President Bush, who presided over 152 executions as governor of Texas, wants to halt the state's execution of a Mexican national for the brutal killing of two teenage girls...
Medellin was born in Mexico, but spent much of his childhood in the United States. He was 18 in June 1993, when he and other members of the Black and Whites gang in Houston encountered two teenage girls on a railroad trestle.
The girls were gang-raped and strangled. Their bodies were found four days later.
Nice. Would he still want to halt it if they had been his two girls? And why aren't we primarily concerned with American interests at home?
Looks like Bush is in a quandary. He won't let the state take the man's life -- which it should not -- but he also knows that if he sends the murderer back to Mexico, he can't guarantee that Medellin won't be back on American soil.
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting that the same people who would accuse the current administration's supporters as being "imperialist" have no qualms about extending the rights of U.S. Citizens to the subjects of a foreign country. Isn't that extending our laws beyond our national boundries? How is that any different from attempting to put in place a republic similar to ours in some foreign country, or simply conquering it? At the very least, it creates a constitutional crisis here, and will undermine the laws of Mexico.
I can't always follow the logic of Bush or the "internationalists". (Apparently internationalism is either anarchy or all-encompassing rule, depending on one's mood.) Sometimes the thinking is so contradictory that it's doubtful that reason is guiding it.
TJH: If said "subjects" of foreign countries are here in the U.S., then granting them the same rights as American citizens isn't extending our laws beyond the borders. When Americans go to foreign countries, they're subject to the laws of those lands; and if foreign citizens are here, they're subject to laws of this country.
ReplyDeleteOh and by the way, what I said above doesn't change the fact that this scum deserves to die. It's a shame the girls were unarmed and unable to kill him at the time of the attack.
ReplyDeleteI will assume that you believe in man's natural rights -- specifically self-defense -- for the purposes of this discussion.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it's a contradiction to insist that the state kill the criminal, but then also insist that the state has no power to decide when you may use deadly force to preserve your own well-being?
Wouldn't society have derived the greatest benefit if his first victim had stopped him before he had the opportunity to commit murder?
On one hand, an execution will prevent him from committing crime in the future. On the other hand, it's after the fact, and there was a more efficient way to deal with him.
As far as rights and privileges: Once our government takes his life, how will he be able to enjoy the rights and privileges granted him by Mexican citizenship? Wouldn't you consider this extending our law beyond our borders?
TJH:
ReplyDeleteIt's all about jurisdiction.
If the arrest and trial within the US was ok then the verdict handed down by the jury/judge HAS to be ok.
The right to trial and an attorney is awarded to anyone within US jurisdiction: such was the case prior to the dubios 'enemy combatant' clauses/laws.
For example: Sheikh Mohammad, the one tried for plotting and carrying out 1994 WTC bombings had a trial with full rights under the US Constitution (which are synonymous with natural rights as given by the preamble).
I think you're mixing the two arguments here (jurisdiction and death penalty). They are separate and distinct.
I think Bush must have corporate interests confused (purposely) with American interests. It is in American interests that our laws be upheld, despite pressure from foreign governments.
ReplyDeleteTo continue from this point on we should demand that the Mexican consulate participate in and pay the costs for its American incarcerated citizens.
ReplyDeleteThen we'll see how eager they are to participate.
"Do you think it's a contradiction to insist that the state kill the criminal, but then also insist that the state has no power to decide when you may use deadly force to preserve your own well-being"
ReplyDeleteWe have a right to self defense, that the state is supposed to protect. We also have a right to make laws via our legislators to punish criminals. Punishment certainly fits the crime here.
Before others start mimicking tjh, know that the Constitution acknowledges rights, some unalienable, to the people. I didn't see citizenship as a qualifier. And if rights had qualifiers such as arbitrary labels like citizenship, they wouldn't really be rights. We're subject to laws like all else, but rights are theoretically universal, it just depends on a government's willingness to recognize them.
This guy had his rights, and chose not to pursue them. If Mexico wants to interfere, they can pick up the tab until the matter is settled.
Stan:
ReplyDelete"We have a right to self defense, that the state is supposed to protect."
Our rights extend as far as the next person's. If the state can decide whether or not someone may die, then logically that power extends to your use of deadly force against an attacker. In other words, if the last option to you in order to stop your attacker -- who is intent on killing you -- is to kill him, and the state says "no", they've made a decision that has indirectly resulted in your death.
"know that the Constitution acknowledges rights, some unalienable, to the people. I didn't see citizenship as a qualifier."
To the people of the Several States, specifically, as well as other powers and privileges. The 14th Amendment and subsequent rulings illustrate the difference.
An assertion that anyone who steps foot on our soil gains all the rights, powers and privileges of a bona-fide Citizen of the United States is dangerous to our national sovereignty. For example: A foreign government could populate our nation with aliens, who would then vote in elections and pressure our representatives to legislate in ways beneficial to their home nation.
Continuing with the example... If your argument is that foreign nationals on our soil are the equivalent of de jure Citizens, then the power to vote could not be taken away without doing the same to everyone else that occupies the same class of citizenship. Unless you don't live in one of the several States, that means you and me.
I assume that anyone who does not want to see the end of this nation would propose that foreign nationals be denied the power to vote. To selectively deny certain rights without effecting those held by Citizens means that they can't actually be rights, but privileges. Someone has to extend those privileges. That someone is the government of the U.S., and they can also revoke them.
I realize that we are in a pickle because of the terrible enforcement of our borders. The murderer should have been deported long ago, but there's a really good chance that he'd just come back here and kill more people. My argument isn't so much that the guy doesn't deserve to die -- which he does -- it's more that his foreign citizenship makes the situation trickier, and anyway, it's a bit late. He should have been shot dead the moment he made his intent clear to his first victim.
TJH,
ReplyDeleteYou are missing a point. It is NOT the "State" who decided that this slimeball is to die. It was a jury of the people.
Yes, he should have been shot dead upon his attempt. However, as I read the case, it stated that it was a gang rape situation. Thus, the girls were dead regardless of weaponry. The best outcome would have been for the poor girls to have taken a few of their attackers with them.
The framers of the Constitution were familiar with blood feuds etc... so they put in the best compromise that they could.
If this goblin is not executed, then he should be set free a couple of miles from the border, and the girls families should be informed of his drop off point.
OTOH, I'm a bit of a throwback.
I was listen to both Boortz and Rush about this while going to and from the range today. It made my blood boil. The President has really gone over the line on this one, especialy after the Border Patrol guys being imprisoned for doing thier jobs.
ReplyDeleteTJH,
ReplyDeleteUr fears are right: once on our soil they should be able to vote.
This is exactly how it was in the past: once admitted to discharge from the ship in NY people were herded to polling places or conscripted to the military etc.
Now, because the lack of border security proved beneficial to some people in the government it was never dealt with. It was probably good from the free market perspective as well.
But if we say that we live our lives according to RULES and PRINCIPLES then we have to accept them even if sometimes it appears that we are in jeopardy.
It's what we do that matters not what we don't do (meaning foreign policy making or helping Mexico be what it is).
Simply put: no taxation without representation, self defense is a human right, democracy through FREE elections (one vote per adult person). That's the law of the land. Isn't it?
"For example: A foreign government could populate our nation with aliens, who would then vote in elections and pressure our representatives to legislate in ways beneficial to their home nation."
ReplyDeleteYou mean AIPAC?
"If the state can decide whether or not someone may die..."
ReplyDeleteThe people decide. Last I checked we had a representative government and a court of jurors.
"The 14th Amendment and subsequent rulings illustrate the difference.
Wow, so man has the power to set boundaries around unalienable rights?
"...anyone who steps foot on our soil gains all the rights, powers and privileges of a bona-fide Citizen of the United States is dangerous..."
Then there's rights of citizens. Unenumerated rights such as voting have everything to do with nationhood, are an inseparable from citizenship. Non citizens clearly do not have this right.
This logic follows, and the debate is far from over, but there is a difference in unalienable rights and citizen rights. One is inherent with being human, and the other with citizenship.
Remember, there are different kinds of rights, and they aren't granted. They're either protected, or not, TJC.
He raped and murdered. He dies. All other considerations are slop. Some of you need to grow a spine.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Sean on this. If it was anyone's family here what would you want? See him back on the streets or buried? The Mexican government can pay to have his body shipped back to Mexico.
ReplyDelete