What should a court look for in the extradition treaty between the U.S. and Pakistan when deciding Kasi's claim about jurisdiction? Kasi v. Angelone, 300 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2002)
The extradition treaty in force between the US and Pakistan had been created in 1931 between the US and the UK, as Pakistan was a colony of the UK then.
The treaty does not expressly prohibit individuals who are facing charges in the US and seeking shelter in Pakistan from being abducted by US forces and being brought back to stand trial in American courts.
the Court has plainly held that an extradition treaty does not divest courts of jurisdiction over a defendant who has been abducted from another country where the terms of the extradition treaty do not prohibit such forcible abduction
Therefore, the fact that though the US and Pakistan have an extradition treaty and Kasi was not extradited to the US through the treaty by Pakistani authorities but instead was forcibly abducted does not in any way provide immunity from being tried by a court in the US.
The Court only has to examine if the extradition treaty between Pakistan and the US has any terms which specifically disallow individuals from being forcibly brought from one country to another in order to make a decision on the claim about jurisdiction.