UN: U.S. execution of Mexican national violates international law

[rotary]

Did it say that the Mexican consulate even attempted to see him? It seems that the conviction would have been well publicised enough.

With that area of the United States, there's an enormous demand on any Mexican missions. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an attempt to ignore the murderer and leave him to American courts.

Mexicans in America face enough challenges already. Having one of their own rape and kill a child only makes matters worse.

Humberto Leal, 38, was executed on Thursday for a 1994 rape and murder.........justice delayed to long in my opinion and just another brick in the wall of why this illegal immigration needs to be stopped.

[koheesti]

This would be the same UN that named North Korea to the international disarmament committee? The same UN that named Libya to HEAD the commission on human rights a few years ago? The same UN that refused to use the word genocide in Rwanda because it would obligate them to help...all the while they were bombing eastern Europe to prevent crimes against humanity?

Face the facts. Committees accomplish nothing. The larger and more diverse the committee the less it is able to accomplish. WHen you become as large a committee as the UN you not only accomplish nothing, you actually start to interfere with the people who are accomplishing things. The only solution is to do what the US does. Just ignore them. The UN is a FAILED EXPERIMENT!!! Nothing they do amounts to anything. Period. The last time the even came close to accomplishing their goal was in Korea, and that ended in a 60 year bargaining agreement that the UN has dropped squarely on the American taxpayers.

The UN is a waste of time and money. Any organization that tries to please everyone, and gives tiny worthless countries like Ghana the same weight of voice as world leaders like Germany, is doomed. Just accept it, disband it, and move on.

I would say that is all TOTAL and COMPLETE UTTER NONSENSE - except that I agree with each and every word.

[SteeleJoe]

International law takes precedence over any countries own laws.

Since when?

Prove it.

(What an absurd situation that would be -- sovereign law made null and void...I doubt many countries, if any, would go along with that but there's no way the world's most powerful would...whoever it was.)

[Ulysses G.]

This would be the same UN that named North Korea to the international disarmament committee? The same UN that named Libya to HEAD the commission on human rights a few years ago? The same UN that refused to use the word genocide in Rwanda because it would obligate them to help...all the while they were bombing eastern Europe to prevent crimes against humanity?

Hear, hear. The UN Commission on Human Rights are complete hypocrites.

[Wallaby]

If we accept that the US issues a punishment as per their law then they must also accept every other country doing the same as per their own laws. The law is the law isn't it, can't go picking and chosing which ones you like and don't like.

Happens all the time. What's your point?

The US Embassy won't get you out of the BKK Hilton, if you've broken Thai law, and been duly convicted. That's not to say that the standard of justice is the same in every country, but the US Department of State clearly warns its citizens not to travel to countries where justice is questionable, and makes it clear that they cannot intervene.

Currently, the US Federal law permits the death penalty. State laws in Texas do, too. I personally regret that it is legal anywhere, but, as you point out, you can't go picking and choosing which laws you obey...

edit: typo

Well that's the problem isn't it, it happens all the time. It is illegal under US law to deny a consular visit. It has nothing to do with a person's guilt or innocence. The charged person must be made aware of his/her right to contact the official.

It has nothing to do with an offical helping you get off charges or the death penalty etc. The official can advise you of that country's legal procedure. This may not be needed by people who know the procedure and can speak the local language well enough to understand but to lay people the court system can be a difficult, frustrating and frightening and it is sometimes better to here about the procedure and pitfalls etc from someone from your own country.

They should be notified of their right to consult an official after they have been arrested.is should be done after that person's arrest. As the US court found in it's 5-4 decision, it is too late to challenge it on the appeal, it had to be brought up at the original trial.

[Wallaby]

Notwithstanding a breach of international law, a 5-4 decision is a pretty close call and considering it was regarding an execution I would have thought a commuted sentence would be a more cautious route.

The overwhelming majority of Supreme court decisions are split at 5/4. It is not a close margin, it is a typical margin. That is specifically why the courts has an odd number of members, so they are actually forced to accomplish things, where Congress is constantly making bargains.

The simple fact is the Republic of Texas is a sovereign state, and acted in total accordance with it's laws. This man was not a federal prisoner. He is not subject to the whim of the federal government. I applaud Texas for standing up for their rights against the political nonsense that pleads leniency for a rapist. Who helped his victim when she was pleading for mercy?

Who is asking for leniency? All that is being asked is that the US follows it's own laws by notifying the charged person he has a right to contact his own consulate. Don't forget, at that time he is not guilty of anything.

[KKvampire]

The USA is prolific at state or government killing either within or outside its borders.

[Wallaby]

He lived in America since he was two years old. What would the Mesican consulate do for him anyway? This is much ado about nothing.

His age is completely irrelevant. He is a Mexican national and has a right to contact his consulate. But I guess he'll never know what they would have done, if anything, for him.

When the US demands to visit any US citizen arrested in another country they can hardly have a hissy fit when their visit is denied.

[SteeleJoe]

Well that's the problem isn't it, it happens all the time.

Not to speak for the poster in question but going by the context and what he quoted, I'm pretty sure when he said, "Happens all the time. What's your point?" he was responding to the part of your post that he quoted: If we accept that the US issues a punishment as per their law then they must also accept every other country doing the same as per their own laws.

And that's exactly what I thought when I read your post -- the US government does typically accept that US citizens are subject to the laws of a country where they commit an alleged crime. And I'm confident reasonable Americans (there are some) would as well.

As a point of law, I think clearly it was a violation to not allow the consular visit. Ad such fine points are ultimately important, no doubt. But in practice, in this case, I can't see it as much to be outraged about and it makes a very poor choice to point out perceived misapplications of justice in the US.

I disagree with the death penalty (though based on the fact that there will inevitably be innocent people executed rather than an objection to execution as a sentence per se) but that is irrelevant given that the law in Texas allows it; if people have a problem with that, then the consular visit isn't relevant. And if this guy had been in the US since he was a small child and committed the crime for which he was convicted (no one seems to argue that he didn't) then it's hard to see how consular officials would have benefited him or view him as any sort of victim in this even if this one legal right wasn't scrupulously observed.

So really -- what's the issue? That a law was violated that would have made no difference in saving a man who presumably people have little if any sympathy for anyway -- like I said, it seems a poor choice of cases to summon any outrage even if it was in procedural terms wrong.

[SteeleJoe]

His age is completely irrelevant. He is a Mexican national and has a right to contact his consulate. But I guess he'll never know what they would have done, if anything, for him.

His age? Yes, that's irrelevant. And the poster made no reference to it.

The fact that he lived virtually his entire life in the US is very relevant indeed. You are clearly a smart guy so I'm sure you can see that (maybe that's why you responded to something he didn't say.)

[Ulysses G.]

He is a Mexican national and has a right to contact his consulate.

What utter nonsense. No one knew that he was an illegal immigrant. He confessed to the crime and did not tell the police that he was not a US citizen and did not ask for the Mexican consulate. No wonder the Supreme Court dismissed this silly legal ploy.

He was a rapist and a murderer and got exactly what he deserved.

Leal was never informed that, as a Mexican national, he was entitled to assistance from the Mexican consul.[11][12] However, at the time of his arrest he did not reveal his Mexican citizenship, and the issue of consular access was not raised during the trial.[13] Although the case against him was strong, critics of the decision to execute him said that he incriminated himself, which a better lawyer might have advised him not to do, and that he had other legal difficulties, including the court-appointed lawyer's failure to challenge questionable evidence.[2][12][14] The jury convicted him after 45 minutes of deliberation.[2] Texas maintained that he confessed before his arrest and so a change of legal counsel or strategy would have made no difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberto_Leal_Garcia,_Jr.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Wallaby]

His age is completely irrelevant. He is a Mexican national and has a right to contact his consulate. But I guess he'll never know what they would have done, if anything, for him.

His age? Yes, that's irrelevant. And the poster made no reference to it.

The fact that he lived virtually his entire life in the US is very relevant indeed. You are clearly a smart guy so I'm sure you can see that (maybe that's why you responded to something he didn't say.)

The poster stated he lived in the US since he was 2 years old. That was the age I was referring to when I said it wasn't relevant.. I should have been more clear. His age when moving to the US or how many years should not be relevant. If the arresting officers knew he was a foreing national he should have been informed of his right to consular contact..

I am no proponent of the death penalty but if that is the law in Texas then one must accept it. I am also not arguing this person's guilt or innocence or whether he got what he deserved. Personally I have no problem with people like this getting hit with the full force of the law. I only question that proper procedure is followed.

I'm 'clearly a smart guy'? I am an easy beat at trivial pursui and I also have a thai gf, that in itself should indicate I'm not the full quid.

[SteeleJoe]

Leal was never informed that, as a Mexican national, he was entitled to assistance from the Mexican consul.[11][12] However, at the time of his arrest he did not reveal his Mexican citizenship, and the issue of consular access was not raised during the trial.

http://en.wikipedia....eal_Garcia,_Jr.

Like I said, technically his rights were not observed -- and technicalities are important in legal matters -- but at the end of the day...

[Jingthing]

I don't see any point in pissing off the Mexican government but I'm one who strongly feels life in prison is much worse than being murdered by the state. Also in the US it's actually much cheaper for the state to lock up a crim for life than murder him. Speaking as an atheist with ethics, if murder is wrong, why show that by having the state murder?

Edited July 10, 2011 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

The poster stated he lived in the US since he was 2 years old. That was the age I was referring to when I said it wasn't relevant.. I should have been more clear. His age when moving to the US or how many years should not be relevant. If the arresting officers knew he was a foreing national he should have been informed of his right to consular contact..

It is relevant as he spoke English like a native speaker and so the officers who questioned him thought that he was American. He never informed them otherwise or requested assistance from the Mexican consulate.

[Wallaby]

He is a Mexican national and has a right to contact his consulate.

What utter nonsense. No one knew that he was an illegal immigrant. He confessed to the crime and did not tell the police that he was not a US citizen and did not ask for the Mexican consulate. No wonder the Supreme Court dismissed this silly legal ploy.

He was a rapist and a murderer and got exactly what he deserved.

Leal was never informed that, as a Mexican national, he was entitled to assistance from the Mexican consul.[11][12] However, at the time of his arrest he did not reveal his Mexican citizenship, and the issue of consular access was not raised during the trial.[13] Although the case against him was strong, critics of the decision to execute him said that he incriminated himself, which a better lawyer might have advised him not to do, and that he had other legal difficulties, including the court-appointed lawyer's failure to challenge questionable evidence.[2][12][14] The jury convicted him after 45 minutes of deliberation.[2] Texas maintained that he confessed before his arrest and so a change of legal counsel or strategy would have made no difference.

http://en.wikipedia....eal_Garcia,_Jr.

He does not have to ask for a consulate visit. It must be offered to him. There is no argument from me that he got what he deserved. But he still had to be offered the consulate visit.

Here is another version...

At the time of his arrest, Osvaldo Torres was an 18-year-old Mexican national without a lawyer who had had minimal prior contact with the US criminal justice system.(4) He was registered with the immigration authorities as a resident alien, which would have become known to the police when they conducted a routine background check on him upon his arrest

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/057/2004/en/cc200fe5-d5f5-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/amr510572004en.html

[Ulysses G.]

He does not have to ask for a consulate visit. It must be offered to him.

Why would they offer it to him if they thought that he was American and he did not tell anyone otherwise?

As far as a routine background check turning up his alien status, that is a longshot - especially if he did not inform anyone about it.

He had already confessed anyway.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[SteeleJoe]

Speaking as an atheist with ethics, if murder is wrong, why show that by having the state murder? An exception is just wars (can't be helped).

First of all, murder is by definition unlawful killing -- this wasn't that. Moreover, most people -- other than perhaps truly hardcore pacifists -- would agree that there are degrees and differences in the morality or justice in taking a life. (eg who doesn't agree that killing someone in self-defense is different than killing someone for profit) so to pretend that all killing in is equal moral terms is silly IMO. Kidnapping, raping (and jamming a stick into her vagina) and then murdering a 16-year-old girl is rather different than the state conducting a lawful and relatively painless killing.So to say the state did the same thing he did is to make specious comparison, no? So the argument can clearly be made that while you may not agree with it, an execution isn't the same as a murder.

And who said the reason for executions is to "show that murder is wrong"? I've never heard that and I believe it's supposed to be about deterrence and, yes, just retribution (in some people's mind).

I'm an atheist with ethics, by the way. And I think it's an arguably reasonable stance to object to killing in every instanceBut if someone could 100% guarantee that in every single case the person is guilty of a 1st degree murder of a child (which of course they can't), I wouldn't have a problem with them being killed.

[Wallaby]

He does not have to ask for a consulate visit. It must be offered to him.

Why would they offer it to him if they thought that he was American and he did not tell anyone otherwise?

As far as a routine background check turning up his alien status, that is a longshot - especially if he did not inform anyone about it.

He had already confessed anyway.

Has anyone agued whether he is guilty or innocent?

This isn't just about this one man. It has repercussions to ALL foreign nationals. The US Supreme Court have effectively said that a person charged can be denied his right to contact his own consulate.

This also can have severe ramifications for any US citizen arrested in another country as they can hardly now expect to be afforded that same right when the US denies it.

[Jingthing]

Murder schmurder. Change to KILL.

[Ulysses G.]

The US Supreme Court have effectively said that a person charged can be denied his right to contact his own consulate.

WRONG. He was not denied anything. He did not inform anyone that he was a US citizen. The Supreme Court decision was correct.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[SteeleJoe]

The US Supreme Court have effectively said that a person charged can be denied his right to contact his own consulate.

No, I think maybe they have said that given that it happened inadvertently due to officers being understandably unaware of his alien status that it's not enough to overturn his conviction...

This seems to be clearly different from officers deliberately not informing a suspect of rights that they are required to inform all suspects of and routinely do so unless they failed to do so in order to intentionally deny rights or from negligence.

And you know what -- i think US citizens can expect to be afforded the right and in most cases will get it -- I suspect that when they don't it will be in countries or cases where they wouldn't have gotten it anyway. (By the way, "the US denies it" means that it routinely does so. Is that the case? Or is it rather "the US" denied it. In this case. Accidentally).

[SteeleJoe]

Murder schmurder. Change to KILL.

OK.

Moreover, most people -- other than perhaps truly hardcore pacifists -- would agree that there are degrees and differences in the morality or justice in taking a life. (eg who doesn't agree that killing someone in self-defense is different than killing someone for profit) so to pretend that all killing in is equal moral terms is silly IMO. Kidnapping, raping (and jamming a stick into her vagina) and then killing a 16-year-old girl is rather different than the state conducting a lawful and relatively painless killing.So to say the state did the same thing he did is to make specious comparison, no? So the argument can clearly be made that while you may not agree with it, an execution isn't the same as a murder.

And who said the reason for executions is to "show that killing is wrong"? I've never heard that and I believe it's supposed to be about deterrence and, yes, just retribution (in some people's mind).

I'm an atheist with ethics, by the way. And I think it's an arguably reasonable stance to object to killing in every instanceBut if someone could 100% guarantee that in every single case the person is guilty of a 1st degree killing of a child (which of course they can't), I wouldn't have a problem with them being killed.

Only 3 changes needed. Now you can reply.

[Scott]

Unless I am mistaken, he was not denied consular assistance. He was not informed of it. There is a difference.

[a99az]

So once again, the US breaks international law. But, hey that's OK, because they're the good guys.

Whatever heinous crimes Mr Garcia was convicted of, the law is the law.

International law takes precedence over any countries own laws. No exceptions, especially when the US is forever telling the rest of the world how to live. Imagine the outcry if a US citizen was found guilty of a serious crime and then executed in Iran, or North Korea.

Second that.

[SteeleJoe]

So once again, the US breaks international law. But, hey that's OK, because they're the good guys.

Whatever heinous crimes Mr Garcia was convicted of, the law is the law.

International law takes precedence over any countries own laws. No exceptions, especially when the US is forever telling the rest of the world how to live. Imagine the outcry if a US citizen was found guilty of a serious crime and then executed in Iran, or North Korea.

Second that.

You "second" it, do you? Well then I'll make the same request of you that I did of him:

Please show support for the posit that "international law takes precedence over any countries own laws".

Thanks.

[Jingthing]

Most of the civilized world is against capital punishment so I don't really feel my position needs ANY defense at all.

[SteeleJoe]

Most of the civilized world is against capital punishment so I don't really feel my position needs ANY defense at all.

First of all, I'm mystified by people who cite the number of people who agree with them as a means of supporting their positions. Always have been. Personally I've always come to my own conclusions based on the information I had available and my own best judgment without concern if my opinion conformed with the majority. (I was reminded of this recently when over and over the pro-red Shirts on this board said (often to you) how so many Thais agreed with them as evidence that they were right.)

Secondly, why didn't you say that in the first place instead of making it about semantics? Third, we're not talking about most of the civilized world (which is made of millions of people who presumably have varying reasons for their stance and thus don't necessarily always reflect yours): you gave a reason for your objection and I responded to it. If you your position is tenable, why not rebut? If you see that perhaps your reason is less than an ideal one in light of my refutation, then why not acknowledge that and offer a better one -- or even say you don't have one but you object anyway purely on inexplicable but sincere emotional terms.

Making an argument and when it's questioned saying "most people agree with me so I don't have to defend myself" is a cop-out, don't you think? And it's really sort of passive aggressive ('I'm right and on the civilized side and your wrong and with the uncivilized'), isn't it?

Oh, well. Obviously it's your prerogative to not engage in a reasonable exchange of ideas. Maybe another time.

EDIT for FORMAT

Edited July 10, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[chuckd]

He is a Mexican national and has a right to contact his consulate.

What utter nonsense. No one knew that he was an illegal immigrant. He confessed to the crime and did not tell the police that he was not a US citizen and did not ask for the Mexican consulate. No wonder the Supreme Court dismissed this silly legal ploy.

He was a rapist and a murderer and got exactly what he deserved.

Leal was never informed that, as a Mexican national, he was entitled to assistance from the Mexican consul.[11][12] However, at the time of his arrest he did not reveal his Mexican citizenship, and the issue of consular access was not raised during the trial.[13] Although the case against him was strong, critics of the decision to execute him said that he incriminated himself, which a better lawyer might have advised him not to do, and that he had other legal difficulties, including the court-appointed lawyer's failure to challenge questionable evidence.[2][12][14] The jury convicted him after 45 minutes of deliberation.[2] Texas maintained that he confessed before his arrest and so a change of legal counsel or strategy would have made no difference.

http://en.wikipedia....eal_Garcia,_Jr.

He does not have to ask for a consulate visit. It must be offered to him. There is no argument from me that he got what he deserved. But he still had to be offered the consulate visit.

Here is another version...

At the time of his arrest, Osvaldo Torres was an 18-year-old Mexican national without a lawyer who had had minimal prior contact with the US criminal justice system.(4) He was registered with the immigration authorities as a resident alien, which would have become known to the police when they conducted a routine background check on him upon his arrest

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/057/2004/en/cc200fe5-d5f5-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/amr510572004en.html

Would you care to tell us what your case history has to do with the case in Texas?

The defendants are two entirely different people in two entirely different states and all you say is, "Here is another version".

It isn't another version, it's a different case entirely.

[Mrjlh]

Why do people not read every thing? Why do people only believe what one reported wrote? The article was generally correct but it missed a couple of points.

First point, Garcia was not offered consular contact because there was at the time and currently there is still is not a federal law requiring it. The S.C. in it's ruling stated the Federal Law is not on the books yet and is still in Congress awaiting approval due to be completed by September this year. This is 16 years after the fact.

Second point, the man was tried, convicted, and sentenced for his crime and for which he has admitted to. Therefore, the legal technicality of non consular contact is a minor breach and any action would not change the final outcome and would not change the States conviction.

Third point, International law does not over rule any countries domestic laws. Enforcement of International law, crimes that fall under International jurisdiction, are difficult at best to enforce. Those laws are by treaty and signed agreements between Nations whivh the UN is to enforce.

So good luck on the third point. It's why we have a World Court which actually does reach out and touch someone.

And if people want to start pointing fingers at the US for screwing up better think twice. I can think of a few countries that are making this world even worse than it is today. In fact a lot of them! I'm tired of the US being the World Policeman. It's my tax dollars being spent and I'm not getting paid back!