re: "Nuke the News: The Only Thing Obama Stimulated Was… MURDER!"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") commented on consular notification.

Money quote(s):

"Didn’t really get this whole Humberto Leal thing. If one of our citizens went to another country and raped and murdered someone, could you see America making a big stink about the guy’s rights? I mean, no one is saying the guy is innocent, but we’re supposed to care after what he’s done that he didn’t get to talk to a consulate? What was the consulate going to say to him? I hope it would be, “DON’T RAPE AND MURDER PEOPLE!” And when we see the Mexican government doing all they can to help rapists and murderers, it’s not really great PR for the country. They really want to spend more time highlighting the non-rapists and non-murderers. Still, just before dying from lethal injection, Leal shouted, “Viva Mexico!” So they won over one guy." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

We have Americans in the jails of every country to which I've been posted as a foreign service officer. And, in every one of them, at least one of them was in jail for murder (if not rape).

We check on them as per the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and we do so at least quarterly as per our own laws and regulations.

re: "Supreme Court Denies Stay for Mexican Convict In Texas"

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") covered some consular notification news.

Money quote(s):

"The U.S. Supreme Court tonight denied a stay of execution for that Mexican citizen who had been sitting on death row in Texas for 16 years. The court's vote was 5-4 (the usual suspects) and the majority opinion is full of strong statements"

SCOTUS, like consular officers, deals with the laws as they're written, not as they'd like them to be written. Except, of course, when they don't. But consular officers have considerably less, er, interpretive discretion.

"Nothing in the record shows that Leal ever asked for consular access, or even told the police that he was a Mexican citizen (he had lived in the U.S. - illegally - since he was two years old and represented himself as a U.S. citizen). And in any case, he made his incriminating admissions to the police before they arrested him, and therefore before they had any obligation to inform him of his right to consular assistance.

Even if Leal had had the benefit of Mexican consular access before his trial, that would not have changed the fact that he had incriminated himself, nor change any of the other evidence against him. The lack of consular access, then, was not relevant to his conviction and death sentence." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The facts as cited above make me wonder how/why this case ever made it to the SCOTUS. Who/what was pushing it upwards through the court system and to what end?

"The matter of reciprocity or Mexican retaliation against U.S. citizens is a real concern, but it is much less important than the interest Texas has in carrying out its state laws and punishing murder. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that when adherence to a treaty such as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is contrary to a state statute, the President cannot override the statute unilaterally, but legislation is required. And as the Supreme Court noted tonight, Congress has not provided that legislation. The Vienna Convention, therefore, has no bearing on the case of Humberto Leal, and Texas was completely free to execute him."

Federalism rears its ugly head. Again. Federal laws don't trump state laws unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. So Congress has such power, but must definitely and discretely exercise it in each instance of legislation.

Good to know.

As for reciprocity, the suggestion of official Mexican retaliation against U.S. citizens is a real concern, but pre-supposes that the Mexican government actually does, or will continue to in the future, have some control over events and activities within its borders.

re: "Proposed Legislation Seeks VCCR Compliance by the United States"

Duncan Hollis at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") has a good explanation of this issue.

re: "Suddenly, States Have Authority Over Aliens"

Federale ("Federal Service Guarantees Citizenship") examines some of the technicalities differentiating consular and diplomatic immunities.

Money quote(s):

"(N)ow that the Punjab State government in Pakistan has arrested an American diplomat and are holding him in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the radical left is on the war path, defending the right of a State government to arrest and hold a diplomat.

As is usual with the left, they deceive their readers. They claim that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 authorizes the arrest"

&

"(D)espite the selective quotations from the Reds, Davis is not a consular officer, but a diplomatic officer, covered by Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which is quite stricter regarding arresting and holding diplomats as opposed to consular officers. But Counterpunch and their writer Dave Lindorff are either too dumb to know the difference between a diplomatic officer and a consular officer or they know and act to deceive"

Be sure to read the final paragraph: training matters; "Lack of training kills."