CNN: House Democrats were planning "Rescue" of Convicted Murderer Jose Medellin!!!

[Mr. James]

Thanks, Lance - I was not aware our dear neighbors to the south had joined the ranks of progressive, enlightened nations.

 

[wingman]

Thanks, Lance - I was not aware our dear neighbors to the south had joined the ranks of progressive, enlightened nations.

Life in prison in Mexico would be considered a death sentence in many countries if you want to eat best have a family member bring food or you may get a little thin.

I've lived on and near the border 30+ years traveled some in Mexico years ago the border is more dangerous and corrupt now then any time in my memory and funny thing is no one appears to want to correct the problem, why.?

 

[Buzzcook]

But it is the same Lance.
Conservatives wanted to (and did) enact legislation that interfered with a court case they disagreed with. That was even though the people involved had a full hearing and complete access to the court system.

In this case the Democrats wanted to (but failed) to enact legislation in the hopes of interfering with a court case. I will say that I doubt anyone with a brown skin gets complete access; but the wheels of Texas justice had done their thing.

So the two case are exactly the same. Well except that the Democrats are a bunch of tutu wearing frightened bunny rabbits.

 

[LanceOregon]

So the two case are exactly the same.

One certainly cannot argue that they are the same from a moral standpoint. Nor from a legal standpoint either.

In the case you cite, Republicans ( whether rightfully or wrongly ) were doing what they thought was best to protect life. Remember that Terri's parents wanted her life support to continue.

That is on a completely different moral level than trying to protect someone the likes of Jose Medellin, who has committed such inhuman acts. In addition, the Medellin case raised fundamental Constitutional questions that eventually had to be decided by the Supreme Court.

In sharp contrast to that, Schiavo's parents lost all of their appeals. They could not even get any of the Federal courts to even consider the case, much less overturn it. At every level, the courts refused to intervene in any way. There were no valid Constitutional issues of any kind in that case, according to every level of the Federal court system.

So the Republicans were not guilty of trying to usurp the Constitution, as the Democrats are in this case.

The Republicans may well have been wrong in the Schiavo case. But that was done out of sympathy to Schiavo and her parents.

Do you think that is somehow equivalent to showing sympathy to someone like Jose Medellin????

To his credit, though, Medellin did apologize last night to the families of the two young girls that were killed, who were present at his execution.

Just moments before he was put to death, he said this to families of the victims in the room:

"I'm sorry my actions caused you pain. I hope this brings you the closure that you seek."

So at least he acted like a gentleman in death. It is too bad that he could not have been like that in life.

 

[nate45]

The illegals at one time where considered a poor soul just looking for a job so he could care for his family in Mexico.

When I was a kid they used to come over with their hats in their hands, they had respect, my Grandfather hired them to work on the farm. They were good workers and good people who just wanted to earn money for there families and then they went back home and the ones who stayed learned english and aspects of our culture.

Now its different, all the respect is gone, they aren't learning english, they aren't adopting our culture,they aren't going back home, they are evading our country. They are not a net benefit to the country, they are a net drain to the tune of 10 billion dollars a year.

If we don't get a handle on this, at the very least severely crack down on the criminal element thats coming over, we are in trouble.

 

[Buzzcook]

I would argue that the republicans were trying to interfere with what is properly a judicial branch matter. While the balance of powers has never been a popular concept in practice, trying to annul the actions of a court is a breach of the separation of powers and thus an attempt to usurp the constitution.

And no the republicans weren't trying to save a life in the Schiavo affair. Anyone with a willingness to look at the evidence knew the poor girl was an animated corpse. The republicans were just playing to their base.
It was simple political theater.

I am not as familiar with this case as I am with Schiavo. It would seem that the guilt or innocence of the (now dead) brown guy was not important to the democrats that failed (as usual) to get what they wanted. The claim that their attempt to abuse the separation of powers was somehow unique, doesn't follow from your argument.

A quick google got me this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Medellín
There is a constitutional question and it looks like that's whether or not treaties are binding law. Article II section 2 and Article III section 2.
This seems to be the relevant quote In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

If the case of the brown guy fell under this bit then it wasn't a usurpation of constitutional prerogative. If this case falls under that section then the whiny pantie waist democrats failed in their constitutional duty (what else is new).

The operative word of course is "If". But even without the if, the claim that this had something to do with the dead guy's guilt or innocence is simply a play for an emotional response.

 

[Rich Miranda]

As a Texan I am proud of my State for having the cojones to proceed with the execution of Medellin.

One can argue that it will hurt Americans' international legal defense prospects. In fact, it probably will. Nevertheless, it had to be done.

 

[Monsterman]

I don't like "capital punishment". So, I think that he should have been released into the families custody.

Their own sound judgment, or their own emotional response...works for them, works for me!

 

[JohnKSa]

Would it surprise anyone to find that Mr. Medellin had lived in the U.S. since the age of 3?

Amazing how that little bit of information rarely seems to get mentioned in all these articles & stories...

...if you want to eat best have a family member bring food or you may get a little thin.

Yup, only the room comes free.

 

[LightningJoe]

But it is the same Lance.

Only if you lack common sense. The problem is not that Congress acts. The problem is that Congress attempted to act to stay a lawful execution of a murderer. The means are reasonable; the end is outrageous.


And would Bush have signed it? Well, he signed McCain-Feingold. He'll sign anything.

 

[LanceOregon]

I have now discovered that both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey contacted Texas Governor Perry in June, in attempts to get the execution of Medellin stayed back then. I'm beginning to wonder just how many folks total Perry said no to??

Anyway, I must concede the point that the Republican Administration of George Bush tried to stop this execution too.

Here is a photo taken during Tuesday night's execution, showing the family of Jose Medellin mourning the announcement of his death:

And here are friends and family of Heliberto Chi Acheituno protesting the ongoing executions:

And here are protestors just outside the Huntsville State Prison, claiming that the executions were racists acts being done against poor people:

I must confess that I don't know what logic, if any, if behind the above charges.

And here is a photo of Heliberto Chi Acheituno, who is scheduled to die tonight:

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the government of Mexico gave the following statement to the press today:

"The government of Mexico sent the U. S. Department of State a diplomatic note of protest for this violation of international law, expressing its concern for the precedent that it may create for the rights of Mexican nationals who may be detained in that country.

The Ministry of Foreign Relations reiterates that the importance of this case fundamentally stems from the respect to the right to consular access and protection provided by consulates of every state to each of its nationals abroad."

Here is a photo of Sandra Babcock, who was Medellin's primary attorney:

She made this statement today about the case:

"With this action, our nation has broken a commitment willingly made by our president and our Senate. We must now hope that other nations stand stronger in their promises than we do, lest our own citizens be placed at risk elsewhere."

The other factor that I now believe will influence this whole matter is that this is an election year. I thus doubt that anyone is going to try to push this legislation through this year, despite all of these protests that are being made.

But come next year? What do you think the odds are that the bill that I referenced earlier will be past and put into law????

I have a bad feeling about this for the long term. What will it have to take, for a turnaround in our country on illegal immigrant issues to happen??

NOTE: I have emailed a couple of Republican members of the House Judiciary, asking them if they know the names of the three Congressmen from the committee who lobbied to have Medellin's execution stayed.

.

 

[LightningJoe]

What will it have to take, for a turnaround in our country on illegal immigrant issues to happen??

Well, when the main racial/ethnic group in America gets down to 49% or less of the population, that will have some sort of effect, I think. Should be interesting. Keep your doors locked, your guns loaded, and your gas tank and your bank account full. Might be a few bumps along the way.

 

[Buzzcook]

Only if you lack common sense. The problem is not that Congress acts. The problem is that Congress attempted to act to stay a lawful execution of a murderer. The means are reasonable; the end is outrageous.

Perhaps I do lack common sense LightningJoe. But I don't lack an ability to make a logical argument.

The active word you use is execution, you seem to be indicating that congress is or should be free to interfere in any case that has been resolved in the courts except execution.
That begs the question of why is an execution more important than other cases, that it should rate special protection? The law works the same way regardless of whether it's a traffic violation or an execution. Perhaps there's a section in the Constitution that makes execution sacrosanct and in violable, if you'd show it to me I'd appreciate it.

I've used the Schiavo case as a counter example because there it was a case where both sides had full access to the courts, each side had more than adequate representation, and every appeal had been considered. Then the state and fed jumped in for a little political circus.
It is the poster child for executive and legislative branch interference in the judicial process for political reasons.

But after a quick look at the Medellin case I think it wasn't an apt comparison. It looks as if there might have been a constitutional justification for congress interfering in the judicial process of a state level case.

There are a few questions that have to be answered.
Is the federal government bound by treaties that are approved by the executive and the legislature?
Are the individual state governments also bound by those treaties?
If this is the case (it is), then were the obligations agreed to in the treaty followed appropriately?
And was this a type of treaty where the legislature can draft exceptions and regulations?

Which of course brings us to the big question. Which is more important the Constitution of the United States, or the execution of a brown colored guy in Texas?

 

[Kreyzhorse]

As a Texan I am proud of my State for having the cojones to proceed with the execution of Medellin.

One can argue that it will hurt Americans' international legal defense prospects. In fact, it probably will. Nevertheless, it had to be done.

Well said.

 

[Eghad]

He didnt invoke his rights till after he had been found guilty nor did he or his family inform the authorities he was a Mexican citizen till after the conviction.
He was also found guilty after he confessed to the crime. By not claiming his rights that is as good as waiving them. The fact that he had this right is immaterial to the fact that he was found guilty by a jury.

He had a court trial and numerous appeals and went before the USSC twice. To say that his right to counsel from the embassy invalidates any of this is just stupid. I know two of our local Congressional Reps in SE Texas both a Dem and a Republican pretty much said that Mexico and the World Court were out of thier minds.

With the furor on illegal immigration any representive who votes yes for this is going to get an earful.

 

[LanceOregon]

With the furor on illegal immigration any representative who votes yes for this is going to get an earful.

That is why I think that the backers of this bill will not try to push for this in an election year. But next year? I sure bet an attempt will be made to push this through.

No doubt when the "comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill is signed into law by either President Obama or McCain, these provisions will be included in it.

.

 

[LightningJoe]

the execution of a brown colored guy in Texas?

We don't even let brown colored guys rape and murder girls. Amazin' aint it?


And, yes, you lack common sense. Ask the brown colored guys in Texas. They'll tell you.

 

[S832]

Clearly the act of making illegal immigrants and minorities pay for their crimes is racist

I am not in favor of the death penalty and groups usually bring out the worst in people but, I can't say I wouldn't have wanted him dead either.

Also, securing the border would be a great idea!

 

[38superhero]

umm, loader9 and nate 45 are just racists