Illegal alien Humberto Leal Garcia was finally executed in Texas, 17 years after he was convicted of raping and murdering a 16-year-old girl. There was no real doubt as to his guilt, and just before his death he finally acknowledged his crime and asked forgiveness (though his final words were “Viva Mexico!”).
But the White House had tried to stop his execution on the grounds that he, as a Mexican citizen (he was brought here illegally at age two and lived here ever since — i.e., a Dream Act candidate), should have been informed by police of his right to contact his country’s consulate, like a super-Miranda warning. The Supreme Court rejected the administration’s stalling tactic (which Bush, to one’s surprise, also tried in an earlier murder case). The Mexican government and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights had demanded he not be executed and the White House said the execution would cause “irreparable harm” to U.S. interests abroad.
The legal basis for the attempt to save the life of this cretin was the 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice that the U.S. was violating treaty obligations by not informing Mexican murderers of their right to contact their consulates. The treaty in question is the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, specifically Article 36, which I call the Midnight Express provision. First, there’s the irony that the treaty also prohibits all consular involvement in the domestic politics of the host nation, a provision which Mexican consulates in the U.S. systematically violate as a matter of national policy. Secondly, the federal government has no business using a treaty to interfere in state criminal matters — a treaty cannot create individual rights within the signatory nations because it is concluded between national governments. If the Mexican foreign ministry doesn’t like what Texas is doing, it’s free to complain to the State Department, but absent federal law compelling states to comply with the treaty, there’s no recourse.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Sen. Pat Leahy has just introduced legislation to comply with the ruling of the International Court of Justice. I can’t imagine a bill like that going anywhere, but if it ever does, it would have to be coupled with a requirement that every suspect nationwide have his immigration history checked upon arrest — because, hey, we need to know if someone’s a foreigner, and which country he comes from, before we know whether to inform him of his right to contact a consulate. And we have mechanism like that already, called Secure Communities, though New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts have refused to take part in. Also, we’d need to have in place the capacity to deport every single illegal alien who’s identified as a result of this process, even if he was arrested “only” for drunk driving.
So, there’s a deal I might be able to live with: a requirement that cops inform foreigners of their right to contact their consulates in exchange for universal immigration checks of suspects and universal deportation of all arrested illegals. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Leahy, Obama, the Mexican government, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the rest of the open-borders crowd have in mind.
"Sen. Pat Leahy has just introduced legislation to comply with the ruling of the International Court of Justice."
Hey, it beats working on the debt problem!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRegarding Humberto Leal Garcia's "diplomatic immunity"...
"It's just been revoked!"
(Yay, Danny Glover!)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusesad. He was on death row 1 year longer than he let this girl live. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Leal Garcia was finally executed in Texas, 17 years after he was convicted"
Personally, I think that anyone who's currently serving should be immediately taken out. Every time they awaken, take a breath and eat something, they sap valuable tax dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. They are as useless to society as anything I can think of.
Of course, after we're done taking care of Congress, we can focus on that prisoner problem as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes anyone believe any of the Founding Fathers would have tethered America's own jurisprudence to something called the "International Court of Justice"? Would they have literally risked their own lives, as well as the lives of a hundred thousand colonialists to gain independence from a king to turn around and then cede that independence to a foreign criminal court?
Also, this case underscores the liberal contempt for the concept of the state operating as an independent and wholly separate sovereign. Obama and his ilk would like nothing more than to dilute the power of the individual states. That power is nothing more than an impediment to federal domination.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "Does anyone believe any of the Founding Fathers would have tethered America's own jurisprudence to something called the 'International Court of Justice'?"
Nobody sane does. People bent on destroying America do.
Our Constitution - as written (not as wrongly interpreted) - is the finest document on the planet. Every goofy thing that comes out of the U.N. ([whatever] Bill of Rights, etc...) is inferior to what we already have. People sworn to uphold the Constitution are derelict in their duty if they champion or sign onto U.N./"International" nonsense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThus always to murderers.
Except when it is the state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou say: "Secondly, the federal government has no business using a treaty to interfere in state criminal matters — a treaty cannot create individual rights within the signatory nations because it is concluded between national governments."
This isn't correct, as a general statement, although it is accurate as applied to this particular case. Treaties are, along with federal laws and the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land." (Art. VI, cl. 2). Some treaties are written so as to be "self-executing," meaning they are directly applicable as law, and need no implementing legislation. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the relevant treaty was NOT "self-executing," but this is because of the wording of the treaty itself, not because of any inherent requirement that ALL treaties must have implementing legislation in order to be valid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCome on now, you're not surprised that Obama and Bush both tried this tactic are you? Bush was an utter failure where our borders were concerned. And his behavior sickened me, especially in the incidence you mention and the border guards charged with shooting the drug runner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor me, that was the clearest, tangible evidence that GWB was, indeed, "stupid". He bought into - and, in turn, helped sell - that intentional conflation of "immigration" and "illegal immigration".
Handled right, the legal immigrant population should be the most reliable bloc against *ILLEGAL* immigration. Those are two groups where it doesn't take a Democrat to see a valid reason to pit them against each other.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you don't want to be executed in Texas, don't rape and murder 16 year-old girls.
"Viva Tejas!" Comprende Usted?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, let me see if I have this correct.
1. LEO's are not allowed to inquire ask about a suspects immigration status.
2. LEO's are required to inform all foreign citizen suspects of their legal right to contact the consulate of their "home" nation.
Why not just give "get out of jail free" cards to all foreign nationals?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseC'mon, this circle is readily squared.
LEOs must notify everyone that, if they are an immigrant, they can contact their consulate for help. The LEO doesn't have to inquire whether he's a foreign national, let alone verify his immigration status, any more than he has to verify whether the guy has a lawyer before telling him he has a right to consult one.
I'm on your side, but putting forward this straw man will just make us look foolish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat Consular Convention serves to protect US citizens traveling abroad who get arrested by another country's police. The price we pay for that protection is extending the same protection to other countries' citizens who come to the USA.
Perhaps if your kid gets arrested in China you'll appreciate better why the Bush and Obama administrations both wanted the Convention's provisions observed. It's simple--if we don't uphold our end of the deal, other countries won't uphold theirs.
On another front, you seem to have a mythical constitution in your head that's very different from the real one.
Your observation that "the federal government has no business using a treaty to interfere in state criminal matters" is simply wrong ... it's exclusively the Federal government's business. Under the US constitution, individual states cannot enter into treaties with foreign powers. The only way to get reciprocal protections for our citizens abroad is for the Federal government to negotiate them.
And your observation that "a treaty cannot create individual rights within the signatory nations because it is concluded between national governments" is equally wrong. Governments have entered into such treaties for centuries. The USA did so even before the constitution was adopted, in the treaty of peace with Britain that ended the Revolutionary War and secured our independence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, while I agree that Mr. Kerkorian's language wasn't as precise as perhaps it should have been, I think his larger point is sound. And, the Supreme Court in Medellin v. Texas (2008) gives some credibility to him as well.
External Link
The Court answered this very simple question, "Does the Constitution require state courts to honor the treaty obligation of the U.S. by enforcing a decision of the International Court of Justice?". Their answer, in a 7-3 decision was, NO. Their opinion couldn't have been more clear.
Second, your argument about Americans traveling abroad and not receiving consular access is wholly uncompelling. Can you demonstrate for me a single instance where this man's access to consular access was denied? Of course it wasn't denied - and why wasn't it denied? Because he never made mention of the fact that he wasn't a citizen until LONG AFTER he was arrested.
If he didn't speak to his consular affairs officer, he has no one to blame but himself. If TX somehow refused his request to speak to his consular affairs officers, then perhaps your argument would have some merit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHumberto Leal Garcia was a vicious criminal. Nobody's heart bleeds for him; but a lot of people were concerned about the repercussions that his execution might have for Americans citizens abroad. That was the real issue, as the Bush and Obama administrations, Sen. Leahy, and four justices of the Supreme Court all recognized.
Mr. Krikorian wrote 500+ words on the topic without ever addressing that issue. Instead, he ladled out a fair amount of abuse; and then went on about the mythical constitution he seems to carry around in his head.
In contrast, you addressed whether that concern is well-founded. I have no quarrel with you ... I'm objecting to Mr. Krikorian's obfuscation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are conflating a right to contact your consul with a legal requirement that you be informed of that right when you are arrested.
These are two completely different things.
This vicious rapist and murderer was NOT denied of his right to contact the consular officials of his nation. He simply was not informed that he had such a right. There is no requirement that he be so informed.
You also omit the fact that he did not inform police that he was an illegal alien when he was arrested.
Your intellectual dishonesty would be shocking if it weren't so completely typical of a Leftist.
There will be precisely zero repercussions from this case on Americans abroad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTell all that to the families of American citizens - some of them arrested for misdemeanors - who languished in Mexican jails for years while the American government insisted there was nothing it could do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe State Department types in the Bush administration said Americans abroad would suffer somehow as a result of the execution of Jose Medellin, the killer of Elizabeth Pena and Jennifer Ertman, an argument used in the Leal Garcia case.
So were any Americans harmed as a result of the Medellin execution? Inquiring minds want to know.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If the Mexican foreign ministry doesn’t like what Texas is doing, it’s free to complain to the State Department, but absent federal law compelling states to comply with the treaty, there’s no recourse."
There IS another recourse: the presidential pardon. Obama could have commuted the sentence in the interest of international comity.
The fact that he did not is speaking volumes about his view of his chances for re-election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse