PERSPECTIVE ON THE SUPREME COURT : Sanctity of Law Stops at the Border : Rehnquist’s outrageous ruling in the DEA kidnaping case will have dreadful consequences, and not just in Mexico.

Kidnaping, torture, murder. All of these crimes were committed against Drug Enforcement Administration agent Enrique Camarena Salazar in Mexico seven years ago. On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an outrageous judgment that undermined the very principles for which Camarena died.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist would have us believe that the U.S. government can pay Mexican thugs to kidnap a Mexican doctor in Mexico--without the Mexican government’s knowledge or consent--and dump him across the U.S. border to stand trial for the crimes committed against Camarena on Mexican soil.

No matter that an extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico requires due process of law. Rehnquist has stripped the treaty of all meaning by arguing that it does not explicitly prohibit kidnaping a suspect from one country to face charges in the other. The court’s tortured reasoning would verge on the comical if it were not so devastating to this country’s reputation as the citadel of law.

No matter either that common sense had earlier prevailed in the federal courts in California. The U.S. 9th Circuit understood that international law is not an empty shell, that the U.S.-Mexico extradition treaty is part of the law of this land, and that the DEA-arranged abduction of Dr. Humberto Alvarez Machain violated the most fundamental purposes of the treaty. Yale law professor Ruth Wedgewood correctly wrote of this case that “it is the glory of the United States and its system of justice that we proceed by principle rather than expedience.”

So, if the beating of Rodney King and the acquittal of the police officers still shocks you, the Rehnquist opinion will only compound your bewilderment.

In effect, the Supreme Court has given the green light to U.S. authorities to commit crimes in other countries in the name of enforcing U.S. statutes.

In a stinging dissent joined by Justices Harry A. Blackmun and Sandra Day O’Connor, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that courts “throughout the civilized world will be deeply disturbed by (this) monstrous decision . . . . “ The consequences are dreadful.

-- The Lone Rangers of the DEA have long been frustrated by foreign corruption and ineptitude. Now cooperation between U.S. and Mexican authorities has collapsed, and enforcement of drug laws won’t be the only victim. Unilateral expeditions ultimately invite lawlessness of all sorts.

-- The court, prodded by the Bush Justice Department, has undermined U.S. interests in the free-trade agreement being negotiated with Mexico. This decision gives Mexico leverage to use drug-enforcement cooperation as a bargaining chip in exchange for U.S. trade concessions. American businesses will think twice about expanding their commercial relationships with Mexico.

-- Other countries may now consider it entirely appropriate to kidnap U.S. citizens on U.S. territory in order to stand trial in their courts for violations of their laws. If, for example, you own or manage a factory near the Mexican border that pollutes Mexican air or water, watch your back.

-- The United States is now in the humiliating position of being asked--compelled, more likely--by foreign governments to insert in all of its existing 103 extradition treaties and all future extradition treaties language prohibiting abductions and other specific creative interventions.

-- If the rule of law was a pillar of President Bush’s “new world order,” it is no more. Atty. Gen. William P. Barr, who in 1989 authored the secret legal opinions that set the stage for Alvarez Machain’s abduction and for the use of U.S. armed forces to invade Panama and seize Gen. Manuel Noriega, can now sponsor such vigilante tactics without fear of judicial scrutiny.

There are two ways to blunt the Supreme Court’s miscarriage of international justice.

The President can issue an executive order prohibiting forcible abductions on foreign soil without the consent of the foreign government. He can reserve a U.S. power to do so in extraordinary circumstances, but only with his express approval.

Alternatively, Congress has the power, granted in the Constitution, to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Given the Supreme Court’s disdain for international law--even a treaty obligation--veto-proof majorities in Congress should enact a statute clearly prohibiting such egregious behavior by or at the behest of any U.S. official. The Bush Administration will have only itself to blame for the inconvenience.