feeling the secretary has never has never has yet to decide whether to go ahead and go forward with the extradition isn't that right well it this far as we know that's exactly where we haven't petition the secretary go through that posture the question is as you know one corner one we thankfully said that until the secretary finally made a final decision you know the relief you're seeking was somewhat premature and if if in fact we're going to have this you know we must exhaust the industry to remedy aspect of it which is the way i interpret what the court's original decision is that's that's what we're going to have to do but back it up for a second we're looking at something more fundamental than this we're looking at what the judicial powers are as relates an american citizen and whether the deficient area has the right on an extradition proceedings concerning an american citizen has the jurisdictional right to extradition my view of it is the second that the government files an extradition process they started that that process they're going to extradite him the magistrate signed an extradition order he's on his way now do we run to the secretary of state and beg you know that they don't do it and then come back here and and say gee we think you have jurisdiction or not where do we start writing or understand we one of the big keys of this based on jurisdiction is the fact that we asked for discovery we have always newspaper articles and unless of course we're going to just accept that as reality we have we have my clients feelings he's facing the different posture impacts on your case the basic thrust of the second decision is that there's no judicial authority to review those kinds of considerations in the tradition proceeding that's exactly the point i want to that's exactly the point i want to come here the jurisdiction of the court has the vested itself or jurisdiction on carnaval and this type of situation as relates to foreign nationals being extradited to their own countries and the perspective of this as the executive branch can't sign a treaty from the from our perception that denies an american citizen either due process of law or subject in american citizen to cruel and within this country you're still working if you get out if you get a foreign national say you know who's in prison in this country they don't have a right against qunu the punishment is for is as their determined that you have abrogated what is a difference between then the foreign governments in force and their laws against a us citizen the difference is is that the executive power by signing that treaty has stripped an american citizen of this rights or if in fact even worse than that if at the time the treaty signed there's not a problem now the government like thailand like we assert thailand has done decides to go on a path of diversion that it from the time that existed and suddenly has a mandatory death family summarily executed after conviction and the executive branches say let's extradite him and we're coming and saying wait a minute this man is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and the judiciary has a right under the separation of powers doctrine to review the executive branch decision to send them to face that fate and we should be entitled to the discovery that we request is so we can make a factual showing rather than saying hey take it on faith but that goes back to whether in fact the judiciary has the jurisdiction to oversee the executive branch as relates to an american citizen and i'm making that distinction i'm saying that that that the rights between a foreign national and their own country is a matter to believe that the government does is going to be truthful with us and that if in fact the united nation mandate is sent a human rights commission over there that the government's not going to lie to us without it you're in no position to develop your own sort of well we probability does the court have the right to investigate further does the court have the jurisdiction to get involved at all that's the issue and the issue is as for an american citizen yes that's exactly the traditional role of the court from day one to to be the check and balance to be the oversee or of the executive branch and his decisions as a relates to an american citizen and that's the distinction and that's what we're asking you to do thank you that's positive by the second circuit in the case in one nine hundred sixty this is not the case to deny tradition on that basis and it's important to remember that the  dictum should not be made real and you lived in this case is that once we realize that different countries have different legal and penal systems has adopted the death penalty for a crime that in the united states would carry a mandatory minimum penalty of ten years and it's also important to remember your honour's that the defense has not claimed that there is anything about this individual or about his crime that will result in a punishment or procedures any different from any other person charged with the exact same crime what is is a complete frontal assault on the extradition treaty between the united states and thailand at least as it relates to drugs the second is to your honor is the issue of because he stated correctly that article steps of the extradition treaty between the united states and thailand says that the united states can indeed refuse to extradite someone if you face the death delegation to the executive is unconstitutional and it's not unconstitutional under the eighth amendment because the eighth amendment doesn't apply to foreign officials and the eighth amendment doesn't apply prior to  extradition proceedings to of his u s citizenship that proposition has never been supported by any evidence and certainly the magistrate judge and the district court judge hawke rejected the argument that the american citizenship thailand i'd like to briefly just discuss what the record status on page ninety three of the excerpts of record filed by mr ross across there is an exhibit exhibit j which is part of the discovery motion that exhibit is a bulletin from amnesty international and it says that that penalty is mandatory in thailand for the production or importing of heroin the death penalty is discretionary in thailand for the possession of more than one hundred grams of heroin when the math of the possible crisis and the other way tappan the other way around it is absolutely possible those conditions can be be utilized by the secretary of state i don't believe that this treaty mentions that particular exception but many treaties do and  certainly whether the treaty mentions it or not it is within the power of the secretary of state to impose conditions actually i think this treaty may in fact mention such such conditions but the secretary of state most certainly can impose that condition or rather was prepared for exhibits including am to see international makes my discovery request moved or moving forward the biggest problem we have is the fact that this is optional as far as the secretary of state the facts of this c past the american end of the heroin importation conspiracy government put a prosecutor here this repressive patco been facing ten years here in the case with an older secretary of state exercise that option to his detriment and said we're going to back we're sending him back and so that now the fact that he's going to impose conditions as an option there's nothing this court can do to say this is what we deman that you do if it's really a light switch type the situation is the court has the authority to sit in review or not and we feel that the court unless the court has any other questions th