Jeopardizing Relations With Mexico : High court ruling justifies dangerous ‘snatch’ technique in notorious Camarena case

In ruling that American agents can kidnap criminal suspects in foreign countries and bring them to this country for trial, the U.S. Supreme Court has given prosecutors a powerful new weapon. But it’s a tool of extremely dubious value and could backfire someday, if it hasn’t already.

By a 6-3 vote, the high court overruled a lower court order and said the federal government can proceed with its prosecution of a Guadalajara physician who was kidnaped by bounty hunters hired by the Drug Enforcement Administration. The case of Dr. Humberto Alvarez Machain has been a source of ongoing tension between Washington and Mexico City. The U.S. Justice Department accuses him of complicity in the brutal torture-murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena. Mexico has angrily, and repeatedly, protested the kidnaping, not just because it violated Mexican sovereignty, but because the United States never formally requested the doctor’s extradition.

The Supreme Court based its ruling on a very narrow reading of the U.S.- Mexico extradition treaty signed in 1980. Because the treaty does not specifically prohibit kidnaping, it is presumed to be permissible. But if that is so, what is the point of all the specific language in that same treaty that spells out extradition procedures in such detail? If we can snatch anyone we want, whenever we want, wherever we want, why bother with legal niceties at all?

U.S. officials privately say that no extradition request was made because it was considered unlikely that the Mexican government would arrest Alvarez Machain, a prominent man with no prior criminal record. But Mexican authorities have convicted about 30 other Mexican citizens, in their own courts, for various offenses stemming from the Camarena murder.

The Mexicans say they are willing to put Alvarez Machain on trial if he is handed over, too. That seems like a far wiser course of action now than proceeding with a trial in this country. Why jeopardize U.S-Mexican cooperation in other areas, including the war on drugs? This troubling ruling could also spill over onto other extradition treaties. Although Alvarez Machain’s appeal was carried to the Supreme Court by his own lawyers, the Mexican and Canadian governments filed supporting briefs. Will Mexico City and Ottawa now refuse to cooperate on future extradition requests?

And what of other, far-less-friendly governments? What will the United States do if a government like Iran’s or Libya’s decides to “snatch” a U.S. citizen wanted for some crime against those radical regimes?

While a short-term win, the U.S. vs. Alvarez Machain could wind up as a textbook definition of a Pyrrhic victory.