Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Obama Tries To Block Execution of Mexican National Who Raped And Murdered 16-Year-Old


Back in 1994, 16-year-old Adria Sauceda attended a house party in San Antonio. Either voluntarily or involuntarily or a mixture of the two, she was given large amounts of alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana, pulled into the backyard and gang raped in turn by a group of eight men. One of them was Humberto Leal, a Mexican national who was brought to America illegally at the age of two.

Leal then kidnapped the teenager, took her to a remote location and then raped her repeatedly, finally murdering her by crushing her skull with a 35 lb chunk of asphalt. When the police found Sauceda's body,it still had a stick with a screw protruding from it that Leal had used to rape her with and left shoved into her corpse.

Leal was found guilty of rape, kidnapping and murder and given the death penalty. There's never been any serious doubt about his guilt.

But President Obama and the usual 'international law' lobby wants him given life imprisonment, and perhaps even released to the Mexican authorities.

The grounds for this is that Leal was a Mexican national, and when he was arrested he was not given the opportunity to contact the Mexican Consulate under the Vienna Convention.

Leal's lawyers argue that his not receiving consular access played a role in the death penalty being applied because Leal incriminated himself in statements he made during interviews with the police on the day of the murder. Their point is that if Leal had access to the Mexican consulate they might have hired him a lawyer who would have advised Leal not to talk to the police, thus allowing him to evade justice.

This is a similar case to the brutal rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena, who were abducted off the streets, raped, tortured and sodomized for hours, and then strangled with their own shoelaces by a gang led by an illegal alien, Jose Medellin. Ultimately, on April 8th, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of states rights over international law that international court decisions cannot be forced upon the states and saying specifically that that Texas had the right to execute Mexican nationals who had found guilty of murder in Texas. Medellin was finally executed, and given a much more merciful death than he gave his victims.

A Federal judge, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia reaffirmed the Supreme Court's ruling last month, saying that the consulate claim was “utterly lacking in arguable merit.”

But that isn't good enough for President Obama. The president, the father of two young daughters, is lobbying heavily to have Leal's sentence commuted to defer to 'international law'. He's even formally asked the Supreme Court to stay Leal's execution while he tries to get the Democrats in the Senate to get the ball rolling on legislation that would prohibit murderers like Leal from being executed, and even turn them over to Mexican Authorities.

The White House claimed in a 30 page brief filed with thhe High Court that executing Leal would do harm to US interests. "These interests include protecting Americans abroad, fostering co-operation with foreign nations, and demonstrating respect for the international rule of law," it said.

It says something basic about President Obama that he would attempt to allow Leal to escape justice.

So far, Texas Governor Rick Perry has stood firm and Leal is scheduled to finally be executed July 7th, after gaming the system for 17 years more of life then he allowed his victim.

Stay tuned..

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!


Anonymous said...

I notice that you left George W Bush out of your criticism. He feels the exact same way as Obama and had the same policy in place when he was president. That is an inconvenient fact that will go unreported on your site.

Anonymous said...

Execute ! The real benefit of, & advantage to, execution is that the rate of recidivism is nil, nothing, zero. If Bundy had been promptly executed, several innocent people would not have been murdered. ( Prez Zero is beyond the pale. )

Rob said...

Anonymous 2:57, I let this one through just to point out that you apparently don't read before you react. A pity you didn't click on the link in the article concerning Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena, which occurred when Bush was president.

However this is OBAMA'S party now,isn't it?

Anonymous said...

I did click on the link, but it's irrelevant to the point I was making. I am talking specifically about Humberto Leal. You see, when Bush was president, he strongly supported the exact same policy towards Leal that Obama wants. Same person, different presidents. When Bush did this on behalf of Leal, you didn't say peep. But President Boogeyman does it and you get upset. This is what we might call a textbook case of hypocrisy.

Now what to do? This is a reasoned argument based on facts (that you deny your readers to fit your own biases) and it might actually be interesting to hear your defense. You may actually have a good one. But I suspect that you would rather not have your readers know this fact about Dubya and don't want to be shown up as a hypocrite, and thus my comment won't make it through. Be that as it may, maybe, just maybe, it'll convince you (as Ronald Reagan said) that we are entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts.

Anonymous said...

PS. By the way - Bush was wrong and Obama is wrong. Leal should fry and burn in hell.

louielouie said...

i'll take anon @ 2:57 comment from a different perspective.
given they had/have the same policy, that would make hussein's term in office shrub's third term.
they're both internationalists.
there are other similarities.
and the sooner both are gone the better.
that comment about bush's third term, has your head exploded yet over that one?

Rob said...

Anonymous 2:57, You write 'When Bush did this on behalf of Leal, you didn't say peep. But President Boogeyman does it and you get upset. This is what we might call a textbook case of hypocrisy.'

Hypocrisy? Really!

As you know if you bothered to read the link, I had plenty to say about ex-President Bush on the Medellin Case, which as we both know involved exactly the same scenario.

Ex-President Bush didn't do anything for Leal. He did squat except to voice an opinion in public, just like a lot of other internationalistas and as such it's meaningless.

President Obama, OTOH, is in office as a sitting president and is trying actively to get a stay through the SCOTUS, get Leal's sentence commuted and maybe even get him released to the Mexican Authorities.

If you are unable to see the difference between the two in Leal's situation, I really have nothing more to say to you.


Give me a break said...

Oh, come on. It's plain as day that you're only upset about this because Obama's involved. Proof of that is that you never once mentioned Bush in your post, intentionally implying that this is a change in policy. If a republican president did this, you wouldn't have any red meat to throw to the brainless.

Rob said...

Nice job of trying to change handles Anonymous 2:57, to make it look like someone agrees with you!

You are in two words, full of it.

In today's piece on Leal, I deliberately linked to an earlier story I did showing Bush did exactly the same thing in the Medellin case involving Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena, and I was all over him. Why else would I link to that past story if I was trying to 'imply this was a change in policy'?

Unlike you, I'm consistent when it comes to the principle involved .

It's obvious you just want to get a little attention for yourself making a ridiculous and non-factual argument.

Rhymes With Right said...

Two points:

1) Yeah, Bush supported the policy -- but that was prior to the US Supreme Court ruling that there was no basis for stopping the executions. Obama, on the other hand, is acting in defiance of Supreme Court precedent on the matter. That is a major difference.

2) Rick Perry can only delay the execution for 30 days, as he does not have the sort of pardon power most governors have. Only if the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends a pardon could Perry issue one -- and such recommendations are as rare as a kosher pig. If he did try to issue such a pardon without the recommendation, it would be overturned by the state courts as invalid, and he would likely be impeached and removed from office for violating the Texas Constitution's limits on gubernatorial powers.