Now, I want you to imagine this, if you will. You're a fourteen-year-old girl, walking home from the library with your best friend, who's only two years older than you. You walk through the park, as you've probably done many times before - only this time something's different.
This time, you stumble upon a gang initiaiton. Enraged by the intrusion, six teenaged gangbangers descend upon you, leaving you to wonder if you'll ever see your family again.
This actually happened, right here in Texas, in 1993. And the two girls didn't live to see their families again. They were raped and beaten by all five of the boys, and then murdered.
This time, you stumble upon a gang initiaiton. Enraged by the intrusion, six teenaged gangbangers descend upon you, leaving you to wonder if you'll ever see your family again.
This actually happened, right here in Texas, in 1993. And the two girls didn't live to see their families again. They were raped and beaten by all five of the boys, and then murdered.
.
Their bodies were left to rot in a bayou.
.
Here's a much better explanation of what's going on here than I can write:
http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/03/25/refried-beans-supreme-court-overrules-bush-oks-mexican-illegal-aliens-execution/
The killers are arrested, convicted of capital murder, and sentenced to die in the state's death chamber. Off to Death Row with them. But what happens next is even more bizarre.
As (at least) one of them was born in Mexico and is here in the US illegally, Mexican lawyers accuse the United States of a number of breaches of international law, sparking a flurry of appeals and hearings that continues for more than a decade.
At issue is a treaty agreement from the 1960s that allows foreign travelers the right to seek legal assistance from their home country. One of the indivduals (read: murdering, raping, butchering animals) who committed this crime declared after his own conviction that he is a Mexican national and should therefore have been allowed by the terms of this treaty agreement to seek legal assistance from Mexico - which he didn't do.
Mexican officials, I presume, got the International Court of Justice involved, and the International Court of Justice ruled that the United States must stop the State of Texas from carrying out its sentence of death until the case can be further reviewed.
President Bush issued a statement requesting that the State of Texas stay the animal's exocution, pending further review. In his statement, the President also said that he disagrees with the ICJ's decision, but would abide by it.
The State of Texas paused for about two hours, and then exocuted the animal.
So, I have a few questions here:
First, what kind of jurisdiction should an "international court" hold over matters of justice within the United States?
Second, should the President have sided with that international court, in a case wherein a foreign national raped and murdered two children in the President's own home state? Is it appropriate for an elected official to turn his back on the intentions of his own people like that? Just who, exactly, is the President elected to represent on an international stage? As a side question, what do you figure Ronald Reagan would have told that International Court of Justice to do with its decision?
Third - and this is the BIG one - What do you think that International Court told the families of those two young girls? Those two beautiful, bright, vibrant teenagers who just happened to be there by accident on that night, and died in the most horrific way imaginable - How much consideration do you figure this International Court has given to them?
And here's a bonus question: How long does it take for such a case to be reviewed? This animal has been on Death Row for years. Again, he committed the crime - he and his friends killed these little girls - in 1993, fifteen years ago. But he didn't claim to be a Mexican national then - that only happened after Mexican lawyers got ahold of the case.
Got another one for ya: In the wording of the original treaty, according to CNN (I have not read the treaty myself, thank you very much), the agreement covers foreign travelers. Not foreign rapists and murderers. Not illegal aliens who've lived in the US longer than they lived in whatever shithole they escaped from. Not gangbangers who rape and murder little girls for fun.
Yes, the State of Texas, against what must have been virtually overwhelming pressure from international courts, Mexican lawyers and the leader of the free world, stood up for their principles and carried out their laws. They did the right thing. I don't like the death penalty - in fact I hate it. But do recognize its necessity. And what's more, I recognize the right of the State of Texas (or any other state) to carry out its own laws, no matter who says what.
So hats off to Texas, and may she continue to take no shit from anyone.
The killers are arrested, convicted of capital murder, and sentenced to die in the state's death chamber. Off to Death Row with them. But what happens next is even more bizarre.
As (at least) one of them was born in Mexico and is here in the US illegally, Mexican lawyers accuse the United States of a number of breaches of international law, sparking a flurry of appeals and hearings that continues for more than a decade.
At issue is a treaty agreement from the 1960s that allows foreign travelers the right to seek legal assistance from their home country. One of the indivduals (read: murdering, raping, butchering animals) who committed this crime declared after his own conviction that he is a Mexican national and should therefore have been allowed by the terms of this treaty agreement to seek legal assistance from Mexico - which he didn't do.
Mexican officials, I presume, got the International Court of Justice involved, and the International Court of Justice ruled that the United States must stop the State of Texas from carrying out its sentence of death until the case can be further reviewed.
President Bush issued a statement requesting that the State of Texas stay the animal's exocution, pending further review. In his statement, the President also said that he disagrees with the ICJ's decision, but would abide by it.
The State of Texas paused for about two hours, and then exocuted the animal.
So, I have a few questions here:
First, what kind of jurisdiction should an "international court" hold over matters of justice within the United States?
Second, should the President have sided with that international court, in a case wherein a foreign national raped and murdered two children in the President's own home state? Is it appropriate for an elected official to turn his back on the intentions of his own people like that? Just who, exactly, is the President elected to represent on an international stage? As a side question, what do you figure Ronald Reagan would have told that International Court of Justice to do with its decision?
Third - and this is the BIG one - What do you think that International Court told the families of those two young girls? Those two beautiful, bright, vibrant teenagers who just happened to be there by accident on that night, and died in the most horrific way imaginable - How much consideration do you figure this International Court has given to them?
And here's a bonus question: How long does it take for such a case to be reviewed? This animal has been on Death Row for years. Again, he committed the crime - he and his friends killed these little girls - in 1993, fifteen years ago. But he didn't claim to be a Mexican national then - that only happened after Mexican lawyers got ahold of the case.
Got another one for ya: In the wording of the original treaty, according to CNN (I have not read the treaty myself, thank you very much), the agreement covers foreign travelers. Not foreign rapists and murderers. Not illegal aliens who've lived in the US longer than they lived in whatever shithole they escaped from. Not gangbangers who rape and murder little girls for fun.
Yes, the State of Texas, against what must have been virtually overwhelming pressure from international courts, Mexican lawyers and the leader of the free world, stood up for their principles and carried out their laws. They did the right thing. I don't like the death penalty - in fact I hate it. But do recognize its necessity. And what's more, I recognize the right of the State of Texas (or any other state) to carry out its own laws, no matter who says what.
So hats off to Texas, and may she continue to take no shit from anyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment