that we should require Cambodian officials to give a version of the Miranda warnings to United States citizens suspected of child trafficking crimes. See U.S. Dep’t of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, at 15-16 (2003), available at http://www.state. gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2003 (noting that countries that do not make significant efforts to comply with certain minimum standards laid out by the U.S. State Department could lose U.S. financial assistance). 7 . See, e.g., Kilday, 481, F.2d at 655-56 (Miranda warnings unnecessary even though defendant was arrested in connection with a bank robbery that occurred in the United States, was questioned by an Interpol agent, and an American consular official was present as an interpreter during the interrogation); Heller, 625 F.2d at 599-600 (<HOLDING>). 8 . Frank does not challenge Congress’s
holding that the defendant was entitled to a new trial where the only witnesses to a drug transaction other than the defendant were an fbi agent and a cl holding exclusionary rule did not apply when defendant was apprehended by british officials based on tip by american agent defendant and evidence were seized before american agents arrived defendant was charged initially with violating british law and american agent only interviewed defendant after obtaining permission from british authorities holding that agent entrapped defendant by goading defendant and repeatedly requesting drugs from him holding testimony of undercover drug agent regarding tips that defendant was selling drugs and description of defendant were inadmissible hearsay given the statements specifically referred to defendant holding that where defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation agent did not violate the fifth amendment by contacting defendant for questioning after defendant refused to answer questions without a lawyer present