With respect to the consular notification issue, the Texas State Courts heard and decided three questions on the merits before the ICJ opinion, and before the Supreme Court rendered and guidance of its own: The Texas courts found:

first, that the Vienna Convention established no individual, judicially enforceable rights;

second, that Medellin defaulted his right to raise this claim under Texas procedural rules by not raising it at trial;

and third, Medellin that failed to show he suffered any harm by the failure of Texas officials to make or advise him of his right to consular notification.

Since all three issues were adjudicated on the merits, and there were not contrary to clearly established federal law AS DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT (as opposed to the IJC), they cannot be raised in a later federal habeas proceeding.

Third, the Court said that a defendant cannot seek to enforce a new rule of law in a habeas proceeding unless that new rule of law is made explicitly retroactive BY THE SUPREME COURT.

In other words, (a) it might come as a surprise to Tony, but the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the opinions of some U.N. court, (b) Medellin, although an illegal alien, at no time claimed to be a Mexican national, so the Vienna convention was not violated, and (c) he was guilty as hell anyway, and every lawyer in Mexico wouldn’t have changed that fact.

Sis, if you were arrested abroad, would you want the right to contact the U.S. consulate for help?

Somehow I can’t picture ST sneaking into a country illegally, joining a gang, and murdering two kids.

See, the whole concept of being an illegal is that you have no rights. You ought to be able to comprehend that.

Even if you are legal, you’re still subject to the laws of the country you enter. Try smuggling drugs into some place like Singapore, where the drug laws are really tough, and see how far your US citizenship gets you.