OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)

This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible
for us to discuss this rationally. I can sort of see both sides of the
issue.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5922356.html

"Texas. It's like a whole other country."

Coined to promote tourism, that wry verbal wink at the state's mythic image
has assumed a literal meaning as Texas finds itself in defiance of the
United Nations, the Organization of American States and national leaders in
its planned Tuesday execution of Mexican citizen Jose Medellin.

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court or Gov. Rick Perry acts in his favor,
Medellin, 33, will die for the 1993 rape-strangulation of two teenage
Houston girls, Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña.

Jennifer's father, Randy Ertman, dismissed international opposition to the
execution.

"It's just a last-ditch effort to keep the scumbag breathing," Ertman said.
"He never should have been breathing in the first place. I don't care, I
really don't care what anyone thinks about this except Texas. I love Texas.
Texas is in my blood."

At issue is Texas' refusal to hold a hearing to determine whether Medellin's
defense was harmed by his inability to confer with Mexican consular
officials at the time of his arrest. A suspect's right to talk with his
consulate is guaranteed by the United Nations' Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations, to which the United States is a party.

Medellin insists he told both Houston police and Harris County officers that
he is a Mexican citizen. Prosecutors say the killer never informed
authorities of his nationality.

In a sworn statement, Medellin said he learned that the Mexican Consulate
could possibly help him in 1997, four years after his arrest. He
unsuccessfully petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on the issue
in 1998.

In 2004, the U.N.'s world court, responding to a Mexican lawsuit against the
United States, ordered that hearings be held for Medellin and dozens of
other inmates denied their consular rights. In 2005, President Bush called
for the hearings to be held. Texas challenged the decision, and the Supreme
Court determined that only Congress could mandate such action. In July, the
world court ordered Medellin's execution be stayed.

Perry has argued Texas isn't bound by the decisions of international courts
and that the state is determined to hold killers, regardless of their
nationality, responsible for their crimes.

Texas has rebuffed not only the U.N. and Bush, but Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the judicial arm
of the Organization of American States, which has demanded Medellin receive
a new trial.

As politicians worried about the impact on Americans arrested in foreign
countries should Texas fail to honor the world court order, prison officials
moved Medellin to a special death row cell, where he will be held under
constant video surveillance until he is driven to Huntsville's death house.

A tragic tale

The big city wept when little Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña died.

Students at Waltrip High School, Jennifer was 14, and Elizabeth had just
turned 16. Their lives were filled with the things that occupy teenage
girls. Friends recalled Elizabeth, who was beginning to dabble with makeup,
as a "social butterfly." Jennifer tried her hand at basketball before
concluding she wasn't cut out for athletics.

On June 24, 1993, the girls were at a party at a friend's apartment when
they realized the lateness of the hour. Following the railroad tracks
through T.C. Jester Park, they concluded, would shave 10 minutes off their
trip to Elizabeth's Oak Forest home.

As the girls made their way past a thicket near White Oak Bayou, they
stumbled onto the tail end of a drunken gang initiation. When they blundered
into the group of youths, Medellin - 5 feet, 5 inches tall and weighing just
135 pounds - grabbed Elizabeth and flipped her to the ground. Jennifer,
drawn by Elizabeth's scream, turned to help and was herself captured.

As the teens cried and struggled, six gang members took turns raping them.

Finally, gang leader Peter Cantu told Medellin, "We're going to have to kill
them."

Gang members Derrick O'Brien and Raul Villarreal looped a belt around
Jennifer's throat, pulling with such force that the belt broke. Cantu,
Medellin and Efrain Perez strangled Elizabeth with a shoelace. Then they
stomped on the girls' throats for good measure.

Four days later, police, acting on a tip from a gang member's brother, found
the teens' bodies, badly decomposed in the summer heat.

The victims were identified through dental records.

Judge Cathy Cochran, a member of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which
last week rejected his appeals, wrote that Medellin bragged to his friends
that the victims had been virgins until they were attacked by the gang.

"His written confession," Cochran wrote, "displayed a callous, cruel and
cavalier attitude toward the two girls that he had raped and helped to
murder. Surely no juror or judge will ever forget his words or his sordid
deeds."

O'Brien was first to be executed, going to his death in July 2006 with the
parting words: "I am sorry. I have always been sorry."

Cantu, also convicted of capital murder, awaits a death date.

Medellin, who grew up in poverty amid drug abuse and an unstable home
environment, twice refused to be interviewed for this story.

But on his Web site, posted by a Canadian anti-death penalty group, he
claims: "I'm where I am because I made an adolescent choice. That's it!

"My life is in black and white like old western movies," he wrote. "But
unlike the movies, the good guys don't always finish first."

'Uncaring and hateful'

This time, death penalty opponents believe, the sovereign state of Texas has
gone too far.

"Most of our friends abroad have long since come to the conclusion that this
country, on this topic, just doesn't get it," said Southern Methodist
University history professor Rick Halperin. "This state is seen as uncaring
and hateful. And this case is just right on the top."

The Medellin case will solidify stereotypical views of the Lone Star State,
said Halperin, president of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
and former board chairman of Amnesty International USA.

Cochran, however, disagreed in her appeals court concurrence. "Some
societies may judge our death penalty barbaric," she wrote. "Most Texans,
however, consider death a just penalty in certain rare circumstances. Many
Europeans disagree. So be it."

The politics of capital punishment aside, some legal observers worry that
the United States may suffer as a result of Texas' noncompliance with the
world court order.

"Outside of Texas this is a huge diplomatic misstep," said Columbia Law
School professor Sarah Cleveland. " ... Unfortunately, I doubt that the
international community is likely to brush this off as simply the actions of
Texas. In the international community (and under all U.S. treaty
obligations) the United States is responsible for Texas' actions."

Wide-ranging effect

If the United States fails to observe its treaty commitments, said
Cleveland, co-director of the Human Rights Institute, other nations might be
inclined to disregard agreements when they become inconvenient.

Affected could be treaties ranging from those mandating protection for
foreign nationals to nuclear nonproliferation.

Texas Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, a frequent traveler abroad, said he
fears Texas' noncompliance will put American military personnel and
civilians at risk.

In ruling that Bush could not unilaterally force states to hold hearings to
consider Vienna Convention violations, the Supreme Court noted that power
lies in Congress.

Within weeks, U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., introduced such a bill. It
is pending in the House Judiciary Committee and can't be enacted until next
year.



Nose Kisses,

CatNipped

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0500, CatNipped wrote:

This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible
for us to discuss this rationally. I can sort of see both sides of the
issue.

I can too, kind of. I used to support the death penalty in cases of
extreme wanton violence, and this would qualify. In recent years, though,
I've come to rethink that and now believe that no human being has the
right to determine the life or death of another.

However, I think the biggest point here is the one make by Senator Ellis.
The US cannot thumb it's nose at the rest of the world with impunity. If
the US chooses to ignore the findings of the World Court, then other
countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding
US citizens. To assert that we need not be concerned with the findings of
extra-territorial legislative bodies is to make those same bodies unable
to protect US citizens.

Besides, regardless of whether the killer informed the cops that he was a
Mexican national at the time of his arrest, that does have a bearing and
he was entitled to speak with a Mexican consular officer. That warrants
at the least a retrial.

Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention cases? The very thought
makes me shudder.

Daniel Mahoney wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0500, CatNipped wrote:

This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible
for us to discuss this rationally. I can sort of see both sides of the
issue.

I can too, kind of. I used to support the death penalty in cases of
extreme wanton violence, and this would qualify. In recent years, though,
I've come to rethink that and now believe that no human being has the
right to determine the life or death of another.

However, I think the biggest point here is the one make by Senator Ellis.
The US cannot thumb it's nose at the rest of the world with impunity. If
the US chooses to ignore the findings of the World Court, then other
countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding
US citizens. To assert that we need not be concerned with the findings of
extra-territorial legislative bodies is to make those same bodies unable
to protect US citizens.

Besides, regardless of whether the killer informed the cops that he was a
Mexican national at the time of his arrest, that does have a bearing and
he was entitled to speak with a Mexican consular officer. That warrants
at the least a retrial.

Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention cases? The very thought
makes me shudder.

I thought we fought a civil war to determine whether individual states
could ignore national laws? I get the impression Texas (and Arizona)
think the South won?

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Daniel Mahoney wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0500, CatNipped wrote:

This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were
possible for us to discuss this rationally. I can sort of see both
sides of the issue.

I can too, kind of. I used to support the death penalty in cases of
extreme wanton violence, and this would qualify. In recent years, though,
I've come to rethink that and now believe that no human being has the
right to determine the life or death of another.

However, I think the biggest point here is the one make by Senator Ellis.
The US cannot thumb it's nose at the rest of the world with impunity. If
the US chooses to ignore the findings of the World Court, then other
countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding
US citizens. To assert that we need not be concerned with the findings of
extra-territorial legislative bodies is to make those same bodies unable
to protect US citizens.

Besides, regardless of whether the killer informed the cops that he was a
Mexican national at the time of his arrest, that does have a bearing and
he was entitled to speak with a Mexican consular officer. That warrants
at the least a retrial. Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention
cases? The very thought
makes me shudder.

I thought we fought a civil war to determine whether individual states
could ignore national laws? I get the impression Texas (and Arizona)
think the South won?

Actually, according to our Constitution, state laws *should* supersede
Federal law in all but cases involving crossing state lines. Don't let
anybody kid you, the Civil war was about the north not getting its grubby
hands on taxes generated by cotton plantations (as all wars throughout
history, no matter the lip service paid to ideological beliefs, it is
*always* about money).

Nose Kisses,

CatNipped

CatNipped wrote:


Actually, according to our Constitution, state laws *should* supersede
Federal law in all but cases involving crossing state lines. Don't let
anybody kid you, the Civil war was about the north not getting its grubby
hands on taxes generated by cotton plantations (as all wars throughout
history, no matter the lip service paid to ideological beliefs, it is
*always* about money).

How true. I am reading an eye-opening novel "The Proud and the Free",
about the way our government dispossessed the Cherokee Nation, back in
the 1830's. The book itself is a slightly steamy romantic novel, but
the historical background is genuine, and redeems it. These were not
"savages", but people who had adopted the White Man's ways, were
educated in Eastern U.S. schools, and had become prosperous farmers and
businessmen. (Since their territory included a good chunk of the Deep
South, many had lavish plantations, and were slave-owners.)

I have always considered it a good joke on our government that, after
forcing the Indians into lands the White Man didn't want, they
discovered oil there, and couldn't evict them. However, that may simply
mean we had a slightly more moral government in office at the time.
There were equally binding treaties in place in the 1830's, but when
President Jackson and his cronies decided they wanted all that rich
farmland and those newly discovered goldmines in Georgia, it didn't stop
them forcing new treaties relocating the Cherokees from their ancestral
lands to territory West of the Mississippi, and using the U.S. Army to
enforce the eviction. (There are times I don't think much of the human
race, and clearly Americans are no better than anyone else.)

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


CatNipped wrote:


Actually, according to our Constitution, state laws *should* supersede
Federal law in all but cases involving crossing state lines. Don't let
anybody kid you, the Civil war was about the north not getting its grubby
hands on taxes generated by cotton plantations (as all wars throughout
history, no matter the lip service paid to ideological beliefs, it is
*always* about money).

How true. I am reading an eye-opening novel "The Proud and the Free",
about the way our government dispossessed the Cherokee Nation, back in the
1830's. The book itself is a slightly steamy romantic novel, but the
historical background is genuine, and redeems it. These were not
"savages", but people who had adopted the White Man's ways, were educated
in Eastern U.S. schools, and had become prosperous farmers and
businessmen. (Since their territory included a good chunk of the Deep
South, many had lavish plantations, and were slave-owners.)

I *lurve* historical "novels"! One of my favorites is "Rabble in Arms" - it
gives a whole 'nother side of the story about Benedict Arnold.


I have always considered it a good joke on our government that, after
forcing the Indians into lands the White Man didn't want, they discovered
oil there, and couldn't evict them. However, that may simply mean we had
a slightly more moral government in office at the time. There were equally
binding treaties in place in the 1830's, but when President Jackson and
his cronies decided they wanted all that rich farmland and those newly
discovered goldmines in Georgia, it didn't stop them forcing new treaties
relocating the Cherokees from their ancestral lands to territory West of
the Mississippi, and using the U.S. Army to enforce the eviction. (There
are times I don't think much of the human race, and clearly Americans are
no better than anyone else.)

Yep, there seems to be no honor in government when money is involved!

Chin Skritches,

CatNipped

On Aug 4, 1:57*pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
*These were not
"savages", but people who had adopted the White Man's ways, were
educated in Eastern U.S. schools, and had become prosperous farmers and
businessmen. (Since their territory included a good chunk of the Deep
South, many had lavish plantations, and were slave-owners.)



This is very strange.....

A couple of days ago, Dave, me and Jim the Gardener were sitting in
the local chatting and we were trying to remember the name of the
tribe of Indians who adopted white man's ways to the extent that some
of them were even slave owners only to still have their land taken
away and to be moved to poorer land and none of us could remember
their name....so today I glance down a thread on this list and there's
the answer to the question that plagued the three of us all night

(cue X-Files music)

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

On Aug 4, 4:03*pm, "CatNipped" wrote:
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message

...







Daniel Mahoney wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0500, CatNipped wrote:

This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were
possible for us to discuss this rationally. *I can sort of see both
sides of the issue.

I can too, kind of. I used to support the death penalty in cases of
extreme wanton violence, and this would qualify. In recent years, though,
I've come to rethink that and now believe that no human being has the
right to determine the life or death of another.

However, I think the biggest point here is the one make by Senator Ellis.
The US cannot thumb it's nose at the rest of the world with impunity. If
the US chooses to ignore the findings of the World Court, then other
countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding
US citizens. To assert that we need not be concerned with the findings of
extra-territorial legislative bodies is to make those same bodies unable
to protect US citizens.

Besides, regardless of whether the killer informed the cops that he was a
Mexican national at the time of his arrest, that does have a bearing and
he was entitled to speak with a Mexican consular officer. That warrants
at the least a retrial. Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention
cases? The very thought
makes me shudder.

I thought we fought a civil war to determine whether individual states
could ignore national laws? *I get the impression Texas (and Arizona)
think the South won?

Actually, according to our Constitution, state laws *should* supersede
Federal law in all but cases involving crossing state lines. *Don't let
anybody kid you, the Civil war was about the north not getting its grubby
hands on taxes generated by cotton plantations (as all wars throughout
history, no matter the lip service paid to ideological beliefs, it is
*always* about money).

You studied history at the wrong time. But the War of Northern
Aggression was certainly about economics, and a host of other things.

--
Will in New Haven

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:46:48 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:

I thought we fought a civil war to determine whether individual states
could ignore national laws? I get the impression Texas (and Arizona)
think the South won?

The consitutional point is that treaties and conventions are not
self-enforcing. The Congress has to legislate. Otherwise you are
giving legislative power to the executive. I'm sure you are not in
favor of the President being able to rule by decree.

Bud

On Aug 4, 3:33*pm, Daniel Mahoney wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0500, CatNipped wrote:
This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible
for us to discuss this rationally. *I can sort of see both sides of the
issue.

I can too, kind of. I used to support the death penalty in cases of
extreme wanton violence, and this would qualify. In recent years, though,
I've come to rethink that and now believe that no human being has the
right to determine the life or death of another.

i'm not gung-ho in favor of the death penalty. In general, I'm against
it. But I don't see two sides to this issue. I see two little girls. I
don't think the state of Texas should execute this guy but I wouldn't
lift a finger to help him. If someone killed him and I were on the
jury, I would vote to acquit.


However, I think the biggest point here is the one make by Senator Ellis.
The US cannot thumb it's nose at the rest of the world with impunity. If
the US chooses to ignore the findings of the World Court, then other
countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding
US citizens. To assert that we need not be concerned with the findings of
extra-territorial legislative bodies is to make those same bodies unable
to protect US citizens.

Besides, regardless of whether the killer informed the cops that he was a
Mexican national at the time of his arrest, that does have a bearing and
he was entitled to speak with a Mexican consular officer. That warrants
at the least a retrial.

"At least a retrial." You are saying that under some circumstances he
should get _better_ than a retrial? That he might get to walk? I am
not against allowing him contact with his consular officer and a
retrial. I actually have plenty of confidence in Mexico not to have
much sympathy for a rapist and child-murderer. _Unless_ there is some
question about his actually _having done it_, I think his friendly
consular official would say "Fry, you *******. You have besmirched the
honor of your nation."


Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention cases? The very thought
makes me shudder.

I don't recognize any sovereignty but that of the individual and the
U.S. federal government. I thought Texas sovereignty was settled in
1865. Still, any option where this guy goes free sticks in my craw.

--
Will in New Haven