After raping Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña in every which way possible, José Medellín proceeded to strangle, slash and stomp the young girls to death. “The bitch wouldn’t die,” he complained when one of these vibrant lasses lingered. Before dumping the bodies, Medellín and his gangbangers – for whom this orgy was an initiation rite – stripped them of “valuables,” which were then given to girlfriends.
José Medellín was allowed to go on living in jail almost as long as Jennifer and Elizabeth had lived on earth. Finally, Rick Perry, the (dashing) governor of Texas, defied Mexico City, The Hague and their enablers in Washington, and ended Medellin’s miserable life. He was executed on Aug. 5, 2008, 15 years after the crime, because the usual local, international, and loco “liberati” fought ferociously for his life.
Said a grateful Randy Ertman, Jennifer’s father: “I love Texas. Texas is in my blood.”
About Medellín’s guilt there was never any doubt. The perp bragged about what he had done. The evidence was irrefutable. “Medellin was found to have raped both girls, and to have helped to murder at least one by holding one end of the shoelace used to strangle her,” wrote Medellín’s pals at the “International Justice Project.”
But the case, and 50 others like it, roiled liberal hemophiliacs at home, abroad and at the World Court. For they had uncovered – or, rather, minted – new rights: “consular rights.” The right to a consular consultation is, apparently, on par with the right to life, liberty, property, freedom of speech and religion, and due process of law.
Indeed, there is much here that jars, not least the ponderous references to “consular rights.” A procedural default such as the failure to apprise a defendant of his consular contacts is never a violation of a natural right. “Consular rights” are of a piece with Miranda rights and the Exclusionary Rule – technicalities tarted up as real rights.
Fail to Mirandize a murderer properly, and his confession will be tossed out. In the same vein, a procedural violation of the Fourth Amendment, say, an improper search, can get evidence of guilt – a bloodied knife or a smoking gun – barred from being presented at trial. More often than not, such procedural defaults are used to suppress immutable physical facts, thus serving to subvert the spirit of the law and justice.
Nevertheless, Medellín claimed he had been deprived of due process as his jailors did not brief him about his right to contact the Mexican consular post, a “right” embedded in the “Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,” to which the U.S. is a signatory.
Texas courts and the federal courts dismissed the notion that a failure to contact the Mexican Consulate impeded due process or changed the facts of the case. Mexico promptly sued the U.S. in the International Court of Justice on behalf of Medellín and other killer compadres awaiting a similar fate.
My apologies if I’ve given you the reader the impression that the president of the United States failed to pull out all the stops for Medellín. Bush would wrestle a crocodile for a criminal alien. Medellín the murderer was no exception.
The president had set a precedent in the case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. For defending their country, and in the process shooting a drug smuggler in the derriere, Bush sicced his bloodhound, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, on these Border Patrol agents. With the same inverted morality, Bush rode to the rescue of another Mexican outlaw, Medellín; this time against the state he once governed. The president ordered Texas to heed the World Court. Texas said NO. The Supreme Court seconded Texas.
Liberals tried to have a technicality trump the truth about Medellín; Texas turned them down.
If mainstream media were not so adept at shedding darkness on these and most matters, they’d have quizzed Obama and McCain about the meaning of Medellín. (Here the reader is encouraged to fill in all the clichés of improbability he can conjure.)
I predict that certainly Obama, and probably McCain – whoever succeeds King George – will cede the rights of Americans to global governors and jurists. They’ll both baffle “Boobus Americanus” with references to the “Supremacy Clause” in Article VI of the Constitution, which states that all treaties made by the federal government shall be “the supreme Law of the Land,” and shall usurp state law. “My friends,” McCain will mumble condescendingly, “I don’t want the ‘consular rights’ of an American abroad compromised.” If Obama’s The One, he will rationalize treason similarly.
But should an American visiting overseas do what Medellín did, the thought of him getting what he deserves warms the cockles of this heart. Give him due process, I say, and his “consular rights” be damned.