THE TREATY MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR AMERICANS CONVICTED IN MEXICO TO SERVE THEIR SENTENCES IN AMERICAN PRISONS. ONE CONDITION IS THAT PRISONERS WHO ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT COLLATERALLY ATTACK THEIR MEXICAN CONVICTIONS IN U.S. COURTS. THE U.S. COURTS ARE LIKELY TO BE FACED WITH LITIGATION QUESTIONING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FORBIDDING COLLATERAL ATTACKS, WHICH IN THE UNITED STATES ORDINARILY ARE EFFECTUATED BY WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT BODY OF ANALOGOUS PRECEDENT AVAILABLE, BUT MUCH OF IT IS INCOMPLETE, UNCERTAIN, AND INCONSISTENT. THE WHOLE PROBLEM OF WHETHER THE TREATY UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SUSPENDS TRANSFERRED PRISONERS' HABEAS CORPUS PRIVILEGES MIGHT BE AVOIDED THROUGH THE TREATY'S REQUIREMENT THAT TRANSFERS BE CARRIED OUT ONLY WITH PRISONERS' CONSENT. ALTHOUGH NEVER EXPLICITLY LABELED AS SUCH, THIS CONSENT APPARENTLY SERVES AS A WAIVER OF HABEAS CORPUS. THE QUESTION THUS BECOMES WHETHER HABEAS CORPUS CAN BE WAIVED; IF SO, WHETHER TREATY PROVISIONS GOVERNING CONSENT PROCEDURES CONSTITUTE A VALID WAIVER; AND WHETHER TRANSFER OUT OF A MEXICAN PRISON CONSTITUTES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION ON THE HABEAS CORPUS RIGHT. THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TREATY'S COLLATERAL ATTACK PROVISIONS IS A CLOSE ONE, PARTICULARLY ON THE ISSUES OF WAIVER AND THE DOCTRINE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS (LACK OF BALANCE IN A STATE'S OFFER OF BENEFITS CONTINGENT ON THE ABANDONMENT OF RELINQUISHMENT OF A PARTICULAR RIGHT). IF LITIGATED, THE TREATY MAY BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BUT SUCH AN OUTCOME IS UNLIKELY, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S RESTRICTIONS ON THE SCOPE AND OPERATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR AMERICAN PRISONERS, THE GENERAL JUDICIAL CLIMATE FAVORING FINALITY OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA OF PLEA BARGAINING. (LKM)