long cut and paste

[OnyxCougar]

So Mari, from your garbled post, is that the only statement in the Vienna Convention document that has any bearing on the death penalty?

If it is, why do people feel that the aforementioned statement means that the United States can't execute it's own citizens OR make legislation leaving that to the individual states?

You're not making sense?



So far, I have to back the Dub on this one... How does an ambiguous document limit what the governor of any state in the US does with it's citizens????????

[Happy Monkey]

Well, the provided quote was:

" Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it ? "

All the rest of these posts have been guesses as to the context,. But it is not necessary to know the context to realise that the stattement is legally incorrect on its face. Texas does not sign any treaties - the US does. If the US signs a treaty, then Texas is subject to it.

In other words, it's a stupid statement, however it is connected to the death penalty.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Come on TW. But Georgie and Rush, started it. Christ, I know you can do better than that.
Oh,...I get it,....two wrongs make a right. Or was that three lefts?

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
So Mari, from your garbled post, is that the only statement in the Vienna Convention document that has any bearing on the death penalty?

If it is, why do people feel that the aforementioned statement means that the United States can't execute it's own citizens OR make legislation leaving that to the individual states?

You're not making sense?



So far, I have to back the Dub on this one... How does an ambiguous document limit what the governor of any state in the US does with it's citizens????????

Sorry, that I didn't make myself more clear. Let me try again. When international human rights groups attacked then Texas govener, George Bush, about the number of executions in his state, Bush replied, " Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it ? "

I posted this quote as an example of both Bush's apparent indifference to international opinion and his lack of understanding of international treaties and law. The remark was obviously inane, because the Vienna Convention did not especially apply to the subject under discussion whether applied to Texas or the United States. The Vienna Convention does not specifically address the rights of prisoners except possibly in the one broad statement which I quoted, "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all."

If Bush was not replying within the context of that statement, he may possibly have been mixing the Vienna Convention up with the Geneva Convention. Either way, it is an incredibly ignorant response since the Geneva Conventions have to do with the treatment of prisoners of war and the people executed did not have that status.

Perhaps Bush felt he had to answer international criticism with some referral to international law, however ill informed it turned out to be.

[cowhead]

whoa! mr (ms?/mrs.?). moniker, I did put my own little two cents worth in, I am not that familiar with the bible or the bulk of christianity, i asked at the bottom of the second part, what you people thought of it.. that's all I'm looking for other opinions, perhaps some that are more well grounded in theology than i have an understanding of.. I mean if you really want I'll happily research it and get back to your points..( which is something I had planned to do anyway... ).. just give me a few days. (i'm not just trying to stir up sh*t, I don't know what to think... and I'm trying to form an opinion on the matter)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bush replied, " Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it ? "

I'd bet real money, that response was to a reporters question about why Bush/Texas didn't honor the Vienna Convention, or something like that. I don't believe he brought it up initially as an explanation, that's just not his style.
Ah, the danger of the 10 second sound bite (byte?).

[Beestie]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I'd bet real money, that response was to a reporters question about why Bush/Texas didn't honor the Vienna Convention, or something like that. I don't believe he brought it up initially as an explanation, that's just not his style.
Ah, the danger of the 10 second sound bite (byte?).

While I cannot find any reference to the statement in any main stream pub, here are some tidbits with sources noted. I included both since each has a unique and important detail.

From Texas to Abu Ghraib: The Bush Legacy of Prisoner Abuse

Harvey Wasserman, author of George W. Bush and the Superpower of Peace, points out in a recent article that, while Bush was governor of Texas, 152 prisoners were executed, among them Carla Faye Tucker, a murderer who became a Christian and for whom clemency was begged by a broad array of people; and an immigrant who was denied access to his government as required by international law. According to Wasserman, Bush said: "Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it?," and Federal Judge William Wayne Justice concluded that testimony by Texas inmates about violence, rape and extortion in prisons was credible. In a 1996 videotape, guards attack prisoners with stun guns and dogs and then drag them face down into their cells.

What Kind of America Does Bush Know?

In George Bush's America, denial about inmate mistreatment runs similarly rampant. As Texas governor, Bush oversaw the executions of 152 prisoners and thus became the most-killing governor in the history of the United States. Ethnic minorities, many of whom did not have access to proper legal representation, comprised a large percentage of those Bush put to death, and in one particularly egregious example, Bush executed an immigrant who hadn't even seen a consular official from his own country (as is required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the US was a signatory). Bush's explanation: "Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it?"

[Catwoman]

History's greatest villains were often great speakers. Bush's obtuse illiteracy should not be taken as proof of his incompetance or 'evilness' - we can only judge this on his actions. Let us put aside our ill-informed media-led opinions about motive and circumstance.

It is FACT that he ordered record executions as governor of Texas. It is FACT that he ordered America's soldiers to die and to kill in Iraq.

That he embodies the Anti Christ, possesses 'blood lust' or represents evil itself is religious fervour and propaganda.

To condemn the administration, on the basis of the above irrefutable actions, is democracy.

[glatt]

Catwoman, I'm no fan of Bush, but to be clear, he didn't order any executions in Texas. All those who were excecuted had their day in court in front of a judge and jury. Bush had the opportunity to stay the executions, and chose not to. Instead he mocked those who pleaded for thier lives. He's an ass, but he didn't order any executions.

[Catwoman]

I see your point, glatt, but wouldn't you agree that for him to do nothing (and then ridicule) is equally as diabolic as if he had ordered the profligate killings?

[glatt]

I would agree with that, yes.

[Undertoad]

The Governor of Texas can issue one single 30-day reprieve per inmate.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The Governor of Texas can issue one single 30-day reprieve per inmate.

Keep your facts to yourself sir, this is an ideological argument.

[Beestie]

Originally posted by glatt
Instead he [Bush] mocked those who pleaded for thier lives. He's an ass, but he didn't order any executions.

I don't think mocking death row inmates is very polite but let's remember that we are talking about bloodthirsty murderers who, in all likelihood mocked their victims pleas for mercy.

Moving on to the general question of executions in Texas, its a knife in my gut when I hear folks fall for this "I found Jesus last week so let me out of jail/off the hook, please" crap (Carla Faye Tucker, et al).

152± people knew before they picked up the knife or gun or whatever that if they get caught, Texas will kill them yet they killed.

[Catwoman]

Originally posted by Beestie
let's remember that we are talking about bloodthirsty murderers who, in all likelihood mocked their victims pleas for mercy.

You don't know that - can we stick to the facts?

Originally posted by Beestie
152± people knew before they picked up the knife or gun or whatever that if they get caught, Texas will kill them yet they killed.

Beestie please refer to the death penalty thread for information on a murderer's capacity for rationality in light of potential punishment.