> Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. I don't follow how you go

> Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. I don't follow how you got from A to B there; I don't read Kerry's position as asserting American authority or sovereignty at all, to be honest. It's a standard for extradition which is a sovereignty affair as well as a legal due process consideration in our system of government, but not in the manner of asserting American authority to 'boss' Turkey around. We refuse the occasional extradition to the UK, for example, despite having a special relationship with them and not tending to diplomatically 'boss' them around, so I'm not following your thinking here. (It's not a great example because of the 2003 treaty we have with them, but the point stands about refusals.) I'm also not following how you arrived at the American position being a bluff.