we'll move to the second case of the day number eighteen twenty five twenty nine thank you then versus united states our principle argument based on a so called political offense exception extradition is controlled basically by the sport's opinion even versus will and that court held that the first element of the exception is the existence of a violent political disturbance if we stop there it seems we clearly within that category were committed during a political disturbance that included violence and it would appear obviously that is not particularly the situation here but that is unlikely because lithuanian government suppressed the rebellion as it was just getting started it cut off the head of the insurrection when it group opposing the government they targeted people in government they believe were child sexual predators and conducted surveillance on them and sort out information that could be used against them this support i know what you're talking about but most of the most of the cases seem to involve much more clear cut cases of rebellion or war you know no question about it judge most of the cases when we think of political rebellion we're thinking of say the irish republican army in ireland it's lease or we're thinking about the siege uprising in the middle east that sort of thing but and there was a resistance group  obviously did not have those particular aspects to it but one thing there's always troubled me about the the way we look at the political offense exception and political affairs undergoing changes through the years whether we're talking about  any came to me and say you know we just did this what should we do when i go to the united states and will i be able to seek extradition should i say you know with a wink and a nod say well you might want to conduct maybe another bombing or two over the next month or so because that's going to be the only way you can be able to get it fight extradition from the united states so i think the rules and needs some retooling and i think they should cover a situation here a situation where we do have that probably may end up changing things like extradition and those sort of laws right mayor menino from the well i think part of the problem with this case and we're just we're talking about the stay there are a lot of unanswered issues yet that seem to need more exploration such as and listening to the other argument the intersection between asylum and extradition and how they intersect with one another but these are all issues that i think  should be explored by the district court and it's another reason why as they should be entered in this case at this time i think you know it's our view that the political it prevents exception should apply to a case like this where there is in fact a group of people that are resisting and they are trying to prevent the government from taking the child so it just occurred to be  now twenty years ago i was dealing with some of the tax protesters of southern indiana as a district judge people who don't respect the authority of the united states government and you know there were many warrants served and so on but genuine concern on the marshals part that folks might have guns you can imagine we've heard about other sorts of standoff between groups that don't recognize spiral authority in the united states and and and federal agents here turn the situation around people that are at this energy that's what i would describe the people you're describing they're not looking to change the structure of the government or make it different they're actually just completely opposed to the government and want to get the government is in this category of so called relative political offenses where the arguments made that something other than reason or the explicitly political offenses is part of a larger political uprising why should the courts be deciding that question at all supporting hurley when you're talking about friendly allied member of nato part of  u the foreign policy implications are evident and why shouldn't those be sorted out by the executive branch or you're out or it is just been the tradition that those sort of whether something is a political uprising or rebellion is something that a court can decide can you be a little more specific than tradition because i mean i know it has happened on occasion the government government has also resisted that over the decades in the case law but i'm asking you in in a case of what's very genuine political uprising in rebel you know with a friendly ally do we want the courts granting safe haven in the united states based on our foreign policy and political judgments your honor i think i think that's a concern that it doesn't really exist i think the fact the court is limited to what it can just sign as to whether something qualifies as a political offense and i don't think it does matter whether it is a friendly ally or not a friendly ally in today's world though it seems to be reversed anyway i think that's that's a different set of problems but let me give you some examples just from the least twentieth century forward of folks facing criminal prosecutions in their home countries if they had made their way to the united states adolf hitler fark rebels from colombia shining path rebels from peru ukrainian rebels against the ukrainian government now if they wind up in the united states they entitled to say well  now that there's more likely under the way the law is being interpreted to giving those people protection then people that are not committing those sort of atrocities that's the irony the irony is that those people are more likely to get for court i would wish in a case like this that the courts could decide political motivation political motivation with respect to any would be even stronger but the courts are not entitled to look at that they are entitled to look at political offense doctrine now petitioners crimes are not political and they're not political influences because there simply was no violent political uprising like winning at the time of these offenses courts have consistently for decades required a that involved violence as counsel described it is simply not enough for the political sense talking it's not enough to follow it's not some sort of violence combined with some sort of political activity is not enough has never been enough under the case law it's clear that the violence cited by petition are simply not enough to meet this burden in some she cites a total of four deaths and a handful of violent incidents spread out over a period of multiple years can't cite any cases that show that we say this level of violence a small level of violence is enough to meet this the standard of a violent political uprising and i think it's instructive to compare it to cases that compare the level of violence here to cases where there has been a violent political uprising found counsel mention during which there was there was a great abundance of violence the political sense doctrine is intended to be an exception to extradition it's intended to protect only particular forms of political activit category in general and then has a number of specific exceptions to that exception so the most serious kinds of violent crimes that have caused this kind of litigation in the united states and made some of the political fence exceptions to extradition you know the ninth circuit decision of quinn going back to the about thirty years ago the the court court should step in i don't think i i don't think it's i think your question is right to question which branch of government is to the general rule that the secretary of state is entitled to discretion here and whether extradite and that's the case even when there are constitutional claims raised by the international fugitive supreme court and that they care and i think reinforces that point can i ask you we've got a situation here clough where just recharge scrounging probable cause had been shown as to only two of the four crimes that were or treaty provision prohibits lithuania from prosecuting her on the other two offenses that's correct your honor and i believe that it's actually a part of this extradition treaty it's article sixteen fact that the secretary of state has courts have acknowledged is simply better equipped to determine these issues the secretary of state has the subject matter expertise to know what's going on in lithuania they have the resources to determine that they have diplomatic relations i'd like to touch briefly on the titians probable cause argument just has failed to settle but there's no evidence to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause the record before the magistrate judge contained statements from multiple witnesses is and it is any evidence it's clear what conflict can count as contradictory evidence it's anything that would go to the weight of the evidence as opposed to its in this ability anything that require magistrate judge in this instance to be weighing the evidence to become a fact firing or to be deciding credibility issues that is contradictory evidence and it follows from the very purpose of the extradition hearings in the united states which is a very limited purpose raises challenging probable cause it's not that they're not relevant this is just not the form for them the form for them is lithuania where she waits trial the general rule is that the decision of whether to extradite is left to the broad discretion of the secretary of state just or can't cite any cases that show that there are any due process limitations on that in fact every court has found that the secretary of state's bro discretion comports with due process the cases cited by the government and relied upon by the district court are often escovedo rejected rejected due process limitations rejected requiring some sort of guidelines whether or not to extradite because exorcism and implicates international relations and foreign affairs due process does not require any sort of hearing before the secretary of state or any more detail basis than was given for the secretar decision here i do need to push back on the notion that there was no explanation given to petitioner for the secretary of state's decision and here i was going to can look at the secretary of state's letter itself that's what record one dash two which explains  the secretary of state has represented that that the department of state has reviewed that information and considered it the making her underlying his petition and they just record after considering all those filings i've issued a thirty five page we're going through the basis for the arguments going for the basis for denying the arguments it is not the petitioners was we presented a lot of evidence with respect to the fact of the a true procedures in lithuania that under in great bert and judge pendle really rejected any arguments we had on that