U.S. defies world court with execution

[Ravi]

Uh, guys, all the Court is doing is objecting over a matter of procedure. They're saying that anyone tried in a foreign country [anywhere] should be allowed to recieve counsel from their country of citizenship. They're not defending this particular criminal or asking the US to free him or anything of that sort.

0_o

Damn, let me see if I can rep you for that.

 

[Chris]

Uh, guys, all the Court is doing is objecting over a matter of procedure. They're saying that anyone tried in a foreign country [anywhere] should be allowed to recieve counsel from their country of citizenship. They're not defending this particular criminal or asking the US to free him or anything of that sort.

0_o

Oh, don't bother us with the facts.....

 

[Glori.B]

Yeah, I know, it does sound like he's guilty as hell. Nevertheless, I would hope if I got tried and convicted in another country, my country would want to ensure I got treated fairly before they pulled the plug.

yep, your great country does want to ensure justice for it's citizens...which is precisely why we can't just relinquish control over cases such as this to some far removed world court consensus.

 

[Charles_Main]

I am still waiting for her to explain why she acted like he was not presumed innocent. He got the same treatment any of us would get. He was found guilty by a Jury of his peers, well kinda peers since to be on the jury you do have to actually be here legally, but you get my point. Just because he never got to consult his Consulate does not mean he was not presumed innocent and given a fair trial.

 

[Ravi]

yep, your great country does want to ensure justice for it's citizens...which is precisely why we can't just relinquish control over cases such as this to some far removed world court consensus.

No one is relinquishing to the world court. The world court was simply stating that the Mexican government should be satisfied that their citizen got what he was entitled to under the law. How is that a bad thing...especially when it comes to an irreversible death penalty?

 

[Glori.B]

Uh, guys, all the Court is doing is objecting over a matter of procedure. They're saying that anyone tried in a foreign country [anywhere] should be allowed to recieve counsel from their country of citizenship. They're not defending this particular criminal or asking the US to free him or anything of that sort.

0_o

where does it say he was not allowed proper counsel? his objecting as a matter of procedure was then denied by another matter of procedure.

 

[Ravi]

I am still waiting for her to explain why she acted like he was not presumed innocent. He got the same treatment any of us would get. He was found guilty by a Jury of his peers, well kinda peers since to be on the jury you do have to actually be here legally, but you get my point. Just because he never got to consult his Consulate does not mean he was not presumed innocent and given a fair trial.

You might feel differently if you found yourself in Iran guilty of a capital crime and were not allowed to consult the American Embassy.

 

[Glori.B]

No one is relinquishing to the world court. The world court was simply stating that the Mexican government should be satisfied that their citizen got what he was entitled to under the law. How is that a bad thing...especially when it comes to an irreversible death penalty?

i just don't think anyone should be objecting that this man did get what he was entitled to under the law. generally speaking, i think the world court opinion has merit, but they should not be objecting to our actions in this case.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Yeah, I know, it does sound like he's guilty as hell. Nevertheless, I would hope if I got tried and convicted in another country, my country would want to ensure I got treated fairly before they pulled the plug.

I would hope that our country doesn't expend too much effort and treasure on the behalf of criminal Americans who have illegally entered other countries who proceed to continue to break every law of humanity while they are there.

 

[BrianH]

i just don't think anyone should be objecting that this man did get what he was entitled to under the law. generally speaking, i think the world court opinion has merit, but they should not be objecting to our actions in this case.

Exactly...it was not two of their little girls that were raped and murdered.

 

[Glori.B]

Exactly...it was not two of their little girls that were raped and murdered.

yes, speaking of protecting our citizens!

 

[Ravi]

mmm....if the case against him is so air tight, then what exactly is wrong with the Mexican government being convinced that it is?

I would rather see a murderer get away with murder than an innocent person put to death for something he didn't do.

Maybe I'm just on the side of the innocent.

I do THINK the guy was guilty, btw.

 

[Steerpike]

From what I understand, there's no question as to guilt, Ravi. The guy himself long since admitted he did it, and said as much again before they executed him.

 

[Glori.B]

mmm....if the case against him is so air tight, then what exactly is wrong with the Mexican government being convinced that it is?

I would rather see a murderer get away with murder than an innocent person put to death for something he didn't do.

Maybe I'm just on the side of the innocent.

I do THINK the guy was guilty, btw.

i appreciate the essence of your argument..who's going to disagree with not wanting to put innocent people to death?

what is wrong with expecting the mexican government to be just as convinced by the evidence as everybody else? the u.s. did not deprive him of his rights under the law.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I would rather have the murderer pay his dues to society and the innocent walk away free. Yes it would be horrible to convict an innocent person, the same as it would be to let a murderer go free.

 

[dilloduck]

Maybe I'm just on the side of the innocent.

no--you always make sure you are on the side that no one else is on.

 

[hjmick]

You might feel differently if you found yourself in Iran guilty of a capital crime and were not allowed to consult the American Embassy.

First, I would never find myself in Iran. It's just not on my list of vacation hot spots. Second, just about everything is a capital offense in Iran. Third, there is no U.S. embassy in Iran and there hasn't been since November 4, 1979. That was the day Iran declared war on the U.S. by violating the sovereignty of our diplomatic compound.

Now, that being said... this dirtbag got a fair trial. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[dilloduck]

Nice try Mexico--if you don't want us killing them, lock up you own criminals and quit sending them back here. YA YA--I know this guy is "different".

 

[Glori.B]

Maybe I'm just on the side of the innocent.

i understand what you're saying...

 

[dilloduck]

i understand what you're saying...

You both can't be on the side that's against everyone else !