When Is One Extradition Not Like The Others?

When one is an American border guard who shoots to death a fifteen-year-old Mexican youth, and the other is a French-born film Director whose one-night-stand has gone on for forty years.

U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., October 3, 2016. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Today the Supreme Court of the United States was debating the case of an American border guard who shot to death a 15-year-old Mexican who was caught trying to get back to Mexico. Mexican authorities have sought the extradition of the border guard to Mexico to try him for murder. American authorities are stating they will not produce him and the case before the Supreme Court is an appeal from the boy’s parents seeking justice for the death of their son. The United States State Department has refused to hand the guard over, citing “conditions in Mexican prisons” as their main reason for the refusal. This is in stark contrast to their constant pursuit of Roman Polanski and their bulldozing through Polish and Swiss courts to try to get Polanski back to the United States. They seem to want their cake, but not have to eat it. What hubris for demanding Polanski’s extradition based off of an illegal bench warrant from Judge Rittenband, to that of a murdered Mexican teenager’s parents seeking justice for their loss. However, the extradition request for Polanski is based on nothing. It is only because former district attorney Steve Cooley felt his spleen was displaced because of the Marina Zenovich documentary that rightfully, called foul on Judge Rittenband’s behaviour. This is the exact same issue Italy faced when it called for the extradition of four CIA agents for the wrongful rendition of one of its citizens on suspicion of terrorism. But then it’s never America that has to cough up the goods, only other countries where America feels it has had its rights deprived. Only in this case with Polanski, he already served his time and no further time was required of him.