Noriega v. Pastrana
2009 WL 929960, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7732, 564 F.3d 1290 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 5 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 precludes any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights in a habeas corpus or other civil proceeding in a United States court.
Facts:
- Manuel Antonio Noriega was convicted in the United States on various drug-related charges in 1992.
- Following his conviction, the United States government designated Noriega a prisoner of war (POW), affording him the protections of the Third Geneva Convention.
- As Noriega's U.S. prison sentence was nearing its end in 2007, the government of France requested his extradition.
- France sought to try Noriega for money laundering offenses for which he had already been convicted in absentia in French courts.
- The United States and France are both parties to the Third Geneva Convention and have an extradition treaty.
- Prior to the extradition, the United States sought and obtained assurances from France that it would afford Noriega benefits equivalent to those he received in the U.S. as a POW.
Procedural Posture:
- Manuel Antonio Noriega was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on drug-related charges and sentenced to imprisonment.
- The district court later designated Noriega a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention.
- Upon request from France, the United States filed a complaint for Noriega's extradition, and a U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a Certificate of Extraditability.
- Noriega filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court denied.
- Noriega then filed another petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which was also denied by the district court.
- Noriega (Appellant) appealed the district court's final denial of his habeas corpus petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a designated prisoner of war invoke the Third Geneva Convention in a habeas corpus proceeding to prevent his extradition to a third country for prosecution on separate criminal charges?
Opinions:
Majority - Restani, C.J.
No, a designated prisoner of war cannot invoke the Third Geneva Convention in a habeas corpus proceeding to prevent his extradition because § 5 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) expressly prohibits any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights in any habeas corpus or other civil action in a U.S. court. The plain language of § 5(a) of the MCA, supported by its legislative history, supersedes any domestic legal effect the Geneva Conventions may have previously had for individuals in U.S. courts. Noriega's claim, which relies on an alleged right to repatriation under Article 118 of the Convention, is precisely the type of action the statute bars. Even if Noriega could invoke the Convention, his extradition would not be prohibited; Article 12 permits the transfer of a POW to another signatory nation, and Article 119 allows for the continued detention of a POW to face criminal proceedings.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that U.S. statutes can override the domestic enforceability of international treaties. By upholding § 5 of the MCA, the court effectively closed the door for detainees, including declared POWs, to use the Geneva Conventions as a basis for legal claims in U.S. civil courts. The ruling clarifies that while the Conventions remain binding international obligations on the United States as a nation, they do not create privately enforceable rights in domestic law if Congress has legislated otherwise. This significantly strengthens the executive and legislative branches' control over matters of detention and international transfer, limiting judicial intervention based on treaty-based claims.
