Texas executes another scumbag, NY Times protests (of course)

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, Aug 10, 2008.

  1. Friday, August 08, 2008

    Janet M. LaRue

    New York Times Bemoans Killer’s Execution

    “Texas Executes Mexican Despite Objections.” You’d think that Texas had executed some poor, honest, hard-working, migrant farm worker for not having a Green Card. The Aug. 6, Times column by James C. McKinley Jr, has more holes than our southern border.

    After 14 years on death row, Texas executed convicted murderer José Ernesto Medellín on Aug. 5. After numerous reviews by Texas courts and two in the U.S. Supreme Court, Medellín’s final due process hearing is in the hands of the Supreme Judge Upstairs.

    The sordid story begins in Houston, Tex., on June 24, 1993, when Medellín and five fellow gang-bangers spent an hour repeatedly raping, sodomizing, and stomping to death Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pená, ages 14 and 16, before dumping their bodies in the woods. Medellín personally strangled one of the girls with her shoelaces. Arrested five days later, he signed a confession after being given his Miranda rights.

    McKinley doesn’t mention what Medellín did that got him executed until after he quotes Medellín’s last words to those present at his execution: “I’m sorry my actions caused you pain. I hope this brings you the closure that you seek. Never harbor hate.” You just shudder to think how bad rape, sodomy, forced oral copulation, stomping, strangulation and death would be if motivated by hate.

    What concerns the Times’ McKinley most is addressed in his opening line. “Texas” acted, he claims, “in defiance of an international court ruling and despite pleas from the Bush administration for a new hearing.” Notice that it’s an “international court ruling” that Texas supposedly defied, not the laws or courts of the United States. McKinley doesn’t explain why Texas’ refusal to comply with an order of a foreign court, which lacks the force and effect of domestic law, is “defiance.”

    After Texas courts upheld Medellín’s conviction and sentence, Mexico filed a lawsuit in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on behalf of Medellín and 50 other Mexicans on death row in various states, who were not advised upon detention of their “right” to consult the Mexican Consulate as provided under Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Treaty).

    Medellín claimed that he was a citizen of Mexico, that he had informed law enforcement officials of his Mexican citizenship when he was arrested, but that they failed to inform him of his “right to contact the Mexican Consulate.” The ICJ ruled in 2004 that the United States should reopen and reconsider the cases in order to comply with the Treaty.

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “contrary to the ICJ’s determination, the Vienna Convention did not preclude the application of state default rules.” Following that decision, President George W. Bush issued a memorandum to the U.S. Attorney General stating that the United States would “discharge its international obligations” under Avena “by having State courts give effect to the decision.”

    Based on the ICJ ruling and the President’ memorandum, Medellín filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The court held that Medellín’s attorneys raised the issue too late; therefore, its procedural rules prohibited another review.

    The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision by a 6-3 vote on March 25, 2008. The Court held that the Treaty ratified by the U.S. in 1969 could not bind the states without enabling legislation enacted by Congress.

    Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that neither the defendant nor his supporters “have identified a single nation that treats ICJ judgments as binding in domestic courts.”

    Justice John Paul Stevens joined in the Court’s judgment, and acknowledged that Congress hadn’t enacted enabling legislation. Even so, he wanted Texas to grant Medellín another hearing even though the chance that he was prejudiced by the Treaty violation was “remote.”

    On Aug. 5, the Supreme Court rejected Medellín’s final request for a stay of execution in a 5-4 ruling. The unsigned opinion calls the possibility of Congressional action to implement the treaty too remote to justify a stay.

    McKinley, and other Times columnists who’ve written extensively about Medellín, fail to mention some key facts about his all-American background. Author Corey Mitchell includes them in his recently released book about Medellín, Pure Murder, and on his “In Cold Blog” post, “Media botches Jose Medellín execution coverage”:

    * After examining “thousands of pages of court documents including motions, court proceedings, and confessions from all six defendants in this case. I never once came across any documentation that Medellín ever made such a claim [of being a Mexican citizen.]”
    * His parents “legally migrated to the United States and filed the proper paperwork to become naturalized citizens. Joe’s parents then sent for their young boy to come to Houston, however, they simply failed to file the proper paperwork on his behalf.”
    * At the time of the murders, “Joe Medellín had already spent more than half of his life in the United States. He benefited from the Houston Independent School District’s educational system and was considered an outstanding student at Holden Elementary where he excelled in science and math.
    * Medellín spoke English fluently, and had a valid Texas driver’s license when arrested.
    * “Medellín never once proclaimed that he was a Mexican citizen after any of his many previous arrests.”

    And then there are those “objections” to Medellín’s execution McKinley mentioned. What he doesn’t mention is that the good folks in Mexico are protesting Mexico’s lack of a death penalty to deter murderous gangs like Medellín’s who are terrorizing Mexican people daily. According to the AP: “Mexicans struggling with increasingly gruesome crimes at home devoted the least attention in recent memory to the execution of one of their citizens in Texas. … Some Mexicans on Wednesday even called for the death penalty at home.”

    Here’s another question for the amnesty gang at the Times. In light of Medellín’s background, if he had faced deportation instead of execution, would the Times portray him as a citizen of Mexico? Or, would its headline read, “Bush Seeks Deportation of Mexican-American”?
     
  2. The Catholic Church and many other mainstream religions oppose the death penalty, too, on the grounds that only G_d should be able to take a life - no matter how heinous the crime.

    Damn those liberal bastards!!!
     
  3. enjoy the executions while you can....... soon US will join the rest of civilized industrial nations and do away with it once and for all. People in this country are becoming less and less keen on it... and the same for the rest of the world.

    Anyone who is for executions would soon change their mind if they ever saw the horror of a real one in person.

    NO one has the right to take anyones life.... no one, not one person or government.

    I dont know what I would do if someone killed a loved one of mine, most likely I would kill them if i had the chance, but that doesnt mean I think its right for the government to be murdering people.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...byfSOaHBIH2qgKjy6XeAQ&q=beheading&vt=lf&hl=en
     
  4. Yeah, if only they might change their views on the shocking torture of the terminally ill.
     
  5. At least the Catholics generally practice what they preach, whereas the liberal dogma is spare the murderers and rapists, but by all means slaughter the defenseless unborn.

    Liberal bastards is right...
     
  6. Lol, you can be funny sometimes.

    It shouldn't need to be pointed out, that all mainstream religions DO support not just murder, but torture, genocide, slaughtering newborns (if not before) and generally acting like depraved lunatics.
    "Oh, that's not where the church is now",or "oh, but that was a historical thing, its not literal".

    Well it's in the damn books, isn't it, so take your chances.
    My point, of course, is that your simplistic troll against liberals has no particular foundation, in history, nor fact.
     
  7. What group predominantly supports abortion, and which group predominantly is opposed to executing criminals?

    Do you get my point?
     
  8. Surly you are mistaken. I mean how is putting someone inside a burlap sack along with a cat, dog and snakes.... tying it off and throwing them in the river because they were guilty of witchcraft.............. murder??

    Or slowly adding stones to some ones chest till they either confess to being in league with satan or get crushed to death....... how is that torture?

    thank goodness other parts of the world dont do that. they only stone young girls to death if they happen to like a boy the father doesnt approve of.

    People, if you saw what the bible looked like 1000 yrs ago, you wouldn't believe it! Your jaw would drop to the floor.
    Christian Bible is constantly updated to keep up with the times and current norms.

    END THE DEATH SENTENCE NOW!
     
  9. Sure, i get your point, i just figure your lacking perspective in your quest to get easy troll points.

    Which group, predominantly supports abortion, you ask-none, YET it has been with us since time immemorial, a hidden , covered up disgrace, that "predominantly" women suffered for, from illegal and unhygienic abortion practices, to simply being slaughtered in patriarchal societies, or being subject to trumped up adultery charges (=murder) in said same religious societies.

    China, for example, or 17-18th century britain, was very fond of executing criminals.
    It just occurs to me, most societies are a little bit "too" fond of executing criminals. The french....whom you hate, for being cheese eating surrender monkeys.......they were very fond of lopping peoples heads off, they handed out food at executions for fucks sake, so people would turn up and cheer.

    The trick, as dexters father said, is "being sure".
    I don't believe for a second, any criminal justice system can do much more than throw a dart at a board and hope they got the right "crim", be they stoning an alleged adulterous in iran, or torturing a confession from an alleged "rapist" in turkey, or "extracting" a confession from an illiterate coal miner from kentucky.

    I understand your point entirely, but at the same time cannot, looking at history, believe your take on things, is actually a step forward.

    Rehabilitation, well, i don't know-doing life isn't exactly that, is it.
    The trick, is that all of these things are more complex than you make out, sure you could just summarily exececute them , i bet you would love that, buuut......
     

  10. Surly?
    Dont be callin me surly:D

    My point in my previous post, was largely to demonstrate how individuals like hap can overlook actual history in their quest to perform actual execution duties, such is his bloodlust.
     
    #10     Aug 11, 2008