In some cases, jurisdiction is determined by territory -- is the defendant located in the court's territory, or has the defendant had "minimum contacts" with the given territory?  In this case, the U.S. attempts to invoke jurisdiction against a nonresident defendant, which is one of the classical situations in international disputes.  Is it fair to do so?  The question is a similar one when we try to file a lawsuit in the U.S. against a private company from a foreign country.  When is it fair to force another company to cross the world to defend themselves in court?

In this case, you also are asked to decide what law to apply to the dispute.  Specifically, should the U.S. apply the extradition treaty with Mexico?  And, further, does this treaty prohibit abductions?  You must seek to interpret the treaty. Finally, should the U.S. base its decision on general principles of customary international law?

KEY QUESTION:

Do you agree or disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Alvarez-Machain?  Why or why not? (referring only to the jurisdictional case in 1992, not the subsequent case on application of the ATCA).  Make your position clear in the title to your post.

Note that the Supreme Court split into two blocs on this case.  Justice Rehnquist wrote the "majority" opinion, which becomes law; Justice Stevens wrote the "dissent," which is a critical view that remains in the record in case similar cases come up in the future.  In essence, do you support Rehnquist's view more, or do you prefer Stevens' view?