So, in other words, don't let established human rights get in get in the way of something that you feel was an inevitable outcome anyway? By that logic, why bother giving him access to legal counsel at all? Why grant him a writ of habeas corpus? Why bother giving him a jury trial? Why not just declare him guilty upon his arrest since it's pretty obvious he committed the crime? Are you totally familiar with the facts and evidence in this case? How do you know that it wouldn't have made a difference if he would have been allowed to seek advice from the Mexican consulate?
This type of thinking is really, really dangerous. That's the reason we have legal safeguards and mandates in place. Many have fought and died for the protection of these rights. To flippantly dismiss their denial to a person being accused of a crime as being inconsequential is absolutely incredible to me. :surprise:
I'm not trying to say that the rights and safeguards aren't important or vital, or that their erosion is not dangerous. It's a terribly difficult line to walk and define .. I suppose what was in theback (fucking Vikki Dougan aka The Back link) of my mind is here is a man who IS going to die, he IS going to be executed. The constant back and forth and delays are, in some senses, torturous .. keeping a man dangling on the edge of the precipice, a rope around his neck, but never pulling him back and never pushing him over seems wrong to me too.
I don't know. Like I said, I am terribly conflicted in my beliefs on this issue. Rights MUST be upheld, but in this case, it really was nothing but a paper exercise that kept a man in a Tantalus hell, neither dead, nor alive and with no hope of rescue.
Every time I think I have finally worked out my stand on tis issue, a crime comes along that just makes me want to pull the switch on the motherfucker myself.
It's a process, I suppose. I'm working on it.