United States v. Alvarez-Machain

Justice Stevens, joined in dissent by Justices Blackmun and O'Connor, wrote that the majority simply chose to ignore Mexico's interpretation of the 1978 treaty. The treaty plainly stated its purpose was to foster closer working relationships regarding crime fighting and extradition matters. Such neglect by the majority negated the whole purpose of extradition treaties which is to maintain harmonious working relationships, prevent international conflict, and protect nations from invasions by other countries. Based on this general understanding of international law, Stevens concluded, "it is difficult to see how an interpretation that encourages unilateral action could foster cooperation and mutual assistance." Stevens noted that Mexico had already prosecuted several individuals for Camarena's murder. In addition, he found significant differences in this case and the Ker and Frisbie cases. In Ker, the U.S. government was not involved in the abduction and Peru did not protest. The Frisbie case only involved state boundaries, not national. Stevens thus noted the "Court's failure to differentiate between private abductions and official invasion of another sovereigns territory" representing "flagrant violation of international law." According to Stevens, the two lower courts had appropriately applied Rauscher to this case. They came to the logical conclusion that the extradition treaty with Mexico was intended to establish the exclusive means of transferring jurisdictions of individuals and should be interpreted from the perspective of both countries. In conclusion, Stevens lamented that "most courts throughout the civilized world--will be deeply disturbed by the 'monstrous' decision" of the Court.