U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain 1992 Supreme Court Decision

U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) Supreme Court Decision

Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) that "forcible abduction of a foreign national does not prohibit his trial in a U.S. Court" dealt a body blow to international law, the implications of which are still being felt. Small wonder, therefore, that the Court's majority (6-3) decision was considered unjust by international human rights organizations and even by three of Supreme Court's own judges, led by Justice Stevens, who dissented strongly. I agree with Judge Steven's dissenting opinion for the reasons explained in this essay.

Strange Logic:

As pointed out by Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion, allowing kidnapping of people from the territory of a foreign country, just because there is no express provision disallowing such an act in a treaty, is strange logic. By an extension of this logic every act, whether legal or illegal, moral or immoral, not mentioned in a particular treaty would be deemed allowable. Justice Stevens appropriately records in his dissent whether the Court's majority would also endorse behavior such as torture and execution because they were not explicitly prohibited by the terms of the Extradition Treaty between the U.S. And Mexico.

Violation of International Law:

Besides the application of such flawed logic, the majority decision in Alvarez ignored a fundamental principle of international law, i.e., respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent country. Performing acts of sovereignty in another state is a gross violation of international law, whatever the justification. Kidnapping a person from a foreign, friendly country for a suspected crime is doubly condemnable and opens up a Pandora's box of similar illegal acts. Perhaps realizing how wrong the act of kidnapping a foreign national from a sovereign country was, Justice Rehnquist himself noted while delivering the majority opinion of the Court, " ... respondent may be correct that his abduction was "shocking" and in violation of general international law principles ... "

Outcome of Trial Proves the Act Unjust:

Not only was the principle behind the abduction of Alvarez-Machain wrong, the aftermath of the incident, has further underlined the inappropriateness of the act. In his trial in a Los Angeles criminal court, Dr. Alvarez-Machain was exonerated of all charges and while dismissing the case the presiding judge called the government's charges against Dr. Alvarez-Machain "wild hunches and speculation." (Quoted in "ACLU Joins Landmark International ... " 2004) It proves that the government did not have enough evidence about Alvarez's guilt before taking the extreme step of ordering his kidnapping.

Implication:

The implication of the Supreme Court's Alvarez decision, however, extends far beyond the direct aftermath of the case itself. The mindset of disrespect for international law and human rights is reflected in the current U.S. administration's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and disregard for territorial integrity of other countries.