The court cases analyzed are United States v. Rauscher, Ker v. Illinois, United States v. Postal, Ford v. United States, and Cook v. United States. If an alleged terrorist is tried in the United States, he should be able to argue against the jurisdiction of the court if there is no internationally recognized nexus between his action and the United States. His mode of apprehension, however, is irrelevant unless he can show that the United States, by trying him, is violating a treaty obligation not to prosecute him. The fact that the apprehension alone may have violated a treaty obligation is not enough. If, on the other hand, there is a treaty obligation not to prosecute, such as the principle of specialty in typical extradition treaties, factors such as the multilateral nature of the treaty should not prevent the obligation from being self-executing and thus from being applied by U.S. courts. 109 footnotes.