[CCIP]

Both this and the Casey Anthony thing (that I successfully stayed away from) irritate me because people incessantly moralize everything instead of looking at it from the perspective of due process, which is far more important here. Let me spell it out: while I don't know the details of the case that closely, as far as I'm concerned the guy did morally deserve to hang. And if a lynch mob came to him the night of his arrest and hung him, morally that might have been justified in this case. But that's not the issue here. The issue has nothing directly to do with moral judgment of the crime.

The problem here is not about what the man did at all, but about the justice system and the legal/constitutional/international obligations to due process. Again let me spell it out: it doesn't matter how guilty this person is. The legal system is supposed to afford him due process and allow him to invoke legal assistance from any means guaranteed by this process. There is precedent and there are obligations and legal understandings for this process. If these are ignored, than this sets a new precedent. It's not about the executed man that, we can rightly or wrongly assume, is guilty. It's about what this means for everybody else. It sets a precedent for what up to now had been understood as part of due process to be ignored and bypassed. Which is completely not about what this man did, but what it will mean for many other people who follow him, who may (or may not) be innocent. It is also about reciprocal application of this process to Americans in trouble in other countries.

Again, this isn't about him. It's about the fact that due process was not followed and a dangerous precedent was set that may in the future deny an innocent man or woman a necessary legal resort. However small, it also marks an increase in probability that even YOU could one day be denied your right to due process because of precedents set by this.