I don't have a problem, Mr. Opitz, with the equivalency, but I think there has to be something more than just saying that we will have a bureaucrat make that decision. There has to be some other guidelines and more than just what is equivalency.
If you take a look at something like using extradition law and taking a look at those countries and saying, okay, those countries are fine.... But for someone who is accused and convicted of bombing a restaurant, as you say, in North Korea, how do we know that is not trumped up? How do we know and how do we prove that North Korean terrorism offences are not equivalent versus the American ones? There's enough of a broad unclearness in the bill, and rightly so; I mean, that's the way bills are written. But that causes me a concern.
But if you can prove equivalency—and that's why I'm suggesting using extradition law as the basis for determining which legal systems we will look at as equivalent—then I think that would be a better protection.