Comments:Texas executes Mexican-born killer despite international appeals

frickin texas. behind some regions of the middle east, one of the least civilized places on this great earth. sure wish they would find their way to modern times, as they are in many ways an embarassment to the rest of the U.S. - Imind (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah because a man that curb stop two little girls should have the right to live. And FYI California execute just as many murders and scumbags like this monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.12.186 (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * california executes nowhere near as many people as texas. - Imind (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * California has far more people on death row, however. --SVTCobra 22:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * only b/c texas has already killed them all. but yes, i was suprised to see how may people california has. - Imind (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

God bless America and the capital punishment!

 * Executing a rapist-murderer is good under natural law. Natural law says "eye for eye, teeth for teeth, life for life" and it is a natural law as much as gravity or E=mc2 is. States and countries only have power to punish crime under the "society contract" to prevent anarchy. If states do not adequately punish crime, the powers of natural right return to the people and relatives of the victims are free to stage blood revenge on the murderer. It is a pity that europeans are so decadent they protect the murderer, rather then executing him/her to prevent future victims occuring. Even the ancient bard Homer says it is good to have at least one son for every man so he can grow up to revenge his father if murdered. President Jackson said, USA was built upon fundamental agreement on three basic values: motherhood, respect of the flag and capital punishment. God bless America! 91.83.13.138 23:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * there is no such thing as "natural law", as it can be defined in any way that anyone wants. to suggest it is as "natural as gravity or e=mc2" is absurd and unfortunately reflects the opinions of many in this country who are forming these opinions based on what they want to believe (or told to believe) rather than depending on any amount of reasoning; things are true simply if we declare them to be, and only black and white exists.  this is evident by the fallacious argument presented which wants to limit the options to either killing him or having him continue to kill.  what is also conveniently ignored is the guilt of the accused.  while in medellin's case it seems straightforward and unarguable, it is not so in the vast majority of these cases, and our inability to obtain absolute certainty is reason enough to abolish the death penalty.  that those arguing in favor of capital punish would accept the potential death of an innocent person reveals the hypocritical nature of their argument.  "we will not accept you taking innocent life, but we will not concern ourselves with innocence when we choose to take it". - Imind (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is something that I feel sets down a fairly rationally based theory of 'natural law': http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf.  Also, I'm tempted to think that you're appealing to moral subjectivity?  Fephisto (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * thank you for the link and i will read it this evening when i will have the ability to pay it the attention it deserves. please expand on why you believe i am appealing to moral subjectivity, as i believe i have presented a fairly well reasoned argument.  it does, of course, depend on the belief that innocent life should not be taken if can be avoided.  cheers.  - Imind (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When I read "as it can be defined in any way that anyone wants", my immediate thought was that you were confusing moral relativism and natural rights, which I guess is not the case. Fephisto (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree with Texass decision any more! On a secondary note, I think it will have positive implication in light of this quote "the precedent that [the execution] may create for the rights of Mexican nationals who may be detained".


 * what sort of positive implication would you expect? - Imind (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * for someone to feel sorry for a P.O.S. that raped two teen girls, they must be pretty sick in the head and so undersexed they wish it had been them, and they want this mexican dude to be let out so they can get some action. and it is a natural law, kill someone on my team, we hunt you and kill you. watch the discovery channel its human nature, lion nature, ape nature, any creature with a brain bigger than a peanut will revenge, but some people would rather supress their natural ways.Yavarigovaini (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How?
How come the US seems to escape from every international group/treaty that they don't like (International Court of Justice, Kyoto treaty, Convention on the Rights of the Child etc.). If Iran did this George Bsuh wouldn't hesitate to invade them. Anonymous101talk 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because we think we're country #1. No laws apply to us.  We make laws and apply them to everyone else.  Same logic behind why America is (for some reason) the International Police.  Everyone hates us for it.  I don't think most American's like the idea of it either.  What we really need is a stronger UN.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 18:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * we are the best and we control everything that's why.Yavarigovaini (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

if the mexicant
governtment is so damn worried about its runaway rapists maybe it should stop letting them loose in our country. lethal injection was far too nice a punishment, he should have been allowed to be raped and shanked to death in jail, a much more fitting prospect don't ya think?Yavarigovaini (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If people do not want to be subjected to the laws of a country, they should not travel there, especially ILLEGALLY. If you go to Mexico you better be WELL assured you will be subject to their corrupt juris diction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.159.162 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)