This headline today,
U.S. indicts world soccer officials in alleged $150 million FIFA bribery scandal
in the
Washington Post made me think of an ideal world. It goes something like this:
The Department of Justice reveals indictments(s) against an international suspect residing in a country that is, well, strictly governed by human rights based laws. This country is the epitome of equality, individual rights, and jurisprudence. But now, they face a conundrum.
As part of the DOJ indictment process, they get the Department of State involved to smooth the process of extradition. This is where the bump in the road becomes the cliff. As part of the extradition process, which the U.S. has with this country, and like all countries using the extradition process, the suspect decides to fight it. The suspect uses the following to get his country of residence to deny the extradition:
- Country of residence has an exception to extradition if the suspect can show a unfair trial is, at a minimum, as likely as it is unlikely.
- Country of residence has an exception to extradition if suspect can show laws are not applied equally in country requesting extradition.
- Country of residence allows party status to CAT and UDHR treaties or the violation of those treaties, as a certain defense to extradition.
- Country of residence has in its Constitutional document(s) an obligation of the federal government to protect its residents, wherever they may be in the world.
So, the suspect, in fighting extradition, asserts the following:
- UNFAIR TRIAL
- Suspect asserts there is no guarantee that the charges imposed will not change to include "Terrorism" or other charges which under the Patriot Act;
- Denies basic protections such as right to legal advice and Due Process.
- Allows for rendition to a country where torture might be used.
- Suspect asserts recent revelations by law enforcement and or prosecutors, of rigging trials to convict innocent persons. Case in point: Recent trial verdicts that have been overturned, sometimes decades after the innocent person incarcerated. Suspect asserts that even after release, many of those innocent still have criminal records for the rigged trial.
- U.S. does not apply it law equally.
- Suspect submits actual crimes committed by some high level citizens in the U.S. that the government ignores. Case in point: Financial meltdown. Banks to large to fail.
- Suspect submits cases of innocent people being killed and no judicial action arises. Case in point: Pick any case of a police officer killing an unarmed, non-deadly force threatening citizen.
- Suspect submits that U.S. has not prosecuted those in intelligence community, whose failures to act on known intelligence prior to the 9/11 attacks, more likely than not, would have prevented the attacks. Case in point: The pre 9/11 FBI memo reporting suspicious pilot training by persons, that was ignored.
- CAT and UDHR
- Suspect asserts that non-judicial activity following the release of the Torture Report shows that even though having ratified both the CAT and UDHR, that no substantive judicial action against those who designed, approved, or committed torture have been tried for violations of the CAT and that the failure to indict is itself a violation of the CAT.
- Suspect asserts that torture actions violates not only the CAT but the UDHR as well.
- Constitutional Protection
- Suspect asserts that under the Constitution of the country, no extradition is legal to any country where previous assertions are proved. Suspect asserts right to not be extradited under those circumstances.
So, because of its own judicial practices, commitment to law and international treaty, the request for extradition is denied. This decision becomes a rallying point across the world, ushering in a new era of justice in the U.S.
Well, everyone can dream!