the supreme court and so learned stated its understanding of the fifth amendments fifth amendment substance due process right to liberty when it's stated that in our society liberty is the norm and detention the carefully limited exception a magistrate judge has concluded the extradition proceedings and has certified i guess to the secretary of state that your client is in fact the person named in the extra request and there is probable cause from the requesting country to extradite him should should the standard be different now that those proceedings are complete your hon conclude once he's been certified that that compelling interest overrides the individual's interest and liberty unless he can show exceptional circumstances to justify release on bail you're out of the one government that were the case then we would simply jettison the exceptional circumstances requirement if your argument carried to its logical conclusion is that there is always a right to bail in the absence of a finding of a flight risk that's not what the requirement that somebody had to meet in order to be granted family extradition contests how do you get around our cases in the ninth circuit starting with cameron which clearly in body of the special circumstances when none of those cases is not a flight risk i think the fact could be an alternative way to look at this case that one very relevant special circumstance is whether the person is a risk of flight or not some of the special circumstances clearly have to do with looking at the individual's liberty interest versus the government's interest in detaining particularly religious detain you cannot observe his religious rituals in jail in those situations special circumstances that warrant today on extradition cont but if because the individual liberty interest is so great in those situations similarly here if the extradite is not a flight risk the government the government interest in detention it simply does not exist and in that situation the or what the collateral consequences might be if we adopt your argument so that it might in or to the detriment of the united states when we make an extradition request to a foreign country of someone that we're trying to bring back and that foreign governments are spies well if the united states is going to admit x or gaieties to bail then we're going to do the same thing and that may make it difficult for us to actually bring people back th been the subject of these requests well i would point the courts in the ninth circuit's case in kirby in kirby the court found the evidence especially circumstances but then went on to whether the person was a flight risk or not incur b they found a special circumstances where you were fairly weak and yet they went on to assess whether the person was a flight which or not so i was committing the course and in practice that is already what's happening the court look at the special circumstances first i'd say don't focus too much requirement between sort of patient and when the person is actually surrendered and if that the government can't go over those two months i hear of course the time difference between sort of creation and ultimate left open the possibility that somebody might come up with some set of circumstances that would make bail a good idea but that didn't create any kind of a measurable test that we could get a court can apply it recommendation all right well why don't we do this because i want to try and avoid piecemeal litigation which is what we seem to be facing here why don't you provide us with a status report  there is a notice of appeal filed from a final order of the district court move to consolidate that appeal with this one in order to economize the time delay here yes thank you the only reason why we did that was because at that time he was in the custody of the united states marshals because he had been denied bail and i didn't want to surrender go over to hong kong while we were doing the hideous portion of  the role of the federal courts in extradition proceedings is very limited to determining identity and probable cause once that has been concluded in your client to certify for extradition the fact that you want to challenge that finding and seek a motion to stay while those that appeal is pending don't you have to show something more than we'd like to challenge it don't you have to show a likelihood of success on the merits in order justify the stay because otherwise it seems to all you're doing is interfering in a treaty obligation between the united states and hong kong by which our government has sworn that it will promptly comply with extra