Alana Robinson, the Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California (San Diego) confirmed in a radio interview this week that the extradition request was for the 1995 case. Oddly, she says that the extradition request was made shortly after his capture in February, 2014.
Alana Robinson from the U.S. Attorney's Office said the United States tried to extradite Guzman when he was arrested in February because he was wanted on drug charges here. She said that request was still pending when Guzman escaped.
From the transcript:
Q: Now what happened when the U.S. tried to extradite him when he was arrested this last time in Feburary 2014?
A: (Robinson) The United States Department of Justice complied with the treaty requirements and submitted our extradition request. That was pending with the Mexican Government at the time of Chapo’s escape.
While she doesn't give a date the request was submitted, and there's a pause while she considers how to phrase the answer, she clearly implies the request was submitted shortly after his arrest, not three weeks ago, as the Mexican Government now claims.
Why would the U.S. seek El Chapo's extradition on a case where the charges are 25 years old, as opposed to more recent cases such as those in Chicago, the Eastern District of New York and the Western District of Texas? Can the U.S. extradite him on the San Diego case and once he's here, decide to try him first in Chicago or Texas or New York?
It may depend on what the Diplomatic Note accompanying the extradition request says. If the U.S. only sought extradition on the San Diego charges, which is what Mexico said, the U.S. may have to request in the Diplomatic Note that Mexico waive the rule of specialty, to allow the U.S. to try Chapo on offenses that occurred after the San Diego offenses for which he is being extradited, and on cases in other districts.
One version I read in the news said that San Diego had submitted an extradition request back in in the 1990's, but they never got the arrest warrant. When he was arrested in February, 2014, the U.S. asked for time to update its old extradition request, to add the charges in 6 other districts. I read they were San Diego, Western District of Texas, Eastern District of New York and Florida. The Arizona tunnel case charges were dismissed against El Chapo in 2012 (here's the order), so unless they refile them, Arizona is not an option. New Hampshire has a case against him, and so did Pennsylvania, but they rarely get mentioned.
It's a bit curious that the U.S. has managed to extradite Ismael (Mayo) Zambada's brother and two of his sons have been extradited, while a request is pending for a third son, but it never sought to get El Chapo here, even though they had multiple cases to choose from.
The only conclusion I can draw from that is the U.S. didn't ask because it knew that Chapo bought himself protection from the Mexican Government against extradition. That may have ended with his 2014 arrest, and it sounds like quite a few people knew about this new request (whether it came in February, as some say, or last month) and that is what set the timing of his latest escape in motion.
If Mexico grants the new extradition request, there will be a Diplomatic Note with conditions Mexico imposes on the extradition. For example, since the Texas Indictment includes murder charges in the Continuing Criminal Enterprise count, which carries a possible death sentence, one such condition would be that Mexico will only agree to extradite him if the U.S. agrees not to ask for the death penalty. Mexico does not grant extraditions without that promise.
Short of that, promises don't mean too much. Take this guy, Yesid Rios Suarez, who was extradited from Colombia which extracted a promise he wouldn't get a life sentence. He is 46 years old. The judge in New York gave him 648 months. The U.S, per its obligation under the diplomatic note, asked the judge to sentence him to less. The judge refused. The U.S. then said too bad, it did its job in making the request. Just last month, the Second Circuit rejected Suarez' appeal, telling him that the right of specialty is not your right, it's the right of the Government that agreed to extradite you. The case is United States v. Suarez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11185, *1 (2d Cir. N.Y. June 30, 2015),
As a matter of international law, the principle of specialty has been viewed as a privilege of the asylum state, designed to protect its dignity and interests, rather than a right accruing to the accused. The object of the rule was to prevent the United States from violating international obligations. Those concerns apply equally whether a criminal defendant objects based on the rule of specialty or based on the interpretation of an extradition treaty or Diplomatic Note. When the provisions in question are designed to protect the sovereignty of states, it is plainly the offended states which must in the first instance determine whether a violation of sovereignty occurred, or requires redress.
Where can El Chapo go? Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Colombia are all on alert for him. It sounds like he'll need some serious facial plastic surgery if he wants to remain hidden. I wonder if he has any contacts in Brazil. Other than that, the only thing I can think of is that he'll have to buy himself a country somewhere.
I hope he does not get extradited to the U.S. We extradite far too many drug offenders as it is. It costs more than $25,000 a year to house each one. Considering some of them have 30 year sentences, it's costing us a fortune.
Just last month, the U.S. announced indictments and intended extraditions for 17 Colombian traffickers of the Usuga clan, who are supposedly aligned with the Guerillas (even though they started out with their enemies, the paramilitary groups.)
We should just legalize all drugs -- with the profit margin gone, they'd stop sending them here. They've already given up on marijuana. Treatment doesn't cost anywhere near as much as imprisoning hundreds of foreign traffickers. There will always be a new group.
