I agree with you on the legal doctrine piece, but most in the US (myself included) would say that the US Constitution doesn't grant anybody any rights. It codified inalienable rights that exist for all people merely by virtue of their existence. Every person has the right to speak their mind, to defend themselves, to not incriminate themselves, etc. etc. with all the caveats and potential nullifications that accompany those rights. The fact that some countries may violate those inherent rights is irrelevant, and the fact that some of those countries may be common law is equally irrelevant.
It's possible to believe both that Liverpool and the surrounding area is better off without this man free, but that the UK as a whole is worse off for their frequent violation of rights with regard to those in the US Bill of Rights.
It's possible to believe both that Liverpool and the surrounding area is better off without this man free, but that the UK as a whole is worse off for their frequent violation of rights with regard to those in the US Bill of Rights.