons.

82Marine89
04-30-2007, 11:34 PM
Bush might still intervene there. He is letting the process work its way out. They are still appealing. personally i think he should intervene but he has his reasons.

They were tried at the request of the Mexican government. The federal prosecutor in that case has a habit of putting law enforcement on trial for run ins with illegal aliens. He should intervene and tell the Mexican government to kiss his American ass.


*I know it won't happen, but i needed to get it out of my system.

loosecannon
04-30-2007, 11:35 PM
This logical phallacy is known as projection. This is when a person justifies his or her position by claiming that the opposition would have the same position if the circumstances were different.



It isn't a logical phallacy if it is true.

What IS a phallacy is simply writing it off and pretending that you are not partisan based on some potentially irrelevant claim to errant logic.

Get off your self righteous horse and prove that a fallacy occured with your own means or stfu.

Hobbit
05-01-2007, 12:28 AM
It isn't a logical phallacy if it is true.

What IS a phallacy is simply writing it off and pretending that you are not partisan based on some potentially irrelevant claim to errant logic.

Get off your self righteous horse and prove that a fallacy occured with your own means or stfu.

Oh please. HC did the equivalent of saying, "I know you are but what am I," and I thought I already stated why I'm not partisan. Since I can't 'prove' what I think, you're just going to have to take my word on it. Now get back to the subject at hand and either state why it's bad that Bush is honoring this treaty or quit talking.