to allow for foreign governments to successfully extradite individuals based on an extradition request that contains grabber kitted evidence including i hear state here state statement that was extracted by coaching a witness to death embrace the indian government's evidence and you are just the indian government's request in this case is in my opinion ideations fortunately our courts are not puppets of the indian government and we can sally record the supporter of so that gives us a very deferential approach to what the extradition magistrate did and my problem with your argument is that notwithstanding all the problems with the evidence the extradition magistrate i think took a very careful look at this and sorted out quite a lot of it and determined that again notwithstanding some of the disputes with the evidence that there was sufficient evidence and they're competent and believable to support it how do we penetrate that as  markedly different i don't have an explanation for why my explanation is that the court was doing precisely what it was supposed to do and when it found information that it regarded as not reliable enough to create problems caused it's of not we're not going to gran saying and the evidence was even more limited so you think that the difference is that the court looking backwards from the political offense exception and said well we've got three here that aren't covered by that so i'm going to close my eyes on that evidence with respect to these three million or was exactly the same with regard to probable cause there and then and if i had many hours ago explain that in each of these cases what we have is this same type english statement later by the indian government evidence saying that someone in the department of state must a went to the indian government and said hey look we have a problem with this because we don't know what these statements are at that point they need government in should've been applied evenly throughout the case the evidence in court said you know i'm going to look at the palette of circumstances here i'm going to look at what the indian government's pattern or practice was and this case with regard to  the death of two counterinsurgencies standing guard for lack of a better term over the other family members sounds very much like typical british american law that a member of a conspiracy is responsible for the acts of all the to murder misc or because mr price actions don't allow for that in france however if the court wants to extend that conspiracy the political conspiracy in this case then her death would be in further speaking liberation of their province from the indian government at packing the other side of the conflict which were government officials and police officers who are armed so to speak  the individuals where the police officials were provided to protect these individuals again identifying them as a political target during that period of time in the punjab in the mode of that attack was similar to what the department of state official their police affiliated bodyguards were and are agents of india the evidence did not explain any other the circumstances the attack or motives whether this attack was a domestic terrorist attack or politically motivated could not be determined based on the remove the offense from the article six protection and moreover we have the indian government charging this crime as a political offense under the security nation so i can't imagine more facts that wouldn't into finding the political effect exception other than having one of the alleged come in and say this is why we did it and i think the political offense doctrine is highly charged for example with timothy mcveigh who blew up the oklahoma federal building be able to claim that that was a that however i guess if we were to extend the hypothetical and say that there was militia uprising in the united states then we could be a would have a lot of other hurdles because his crime was clearly directed exclusively at  of the united states and on behalf of the government of india in looking at an extradition request or ours we need to look at two items and that's the focus of the extradition hearing the items are eighteen u s c thirty one eighty one  sec that's the basis by which congress gives the courts who believe to look at extradition requests the second aspect that we must look at is the treaty the extradition treaty that existed at this time between the united states  and that is the documents that is the limit of the courts in the analysis in the context of extradition first aspect is the probable cause here now is the probable cause absolutely perfect terms of following the english language in the context that we understand the english language absolutely but in terms of the request itself when you distill it down to its essence and look at even really the court and i know the court at the district level looked at this but the request itself if you read the it does not report at any point in time to the these are the actual affidavits what it is it's clear that it is a translation of it but i don't t district court conclude that an awful lot of a seven simply wasn't reliable enough to amount to probable cause in three cases based upon what the court did was it took the evidence and i guess the first question that i've got to talk about is in the evidence poppet within the meaning of the statute right and the government's admits that it is competent for at mr ability now once you're at that stage and that's thirty one ninety coupled with the sort of occasion from the secretary of the secretary of state delegate in india once we have it in there then the district court considered the evidence but what the district court then did in negating probable cause in two of the three cases which negated probable cause w previous statement and it just the court then took a look at that and said well this is entirely refutes that and therefore i'm not going to consider and then probable cause it's lacking there with the two additional cases those were two twenty twenty i believe that's why our fifty seven if i've got my numbers correct the district court then said well this here's an affidavit that this was acquired through means of torture and therefore we're not going to rely upon that statement torture to what extent torture to the extent that the individual who gave the statement previous was tortured to give the statement then there was a second allegation that the torture had resulted in death from one individual so and the district court took a look at that and said ok i'm not going to consider that as probable cause and counted that out yes it is not it is a mess in terms of what we traditional american courts are used to looking at in terms of search warrants criminal contr information we got from somebody by telling them well a couple of things about that is that the government those declarations are received late in the process by the government in terms of whether we could verify it but you know even if we had gotten it early in the through torture the government has no ability to check the veracity of that statement we don't know what the circumstances were lying if this person was threatened or what there is no way for the government to to verify that information other than the standard agent now that we can  probable cause determination and we cannot be getting into these types of exercises when we are dealing with two sovereign so how does the probable cause them to stack up in the three cases we have before us which seems to me evidence seems to be what the relator or the petitioner is doing this case is saying look at the totality of everything in this case and just throw it here and this sounds bad is torture and look what india does cetera et cetera and frankly that is something that is delegated to the secretary of state in determining the torture aspect and something that courts should not be getting involved with in this context of throwing everything here and saying all right let's just sort it out in terms of international relations the and that is my point with regard to the extradition proceedings are limited proceedings no where in the united states we have an extradition from somebody from maine to california do we go through this exercise the exercise we go through and in her district transfers in the federal system formally rule forty now five is here is the individual that the other district is seeking not even a problem that some of the european community deals with this and so you throw in probable cause to get into a whole different ball game absolutely you have an additional requirement of probable cause which you don't and i think that frankly that that from the extradition law that is the basis because of the nature of the distance with the one is travelling a different foreign you know different type of legal system per se but this court should not be in the position of  india's legal system is not the perfect legal system it is not the best legal system it's not something that we would subscribe to and there are changes that we can do with that system that's not what this court is about and that's not what this court should get in the exercise of doing but again if you focus back on the and it's clear that that's not a signature but taking the document in and of itself and that is the packet that is the extradition packet putting it together certifying it and here it is there is no requirement the extradition law there's no requirement under the treaty that  be that there be a translation or that you have a originals all of this is frankly is red herring to say this is really really bad and here's the reasons why but if you distill it down to its essence the probable cause exists in this case the probable cause and the district court went through an extensive analysis with regard to probable cause and while the government may dispute aspects especially in the context of the political fence exception that's not that's not for me today because i can appeal the the the extradition request i am here arguing and supporting three requests what about the political offense exception on number thirty four that seems to be in their strongest argument i mean here you have a case where the enemy fights the enemy and afterwards there's no indication at all from the evidence that it was a robbery or that it was personal touches in the case possibly of the wife or whatever it is this just looks like the two groups going after each other the callous then commando force the lower level that at some point in time in order for the political offense exception to apply if you read the political of france exception that the petitioner must somehow make an allegation or statement that yes they did this crime and the reason had a political character if you read section six of the treaty between india and the united states it talks about an individual who is being extradited for offenses that are political crime that he's being done for a crime of a political character in the burdens on him just like i did this crime because of the nature of the political character and it's taking that coupled with the cases that i'm odd extent or of those cases they talk about the context in which an individual is committing the crime there was no case out there that holds in the extradition context that we can just say i'm a member of a student federation and i'm being attacked by the government and these are just trumped up charges there's nothing to suggest that that is what the political fence exception is about i frankly think that is probably a probable cause issue but i again think that you can't submit evidence to that concept so i think it's ultimately an issue on the facts that it's not enough just to prove this was clearly a case involving political character you have to admit that i did it well how how can it be of a political character i mean we can conceive of any numbers and hours you can have a film of two groups going after each other with guns one group saying i'm part of the callus then commandos in the other group saying i'm part of the government right and you can see from the movie that was on television it's clearly a political war over a separation how you can do it other then how do you apply that at the trial court level one of the district comes in and says ok there's two groups here and they're doing it but i had nothing to do with it how can you step back and say well if they're extradited me it's a political character i have nothing to do with this crime i wasn't there it had nothing to do i'm going to try to claim that i did i mean you say you have to surrender your defense that you didn't do it well i think that you have to say that i i i mean the context that this was to the extent which i think is just it's highly it is that it is a position that this court should absolutely not take in that the motives because there is this specific statement in quinn that whatever means by which the revolutionary gets there that's for them to do we must look at the motives of the revolutionary and what the district court said as well it was just that the district court went through and applied quinn's analysis to the cases and hence this is why the political offense exception affected the remaining five cases why the political offense exception didn't apply is because here were these you know government there were government officials there for the it had to fall within the political fence exception and to take the focus on the city aspect if you applied the but on the other hand this is how it is if that includes killing civilians if that includes genocide that is the intent of the revolution and that example should not be followed as a basis as a test to determine get the same thing to i come to that same analysis but no because and what i'm what i would like to do is have has not bringing in all of this extraneous of this particular i think what the indian government may have went wrong is they maybe put too much information with regard to it which it was just it had errors in it it had errors in it and when it try to avoid these issues frankly and i think that that is clear and i think mr psychology know that and so my request was made and that is why the one thousand nine hundred eighty eight request comes around now maybe in hindsight now saying well now that this is what the government has done maybe that's what i should've done but i tempted to avoid these particular issues in getting this done and sending a request it's not like picking up the phone and saying india could you please do that it takes time and i think that that again the nature of the request you have to look at the request itself you shouldn't be bringing in evidence to refute that evidence because that's what a trial about that's not the bottom line of the cliff decision and the bottom line is that the district court should be a within crimes that are covered within the treaties between the two countries that is what i'm saying and that there was probable cause here and that the district court went through that analysis and that that finding should be given deference in that in other words you'd have to look would be then actually going to do novel stands to look through that entire record and that's not what this court is about it is clear that the court went through an extensive analysis in terms of weighing the evidence the probable cause and weighing the political offense exception and making determination that the three cases that are described here are are just in the last aspect that i did want to just briefly hit on is the aspect of the murder of cole cole what car that the  wife and i think that the the discussion about conspiracy misses the basic understanding of criminal conspiracy in the united states and i cited in my brief which was part of the extradition request india's interpretation of the been not you know directly this is the person we intend to kill misses the mark because that's not a requirement of american jurisprudence law even if i'm intending to shoot somebody else and it goes over that way that's transferred stats in intent to kill aspect in a non conspiracy relationship so the fact that he was killed she was killed on that night it's justifiable that is probable cause clearly under the statute clearly under american law and no authority has been cited to the contrary that i have to intend to kill that individual there as part of the conspiracy and that's why that argument fails thank you hassle your time is expired you may respond there is no district court in the united states that was certify or issue a warrant based on that piece of evidence moreover there is no court in the united states that would issue a warrant based on that type of evidence when they knew that the police officer coming to them tortures people and fabricate evidence related to that particular person that they're trying to secure  for and when and then when we consider the real bittering evidence i don't know how this staggering staggering evidence can stand up to it when we have the witnesses saying hey look i didn't make that statement and the others i'm going to take issue a little bit with the suggestion by the government about the lack of time and the threat and the potential threats that were issued to the witnesses who provided the obliterating evidence the indian government had plenty of time to put this i don't think we should be concerned about mr byrne if things are his people who are working on his behalf making the threats but we should be worried about it being indian the government making threats the only evidence that when this is being threatened where when it is being threatened by the indian