MSNBC’s Maddow Incorrectly Claims Texas Broke Law in Executing Murderer
On Thursday’s Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, host Maddow devoted a considerable chunk of her show to the story of convicted murderer Humbarto Leal Garcia's execution in Texas, and Republican Governor Rick Perry’s refusal to delay the execution to give Congress more time to pass legislation to address how the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations should be applied to such cases.
Garcia, who in 1994 raped a 16-year-old girl and then strangled her and crushed her skull with a 35-pound piece of asphalt, was sent to prison in 1998 but did not discover until two years later that he was supposed to be legally entitled to ask for help from the Mexican consulate in his defense.
(Note: This article earlier erroneously claimed that the Vienna Convention does not seem to demand that authorities inform a foreign national of the rights contained in the treaty when, in reality, the treaty does contain text making this demand of authorities.)
The MSNBC host dismissed the "conservative" U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that a state could not be forced to adhere to the treaty until Congress passes a law to enforce the treaty, thus giving Congress the responsibility to act.
Appearing on FNC’s Your World with Neil Cavuto on Thursday, Bexar County, Texas, Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg argued: "It is Congress’s job to pass the laws that would enforce this treaty, and Congress has not acted, despite the request of the White House numerous times. This case was delayed for more than a year to give Congress the opportunity to act on the matter, and Congress chose not to act."
Below is a transcript of the Maddow’s introduction to the segment on the case from the Thursday, July 7, Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC:
Today, in Texas and in Washington, the White House and Rick Perry had a political fight to the death in a dramatic down-to-the-wire final hour fight at the Supreme Court over whether or not Rick Perry's Texas would be allowed to kill a foreign citizen who the state of Texas was holding prisoner. The man is a citizen of a foreign country, who was convicted of a murder in Texas. He was never allowed any assistance from his home country.
If you, as an American, are in a foreign country, and you are picked up and arrested, you’re charged with a serious crime, the U.S. government has the right to intervene on your behalf to try to help you out. You don't get immunity if you have done something wrong, of course, but you can at least get help from the United States because you are a United States citizen. That's not only a principle that all Americans implicitly count on if we ever even think about leaving the country, it's also law. Our country signed something called the Vienna Convention that says we expect to be able to help Americans arrested in foreign countries, and we will let foreign citizens arrested here get help from their governments, too. It is an international treaty. We are signed onto it. Congress ratified. It is law.
But not in Texas, not in Rick Perry's Texas. In 2005, the George W. Bush administration ordered states that they needed to comply with this law. Texas, under Rick Perry, said no. The U.S. Supreme Court then weighed in and said the only way to force a state like Texas to follow this law would be for Congress to take action.
And so, with a foreign citizen on death row in Texas, the Obama administration took the very rare step of the federal government wading into a state criminal case. Not over the issue of whether or not the prisoner was innocent or guilty, but over whether or not Texas could kill him without ever letting him get help from his home government.
John Ballinger, a lawyer who served the State Department in the George W. Bush administration, arguing in this case, quote: "It should be obvious to anyone, including officials in Texas, that if Americans, including Texans, are arrested and detained in some other country and the United States complains that they have not been given their consular notice, it will be pointed out to us that the United States does not comply with our own international obligations on this." "It cuts the legs out from under the State Department," he said, "to make arguments on behalf of Americans who are detained abroad."
The White House, the Justice Department, the State Department all weighed in and asked the Supreme Court to intervene, to delay the execution in Texas here for a few months until Congress would have the chance to act on legislation pending that would make Texas follow the law here. But one hour before the prisoner in Texas was scheduled to be killed, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court declined to postpone the execution. It was a 5-4 decision. Governor Rick Perry also could have granted a stay here, a 30-day stay. As of this morning, he said he was undecided on the matter. In the end, he, too, declined to step in. Texas killed Humberto Leal, the man in question in this case, at 7 P.M. Eastern time tonight.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Richard Maddow, talking out of his a$$ again?
Submitted by johnsonl on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 5:51am.
Did he have his "smart guy" glasses on? He's really serious about an issue if he has his "smart guy" glasses on.
Now that's funny.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 7:57am.
Now that's funny.
Satchmo = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:42am.
Do not feed the trolls.
Why?
Submitted by Lgbpop on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:41am.
We don't feed the trolls, but you still show up....
Huh? Beuk's a troll? Nah.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:21am.
It's pretty funny when a 20 week member accuses a member going on 5 years of being a troll.
Gracias.
Submitted by johnsonl on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:14am.
It's a gift.
Richard
Submitted by Chucky2a on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:41am.
Actually, check the headline, it's Rachel, not Richard.
HA!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 1:09pm.
Next you'll try to tell us he's a girl!
Oh my...
Submitted by wizardjr on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 3:40pm.
apparently sarcasm eludes you
poster child of the “Dream Act”.
Submitted by Injest on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 5:55am.
He has been in the states since he was 2 years old.
This guy was the poster child of the “Dream Act”.
Obama has the power to pardon
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:17pm.
Obama could have pardoned him any time, if he was so concerned.
Obama, pardon?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:22pm.
For Obama to pardon this guy would have required him to do more than vote "present". This is a specialty of Obama's, foisting responsibility for action on someone else.
I'm not sure if the President
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 4:13am.
I'm not sure if the President has the power to pardon in a state matter.
I'm not sure if the President
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 4:13am.
I'm not sure if the President has the power to pardon in a state matter.
Where was Obama given that
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:38pm.
Where was Obama given that authority?
Satchmo = Troll
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:38pm.
Do not feed this troll.*
*Or fly your "I heart Trolls" flag proudly whilst salutin' the dang thing down there in South Jersey in 1953, whatever, like we care.
Satchmo = troll
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:44pm.
An odious one at that.
Satchmo = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:37am.
Do not feed the trolls.
I'm sorry
Submitted by Francisco on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 6:24am.
But article 36b's final final sentence "The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without
delay of his rights under this subparagraph;" seems to indicate that the authorities were required to inform the guy of his rights "without delay" so your assertion that article 36 does not imply it seems to me incorrect (at a layman's level at least, I'm no lawyer...)
In the end this is WAY too much of a minor technicality for all the fuss about this case, but I guess headlines like "Execution In Texas Violates International Law" and "Obama Defends Convicted Rapist" are way too good to waste at this political time..
Correction: "Obama Defends Convicted Murderer,"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:57am.
not convicted rapist.
He didn't get the death penalty for rape.
I'm trying my damndest
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:00am.
But I can't find anywhere in the agreement that this pertains to people in the receiving State illegally.
The document seems to assume that the accused are in the receiving State legally, with a passport, visa, green card, what have you.
The fact that the document doesn't explicitly differentiate between legal and illegal may be the loophole.
Regardless, Texas is a sovereign state, and as such, is not bound by treaties entered into by the USA unless Congress ratifies it. Not since 1967 has it deigned to do so.
Should Congress ever get around to ratifying this agreement, I would hope, (though I doubt), that they would suggest explicitly that the rights in the agreement pertain only to those citizens of foreign countries that are here legally.
And as one policeman has
Submitted by ant on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:31am.
And as one policeman has wisely stated, "...if the Feds don't want us to ask about immigration status, how do you bring up the Mexican consulate?" I love it, more unintended consequences of libtard policies.
bingo
Submitted by dmacleo on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:19am.
you can't ask, you can't assume, but you are wrong for not asking.
messed up.
Knee Jerks
Submitted by Dr. T on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:14pm.
This is exactly what happens when Libs react to every perceived "outrage" with a knee-jerk reaction to create another dopey law. They don't think anything through. They don't think about the potential consequences. They don't think how their new law may contradict another one of the dopey laws they dreamed up. They just react emotionally and try to capitalize on what they believe is a popular sentiment.
This is one of the best and clearest examples I've seen of what happens when you let Liberals dictate policy. It's never going to work.
can't just blame liberals
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:20pm.
Well mostly but...
How many politicians have be elected that have promised to get to Washington and do nothing?
They all feel they to 'do something' in order to get votes so every time there is an emotional issue they all jump on board.
Great point!
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:19pm.
It bears repeating:
"And as one policeman has wisely stated, "...if the Feds don't want us to ask about immigration status, how do you bring up the Mexican consulate?"
Just curious...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 6:43pm.
Have TX law enforcement personnel ever been barred from inquiring about the immigration/citizenship status of someone arrested for a violent felony?
Jer
What's it to ya? "The public
Submitted by ant on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:48pm.
What's it to ya? "The public are on a "need to know" basis and even then they don't know shit, especially the rubes in flyover country, professional politicians are the only knowers and deciders." -paraphrasing Mr. hope and change.
Obviously, Jer, you have no faith in the statements of law enforcement officers, but are heavily invested in the Democratic Party. Maybe you're asking the wrong questions at the wrong people. You're inquiry would be better focused towards Holder, Nappy, Obama and company.
Thanks, ant...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:04pm.
I'll take that as an admission you are absolutely clueless.
Jer
Is he Jer?
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:16pm.
Fact is, in many places they have more rights then you
Okay...so a lot of TX cops don't like the Rick Perry-backed
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:30pm.
bill which recently passed. What does that have to do with my question?
Jer
Really Jer?
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:36pm.
So what dont they like about it?
Do I really need to walk you through this?
Apparently so, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:44pm.
From your link:
"DALLAS — Top police and sheriff's officials from most of the state's largest cities and counties united Thursday to decry immigration legislation that would shift the burden of enforcement onto their departments, saying the proposals are bad ideas that will strain police and harm public safety..."
Start walking.
Jer
Yea, guess I do,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:52pm.
Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Houston, sponsor of a bill to allow officers to ask about the immigration status of someone who is being detained on suspicion of another crime, said her bill would provide "a discretionary tool," not an unfunded mandate.
So Jer, why would they need a Bill to do so, if'n they already had that authority. Weather they want to, or not dont enter into it!
In other words,
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:06pm.
you don't understand the distinction between a detention versus an arrest, and more specifically, an arrest for a violent felony which was the premise of my original question.
Jer
Your original question
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:13pm.
Have TX law enforcement personnel ever been barred from inquiring about the immigration/citizenship status of someone arrested for a violent felony?
Where was detention mentioned, not to mention where you compared it to anything else. And this is the only question I replied to
The "arrested for a violent felony" part should have been
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:17pm.
a major clue pointing toward the potential information I was seeking.
Jer
Good grief
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:00pm.
detained on suspicion of another crime,
Weather it be violent or otherwise. "Another crime", weather it be federal offense or otherwise.
Get a grip,
Good grief is right...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:11pm.
Get some reading material on arrest versus detention and violent felonies....get a comfy chair...and when you get through with it...get back to me.
Jer
Why?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:47am.
If you cant get a handle on this, then why would I want to complicate it for you.
And besides, your moving the goal post, worst then that, you know it. Your original question (witch I already repeated for your benefit) mentions nothing about detainees. Witch I should add, they would need to be arrested first, before they could be detained.
Er...negative, Boudin.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 2:59pm.
Any movement of the goal posts would be attributable to you. I consistently referred to someone "arrested" for a violent felony, as was Garcia, the subject of the blog.
There are a number of circumstances for which an individual may be detained without being arrested. That's a separate issue.
Jer
Your roped
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:18pm.
And hogtied Jer,
I made it perfectly clear, I was addressing the question you posed above. Any particulars, any persons do not enter into it. Now I know you to be thick as Mud, but Jer, this is bordering on Bricks here.
Folks are arrested all the time, before the ultimate charges are pressed, all the time, everyday, everyway, for everything. Violent or otherwise, Federal offense or otherwise.
I addressed your question, without strings. I offered an account of what you claimed was not so. Since, you have been elaborating on your scenario, without even considering the fact that Texas, needs a Bill, so they can ask about immigration status, from anyone!
But your in luck, as this is my last reply on this topic, so you can bla bla bla, about how wrong I am now.
I'm through with it too, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 9:31pm.
I can't stand to watch while you continue to embarrass yourself or to look at the utterly clueless comments you posted previously.
Jer
You lost this one a long time
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 10:00pm.
You lost this one a long time ago. Detention and arrest are not the same thing. Jer specifically asked a simple yes/no question about someone arrested for a violent felony. And fyi, people are often detained without being subsequently arrested or charged. Any time a cop (or any gov't authority, for that matter) stops you and you aren't free to leave, you're being detained.
Says the town
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 10:05pm.
Nitwit. No doubt Jer is grateful for your support. Why dont you 2 go celebrate.
Admit it, Jer
Submitted by ant on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:22pm.
Your question has been answered. Why spnsor a Bill allowing the authorities to conduct immigration inquiries unless you were not permitted to do so before? Your arrest vs. detention argument is weak, technically they should all be arrested, it's just that our laws are not being enforced on these particular law-breakers. Perhaps being allowed to determine whether someone in custody for one crime is an illegal alien (and has probably broken numerous laws) might actually prevent the criminals from a free-for-all on the streets and actually prevent the rape and brutal murder of other 16 year olds.
How arrogant they must be to, at once, demand the rights and entitlements afforded to US citizens but also demand the protections of the Nation of their allegiance. You cannot have you're cake and eat it too.
Come on, Jer, even you know
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:58pm.
that "Top Police and Sheriff's officials" refers to mouthpieces for the Mayors, or county executives. You think that Bloomberg's chief in NYC is an independent voice? Any more than the chief in Austin is an independent voice?
They don't speak for street cops, most have never been one. I do believe that the last 6 or 7 cops shot in Houston were shot by illegals. So, if their chief said he doesn't favor being able to at least determine a suspects status, he's an ass., and I do believe that's what he said.
Really, Jer?
Submitted by ant on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:08pm.
An illegal immigrant (that means undocumented, not supposed to be here, not an American citizen, in case you didn't know) living in my small community found himself in trouble with the law on 3 occasions, during one incident he actually punched a police officer and was released everytime. Unfortunately, on the fourth occasion he got mad at somebody at a bar and, in an attempt to run him down with his car (how'd he get a license, insurance, etc.? hmmm, mystery..) he plowed into a group of innocent by-standers, one of whom I knew. The victim that I knew spent 6 months in the hospital with internal organ injuries.
The son of a friend of mine was jumped and beaten two months ago in Wildwood, New Jersey, where he had gotten a Summer job. The 'perps' were hispanic gang-bangers (no doubt illegal and no doubt with no desire to be valuable members of the American landscape), they beat him badly, knocking out his front teeth and causing internal injuries by kicking him repeatedly, all while yelling racial slurs. The police told my friend, "New Jersey is a multi-cultural entity, we cannot go looking for the perps because the 'hispanic community' doesn't appreciate our presence in their neighborhoods."
In a State Park over 4th of July, my friends were witness to a group of Mexicans told by a Park Ranger that they must empty their alchohol or leave. The "Mexicans just looking for a better life" started to comply, then shook up a can of beer and exploded it at the Ranger's face. Five police cars showed up and they all had a little 'talk'. The Mexicans were permitted to stay, no arrests, no tickets, no background checks, nothing.
Now, just imagine a citizen being the perpetrator in any of these scenarios. Would you be allowed to walk? Need any more first-hand accounts? I've got plenty.
Those are interesting and troubling anecdotes, ant....
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:13pm.
maybe at some point you'll get around to actually addressing my question.
Thanks anyway.
Jer
That's already been addressed
Submitted by ant on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:31pm.
That's already been addressed by Boudin. You taking your stupid pills today or are you just being difficult and obtuse as usual?
Not that it's any of your business, but
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:57pm.
I'm now taking an extended release pill on Sunday which lasts all week.
Jer
HA-HA!! BTW, I'm glad to see
Submitted by ant on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:07pm.
HA-HA!!
BTW, I'm glad to see the world did not get 'raptured' on your birthday as per the predictions. That would have ruined your cake, I'm guessin'.
Yeah...and the constant fear of looming disaster
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:18pm.
caused me to gobble it up like there was no tomorrow. It felt like I had a brick in my stomach the rest of the day.
Jer
ant
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:14pm.
We vacation very close to Wildwood, thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure my kids head up to Ocean City instead of Wildwood when we go down in August.
But I also wonder if the cops have a bit of apprehension for their safety in the hispanic neighborhoods.
Good, Rad. From what I've
Submitted by ant on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:28pm.
Good, Rad. From what I've been told, besides my friends 'hate' crime incident, the center of Wildwood has become a haven for drug-dealing, criminal, racist, gang-banging reconquistas just looking for a better country to ruin as bad as the one they came from.
Yes, Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:51pm.
Houston and Austin, as well as others, and San Antonio awfully damn close to it, are sanctuary cities, and the officers there are being told by the local councils NOT to inquire about residency.
All Texas' bill would have done is make it illegal in Texas to designate yourself a sanctuary city.
Does that answer your question?
Restless, you're right
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:26am.
as far as I can discern from reading about this "Convention". It was written to apply to those legally in another country. I don't think it was meant to address illegal border jumpers.
And, I think it would be the right thing to do now, have the US demand that the issue of illegals be addressed in any treaty. I know, we'll have to wait for a different administration to do that.
What a creep we have in the White House
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 6:39am.
Once again, Obama sides with the criminal, and against the law. Illegals are to be given all rights under America's laws, and then some. So, in the view of Obama and his ilk, illegals have MORE rights in America than natural born citizens.
It causes one to wonder why the creep
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 6:45pm.
has deported so many of them.
Jer
Jer, you left out an important detail.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:47pm.
Obama's deportation efforts are focusing on illegals committing other crimes. Illegals whose sole crime is being here illegally seem to be getting a pass. While I do appreciate what Obama's doing, there's still a lot of people who are breaking the law just by being here, and we simply can't take on extra people right now. We're having a hard enough time staying afloat as it is.
You left that one right in the strike zone, so I had to take a swing at it. You know you'd do the same.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Okay, Phryj1...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:50pm.
I'm awarding you a ground-rule double.
Jer
Nothing Is Too Absurd For A Leftist
Submitted by ledurchi on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 7:37am.
If it is prohibited to ask the crimminal, illegal immigrant if he is in fact an illegal immigrant, how are they supposed to notify him that he can contact his embassy for consultation?
Game - set - match!
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:22am.
Perfect response, ledurchi. And I wouldn't put it past the SPLC and ACLU to claim that if authorities do ask a suspect if he/she is an 'undocumented' foreign national, those authorities may be guilty of prosecutorial discrimination.
Illegal
Submitted by Chucky2a on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:42am.
And, if he ISN'T an illegal, that means he's an American, which means the Convention doesn't apply. So easy to twist things to suit them, when they're crying for their life. I bet when that poor girl cried for hers, he had no mercy. (Quite obviously, right?)
and what will the embassy do?
Submitted by dmacleo on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:22am.
if they are illegal and contact their embassy should the embassy help prosecute them?
I say they should but thats because I am, since I believe in immigration enforcement, a racist or something.
american citizens in another country MUST follow host countries laws, and they also pay the penalty for breaking the laws.
Can you direct me to an example of that prohibition...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 6:51pm.
I've yet to run across one that would bar law enforcement from determining status of someone arrested and charged with a violent felony.
Thanks.
Jer
Sure, Jer
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 6:56pm.
it happened to me all the time, in a previous career. When you ask them, the response is "no habla". It's hard to establish status when they don't habla.
So, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 7:09pm.
are you saying there was or was not a law prohibiting you from inquiring about the immigration/citizenship status of a violent felony arrestee?
Jer
Didn't matter if we asked or not
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:42pm.
to put a hold on an arrestee for an immigration violation, we had to get approval from Immigration. And, being a Federal law enforcement agency, they only worked 9 to 5. They weren't "available" when I worked. As for the law, back then, there wasn't a law prohibiting the asking. Of course, back then, illegals also had valid Michigan driver's licenses, so it was always good to ask.
And, if said arrestee says "no habla" when you ask him his name, why ask anything else? Jeez, get off your high horse, I was making a semi-valid, semi-humorous point about trying to converse with an illegal immigrant.
For pete's sake, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:55pm.
get off yours. I'm politely asking a straightforward question. And I do greatly appreciate your addressing the specific issue I raised.
Thanks.
Jer
The libs just don't care!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:01am.
I've heard about this case a few years ago off and on but I'm not surprised that it received the attention that it has. What I'm disgusted with is how they don't seem to care about what happened to the girl herself and how she was found, and if it doesn't make anyone sick, there's something wrong with you.
I'm glad Perry stuck to his guns and I'm glad the SCOTUS made the decision it did (the 4 dissenters were Ginsburg, Sotomayer, Kagan, and Breyer, big surprise, those people are now officially scum in my book). They were right to say that legally they couldn't do anything about stopping the execution. And even if they did order the stay, Texas would have ignored it because again, they were legally not about to stay the execution just because SCOTUS told them too, not when Texas law trumps the US in this case.(10th Amendment and the ruling of SCOTUS for that Vienna UN thing) Further, I liked how they pointed out that in the request to get 6 months to pass some dumbass law, that Congress had 3 years to do so(gee, imagine that, where have we heard that used before? Many times before too!)
This is like that one case in California where that guy who killed some people with a shotgun and growled like an animal or whatever, those idiots wanted to save him from dying because he wrote some kids book, and they wanted to overlook his crime!!
But no surprise from this bogus potus, no value once again on life and this thing about international concerns is just a load of crap. I defy anyone to tell me otherwise.
I'm glad that bastard is dead. It was a long time in coming and I'm sure the girl's parents are relieved the monster that took their girl is dead.
-Jon
Those four have always been
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:03am.
Those four have always been scum, even though they'll accidentally rule correctly on occassion.
Satchmo = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:42am.
Do not feed the trolls.
I've written this before and
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:44am.
I've written this before and it bears repeating: when have facts ever mattered with the folks at MSNBC in light of a good smear against conservatives?
Here's why Obama wanted the stay
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:51am.
According to Wikipedia (so consider the source), in Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), the Supreme Court held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President lacks the authority to enforce international treaties.
Sen. Leahy (D-VT) is now trying to introduce just such legislation, but it will take weeks (more likely months) to pass it, so the White House sought a postponement of execution.
But that raises another question: Why?
No one appears to be contesting the verdict of the trial. The state of Texas acted within the existing laws in prosecuting and carrying out the sentence. Would the Justice Department retroactively apply the Leahy bill to undo the verdict of a trial convened 17 years ago? Were they hoping the felon would be retried? Was this a grandstanding issue for Obama hoping in some odd way to cull more favor from the Hispanic voters? Or Mexico?
It comes as no surprise that Maddow didn't delve into this, preferring instead to throw out a couple of facts and ignore key facts to paint Texas and Gov. Perry as blood-thirsty cowboys thumbing their noses at Washington.
Typical of Maddow to leave
Submitted by Lgbpop on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:46am.
Typical of Maddow to leave out most of the facts, since failing to do so would render most of his/her arguments silly. I loved to pithiness of the majority opinion: "We must judge the case by the law as it is now, not what it may be in the future."
What was to be gained?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:56am.
Those are good questions, what was to be gained by doing all this? There was absolutely nothing to be gained by keeping this animal alive, at least nothing a normal person could see. The evidence was incontrovertible, hell, they even matched a bite mark to him and the guy confessed to his brother covered in her blood. The way she was left to be found was so sickening and depraved, if I had been the father, I would have moved heaven and earth to kill him myself.
There is NO justification for leaving someone like this animal alive. Yes, I keep calling him an animal, there's nothing human about what he did. One other person I know of is like this and he got shot and killed in Iraq. That was Uday Hussein, one of Saddam's sons, may they all rot in hell. That guy was known for a similar brutality displayed like the one executed last night. It was only fitting that Uday got shot and killed.
-Jon
What was gained is this, Jon
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:31am.
Illegals, particularly those of the criminal bent, might be dissuaded from coming here illegally, knowing that they just might be executed for it if they are caught committing a capital crime (unlike in Mexico, where there is no death penalty, even for these Zeta serial murderers).
A slim gain....but I congratulate Rick Perry and the State of Texas for giving Obama the finger and following the laws of your great state.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
My favorite part
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:56am.
One of my favorite part was when Gov Perry refused to take any phone calls from the Mexican Ambassador.
I wouldn't have either.
Despite whatever faults Perry may have, you gotta love the guy for not coming close to even thinking about buckling under National(read King Soetoro) and International(read UN) pressure.
Now if he can give "shoot to kill" orders of those Zetas and other cartels, things might get a bit more stable. Since we can't rely on the Fed gov't for help on this, we're on our own and I wouldn't want to take these guys prisoners.
-Jon
And that's what the MSM misses, Jon
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:47am.
They focus on the State Department's assertion that failure to abide by the Vienna Convention of 1963 will result in reciprocal noncompliance by other countries. But we've gone 44 years since the Convention took effect in 1967, and we've had reciprocity with most countries.
What real journalists would be digging into is why now? What did the White House want out of this?
And does Mexico really care about the execution of a convicted murderer/rapist when it's seen over 30,000 cartel-related deaths since 2006?
What is the bigger issue for Mexico: The execution of a Mexican murderer who was not advised of his "right" to call a consulate in 1994, or the disastrous ATF Operation Fast and Furious that has seen hundreds of US firearms disappear into northern Mexico, only to emerge at crime scenes?
I have come to believe that Obama's White House is overwhelmed with issues, and lacking a moral compass, focuses on trivial crap while ignoring the major problems.
And the same can be said about the MSM.
Since when did the truth matter. . .
Submitted by rickbren on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:03am.
. . . to the folks at PMSNBC???
Where are the facts?
Submitted by alright now on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:24am.
I assume since he was in Texas since age 2 that he didn't have much of an accent. Did he inform authorities he was a Mexican citizen? Did he have a lawyer? Who paid for the lawyer? Was the lawyer aware he was a Mexican citizen? Did his lawyer ask for help from the Mexican consulate? I don't see these in Maddow's report or here at Newsbusters.
who cares?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:49am.
He's dead, sentence has been carried out. This was better than he deserved. So I look at it as putting down an animal.
But if you really want to know, Yes, Yes, Don't know, Yes, who knows and who cares? In that order.
And people seem to ignore the fact that the victim was also hispanic. Can't apply racial discrimination in this case.
-Jon
I remember when that case was tried.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:39am.
There was little or no mention in the news pieces at the time about Leal's citizenship status. It was a non-issue at that time.
The case was especially gruesome because of the brutality of the murder and the mangled condition in which the 16-year old victim was found.
Texas law is pretty clear on what a governor can do. One 30 day stay is permitted, followed by a decision by a board for commutation. The governor cannot commute a death sentence or sign a pardon without board approval. What the media never tells you is that this is due to corruption by several different Democrat governors earlier in the 20th century who were restrained by their own political cronies in the Texas legislature.
Gotta love Texas law
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:55am.
That's one of the things I like about Texas Law, it's pretty specific and spelled out and doesn't have the goofy language like the US Congress likes to try to use.
Take the American Disabilties Act, the Texas version was 4 pages shorter.
I think that's what libs hate about Texas' laws, it's unrelenting, there's no room for technicalities (generally speaking), no "wiggle room" as it were. Very difficult to cheat the system.
-Jon
delete by me
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 12:23pm.
delete
"Viva Mexico. Viva Mexico"
Submitted by mom_rox on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:58am.
Yes, those were murderer Humberto Leal's last words.
I don't have a list of his defense team, but the lead lawyer is Sandra Babcock, law professor at Northwestern University. Hmmm, just a guess, but I don't think Humberto could afford her normal hourly rates.
And she certainly
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:52am.
did this because she "believes in justice". Yeah, right. I'd bet that the government of Meh-hee-co had been writing the checks for the defense for some time now.
Good on Texas, and Gov. Perry for, in effect, telling BO to go pound sand.
Never Saw It Coming
Submitted by rgrimesr on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:18am.
At least twice in the last year, BHO has "snubbed" Perry's request for assistance in helping with border security...even to the point of not accepting a hand delivered note from Perry to BHO on the tarmack at the El Paso Airport....caught on film BTW! So BHO thought Perry would take his call on this matter...We don't play that way in Texas!!!! Maddow repeatedly states that Texas "killed" this animal...when in fact he was executed in accordance with the laws of, not only the State of Texas, but the U.S. as well! Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!!!!! BTW, Rachel is welcome in Texas!!! he he he
Never Saw it Coming
Submitted by rgrimesr on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:20am.
The second snub was refusing an invitation by Perry when BHO was in Austin! Boggles the mind that Perry wouldn't take his calls!
Hoo boy!
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:55am.
I think the liberals like this impossible-to-comply-with-so-the-system-is-broken vibe that they can create by their chaff concerning "undocumented residents". Connecticut gives illegal residents "in-state" college rates because they don't think they are allowed to treat one resident as different from another, to comply with the "Our Constitutional Ideals" and equal protection BS. However, Texas is required to treat this resident as different type of resident because, well he's not official.
This smacks of under-the-table dual citizenship which is prohibited by the Constitution.
It's funny how close we can skirt this, but a superindent of schools in Dover cannot make mention of a textbook in one paragraph out of four, because it used to say "Creation", and even non-miraculous "Creationism" is ruled to be "religious" in intent, because it doesn't pass the "Lemon Test" of being "wholly secular", violating the "Wall of Separation" in Jefferson's letter, all so that we don't create an excessive entanglement with a entity of religion. So "mere mention" as Jones admits is now a small step to "excessive entanglement", with regard to religion and our religious "liberties". But illegals can have as close to a de facto dual citizenship as long as some judge doesn't rule it's exactly that.
You don't have to collapse the system as much, if you convince people it's already broken. Giving illegals dual citizenship under the guise of "acting in line with our Constitutional ideals" is one way to do that.
Well, Quasi, I'm not exactly
Submitted by pepperoniprince on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:17am.
Well, Quasi, I'm not exactly sure of the intent of your comment, but it sounds right.
And a loud cheer was heard throughout the land.......
Submitted by Herbster on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:01am.
A large "Bravo" was echoed in my house when we heard that Mr. Garcia had gone to meet his maker! Bravo to our governor for standing up to obambi and "International law." A win-win.
Maddow, as usual, is off base. First, the executed man's last name is Garcia - Leal is his middle name. Yet Maddow, and her fellow travelers in the media, for some reason, chose to never use the murderer's true last name. For political reasons, obviously. Were they afraid of a negative reflection on the "Dream act," or "Immigration reform?" I watched Maddow last night........it was an education in leftist imbecility. Besides the rant as posted above, she brought on Bob Herbert (Another far left useful idiot) to back up her off the wall analysis. They did the usual leftist stunts of turning the criminal into a victim, berating the "Killer state" of Texas, denigrating Perry, etc. They never mentioned that Mr. Garcia confessed, told his brother what he had done, etc. The cherry on top of the sundae was when Maddow and Herbert agreed that Garcia was innocent! Amazing! Naturally, the true victim, a 16 year old girl, was never mentioned. As practicing one-worlders, their concern was that a governor stood strong for his state - not bowing down to the UN, obambi, or "International law." I was fascinated to see obambi involve himself in this case - obviously to cast aspersion on Perry and the state of Texas. (Afraid Perry will run?)
The idea that Mr. Garcia could be allowed to live since his conviction in 1994 shows a problem in our judicial system. Naturally, a gaggle of lawyers sucking at the teat of us taxopayers is offensive to me. These slimeballs are getting rich at our expense. Convicyed? ONE appeal....and that's it.
Celebrate the day!
Lawyer flooded the system with appeals
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:45pm.
They said that for 16 years, he filed (through his lawyer) appeals and motions so extensively that one judge called his case "one of the most procedurally convulated and complex habeas corpus proceedings" that he's seen.
It was mentioned elsewhere, but Comedian Ron White had an idea that if there was absolutely no question that the guy did what he did, he should be moved to the front of the line and get it done. There was absolutely no question that this guy did what he did. And yet, they tried to keep this animal alive. Mind boggling.
-Jon
Maddow
Submitted by pepperoniprince on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:05am.
I can't stand that guy.
Obama smack down
Submitted by Isnrblog on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:26am.
Obama got the Rick Perry/Texas smack down.
RICK PERRY FOR PRESIDENT!!
isnrblog
Would that have changed the outcome?
Submitted by octavioj on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:42am.
I am against the death penalty. But having said that I have to ask what difference would that have made in this case. If Mexico thought the convict did not have adequate representation, they could have asked for a retrial, could they not? Why did they not? They had several years to do so. And even if they did, would that have changed the outcome? I fail to see how.
Lies and other lies
Submitted by jaywl on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:44am.
I can recall, years past, when a public figure was vilified for lying to the public. If a person was merely wrong on certain facts, they would be called to task for that. But repeat offenders, those who had an agenda, a reason to perpetuate falsehoods, were exposed as such. The most obvious was the treatment McCarthy got (fairly or not) after the press and fellow politicians overcame their fear. Nowadays Maddow and fellow travelers can say anything without contradiction and it follows they won't be exposed as fraudsters trying any means to sway the public. When our President can get away with lies, innuendos, contradictions, and all manner of other sophistry and our protectors in the press let him (urge and support him) we have no defense against his ultimate aim. That is the central problem, we do not know his goal because of the press and may only find out if he is re-elected and the Congress and the Courts continue to allow Obama to wield their power as his.
JAYWL is right on the mark (Lies and other lies)
Submitted by Herbster on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 12:08pm.
JAYWL is 100% correct in his analysis. Until we have an honest media and REAL journalism..............
We can expect to see Jon
Submitted by Bhaal on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 12:49pm.
We can expect to see Jon Stewart chime in on Maddow I'm sure since he is all about inaccuracies and bias in the media. I'm sure Jon will have a very humorous bit on Rachael's error since he's not biased.
Kill him.
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 12:57pm.
Kill him.
They did.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 1:12pm.
The end.
Only Congress....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 1:12pm.
can sign and enforce treaties. Congress didn't sign squat relevant to this case.
It's not Congress, it's the
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 1:40pm.
It's not Congress, it's the Senate that ratifies treaties.
But what it comes down to is that they wanted the execution delayed so they could have time to pass a law preventing it.
And this is after(from Wikipedia):
In June 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals who were not notified of their right to consular notification and access after an arrest may not use the treaty violation to suppress evidence obtained in police interrogation or belatedly raise legal challenges after trial (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon[1]). [sound familiar?]
In March 2008, the Supreme Court further ruled that the decision of the International Court of Justice directing the United States to give "review and reconsideration" to the cases of 51 Mexican convicts on death row was not a binding domestic law and therefore could not be used to overcome state procedural default rules that barred further post-conviction challenges (Medellín v. Texas [2])
Having been smacked down twice by SCOTUS, they now want time to enact a law.
Mind boggling
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:04pm.
It just boggles the mind that these people were trying so damn hard to keep alive animals that look like men(but act like animals without one trace of humanity) that do horrific deeds like this one guy did. They don't seem to care about the death of a young girl who was brutalized.
This morning, a co-worker got into an argument with me about this and kept trying to say "what if the girl was a crack prostitute?" My jaw hit the floor and said "so that makes it ok for him to do what he did??" I turned it around on him and said "What if it was your niece that this happened to?" (he has one close to the same age) That shut him up.
I don't care what the girl is doing or what her lifestyle is, there is absolutely NO justification for that kind of horrific act against the girl, especially when it results in her death. That doesn't give anyone any excuse whatsoever. And I went one step further and told that guy "where does the line get drawn if he's doing this? When is it ok for him to do what he did?"
Ugh. Wow, some people, why they want to keep those animals alive is beyond me.
-Jon
I Believe it is a vote
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:07pm.
I Believe it is a vote requiring 2/3 majority quorum of the Senate.
Maddow
Submitted by Bradford on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:06pm.
She should look at the crime.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/leal.jpg
and then what he had to say.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/lealhumbertolast.html
Thank you Texas.
Who is that creature who has
Submitted by marpel on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:13pm.
Who is that creature who has been sitting in for crazy Lawrence O'Donnell? I thought it was Mr. Maddow after the complete sex change...
Our Gov, Rick Perry, showed tremendous leadership in his decision not to stay that A hole's execution. This crime happened in my hometown, and the only criticism I have is that the execution didn't happen sooner before it cost us Texans so much money.
You go, Rick!
"Deep within my heart lies a memory. A song of ol' San Antone..."
Win-Win
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 4:41pm.
This is a win-win situation as far as I'm concerned.
Win #1: The soulless, amoral animal that committed this brutal crime is dead. Good riddance to foul-smelling trash.
Win#2: Rick Perry gave Obama the finger and figuratively told him to go to hell.
As the old beer commercial went, Some days are just better than others.
Perry won't be invited to
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 5:02pm.
Perry won't be invited to Obama's next "beer summit."
What happens next....
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 5:09pm.
In all seriousness, I think it's safe to say at this point that Perry might be done with DuhOne. I mean, this is just outright ridiculous, ignored on the border situation and then publicly mocked, ignored on the federal disaster request because of the fires, and so on, why should Perry give him the time of day? After suffering an annoying time from having the SCOTUS look at whether or not they can demand a stay of execution, to having an Ambassador from Mexico calling him (at least he didn't talk to him) and so on, this ought to be the straw that breaks the camel's back and Perry should tell him to go to hell in all things DuhOne and handle things ourselves with extreme prejudice like the cartels and the border situation.
What a ridiculous situation!
-Jon
Perry has BEEN done with Him
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:11pm.
IMHO, Gov Perry has BEEN done with His Majesty The Shahinshah. HMTS hates TX anyway because we TX voters had the good sense (most of us, anyway) to not give Him the electoral votes of this state. He sure as all hell will not get them next year. And I think Perry was done with Him when He refused to discuss anything of importance with Perry this past spring when He was in El Paso for a campaign stop.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I imagine Obama's snubs to
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:09am.
I imagine Obama's snubs to Texas will definitely come back and bite him in the 2012 election.
I know TX has lethal injection, BUT
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:58pm.
I need to dedicate some music to Humbarto Leal Garcia.
I am the reason there are death penalty opponents.
Praise the Great State of Texas!!!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
With respect...
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:48pm.
WE are the reason there are death penalty opponents.
Somewhere in the distant NB past, I'd made a statement that I approve of the death penalty, but not of lethal injection. Haven't seen anything between then and now to change my mind.
Additionally... the whole point of a public court is for ALL to see justice properly transacted. When the State takes a man's life, it ought to be equally open and above board. Tucking away a execution into some small room with only a few witnesses is expensive and stupid.
Hang murderers. Do it right in the public square as in the days of old. For a bit of irony re: the unlamented Garcia, the 35 lb chunk of asphalt he used in his crime should have been tied to his ankles, thus to shorten the drop.
Some folks in here in this thread and in other threads have been talking about Perry taking a run at the White House. The way things have been decaying, he might well end up President...
...of a Republic of Texas.
NVCon, back from a few things
Ahem.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 5:52pm.
Allow me to join the chorus here.
I have always said I not only support the Death Penalty, but support it's expansion as well. And what's with 17 frickin' years on Death Row??? One year to exhaust all appeals. The sentence should be carried out no more than one year after conviction. On TV for all to see.
Texas not only has the Death Penalty, we have a drive-thru lane.
RayChill never
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:16pm.
let's facts cloud her mind. She is pathetically stupid.
Texas dead man was walking
Submitted by LarryG on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 2:22am.
I'd call "oops". Well, maybe we can have him brought back. Oh, wait.... To hell with Mexico and the politicians.
At least Maddow finally acknowledges legal status
Submitted by ChuckySchmucky on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 11:29am.
So NOW, at long last, a leftist wants to recognize the legal status of somebody in this country.
See what it takes for demented leftists to FINALLY acknowledge the legal status of illegal immigrants and to treat them as such? Heretofore, they wanted to treat them all as citizens.
But now -- in an effort to prevent the execution of a depraved murderer -- the left FINALLY recognizes their illegal status. Very telling that THIS is what it takes for the left to acknowledge the immigration status of a person.
And it ain't just Madcow. This is the mindset of the perverted left everywhere, including the Oval Office.