my point is that Dog Chapman, and four others, were arrested in Mexico and charged with a crime. They were let out on bail, and then did not return for their trial. The court then issued a warrant for their return, and since Dog was known to be in the United States, the authorities generated an official government extradition request.
That request, being valid, was accepted by our government, as it should be, and Dog was arrested by U.S. marshals under the lawful order of a JUDGE who reviewed the evidence of the case.
It makes no difference WHY Dog broke the law in Mexico -- not for the extradition request. It might make a difference at his trial, which apparently will be a lot worse for him since he jumped bail.
That is my point. Well, that and that a lot of people are posting here about how Dog HAD to go get Luster because the mexican government was harboring him and being paid off (no evidence), and that Bush personally sent the marshals to arrest Dog (no evidence) and that he did this because Fox knows something bad about him and is blackmailing him (no evidence).
I don't expect people to take by blind faith what multiple contemporaneous news reports said, even though they include statements from Dog's family and attorney that largely corraberate the story.