United States v. Bin Laden
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3014, 2000 WL 279933, 92 F. Supp. 2d 189 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
United States criminal statutes enacted to protect the government against harm are presumed to apply extraterritorially to foreign nationals, but statutes textually limited to the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" do not apply to crimes committed in U.S. embassies abroad, as embassies are not U.S. territory.
Facts:
- Mohamed Sadeek Odeh and several co-defendants were alleged to be part of a conspiracy to murder United States nationals and destroy U.S. property and defense utilities abroad.
- In August 1998, bombs were detonated at the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
- The bombings resulted in the deaths of 228 people, including American citizens and foreign nationals.
- The explosions damaged and destroyed the two U.S. Embassy buildings, which are property of the United States government.
- The defendants, including Odeh, are foreign nationals, and all the acts alleged in the indictment took place outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government filed a sixth superseding indictment against Mohamed Sadeek Odeh and fourteen co-defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a federal trial court.
- The indictment included charges of conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals and numerous counts of murder related to the 1998 embassy bombings.
- Defendant Odeh, joined by the other defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts 5-244 for Lack of Jurisdiction, arguing the underlying statutes did not apply to their alleged conduct abroad.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do various United States criminal statutes, including those punishing the destruction of federal property and the murder of federal employees, apply extraterritorially to punish the conduct of foreign nationals acting on foreign soil?
Opinions:
Majority - Sand, District Judge
Yes, for statutes designed to protect core U.S. interests, but No, for statutes explicitly limited to the 'special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.' U.S. criminal statutes intended to protect the government against obstruction or harm apply extraterritorially to foreign nationals under the rationale of United States v. Bowman. However, statutes explicitly limited by their text to acts occurring within the 'special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,' such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 (murder) and 114 (maiming), do not apply to conduct at U.S. embassies abroad because embassies are considered territory of the host nation, not of the United States. The court rejects the argument that the Bowman exception applies only to U.S. citizens, reasoning that its protective function is equally applicable to foreign nationals. For statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 844 (destruction of U.S. property) and § 1114 (murder of U.S. employees), their protective nature implies congressional intent for extraterritorial application, as limiting them to U.S. territory would curtail their usefulness. Conversely, the court conducts a detailed historical analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), which defines 'special territorial jurisdiction,' and concludes it does not encompass U.S. embassies, thereby disagreeing with precedent from other circuits like United States v. Erdos. Finally, the court dismisses the defendants' due process claims, finding a sufficient nexus between the conduct and the U.S. because the attacks were aimed at the United States, and there was fair warning, as mass murder is universally condemned.
Analysis:
This opinion strongly reinforces and expands the doctrine of extraterritorial jurisdiction under United States v. Bowman, clarifying that its protective principle applies to foreign nationals, not just U.S. citizens. The decision establishes a clear dichotomy: statutes protecting fundamental government interests are presumed to have global reach, while general criminal statutes textually tied to U.S. territory do not. The court's definitive holding that U.S. embassies do not fall within the 'special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States' creates a crucial limitation on the geographic reach of many domestic criminal laws, forcing prosecutors to rely on specific anti-terrorism or protective statutes for crimes committed at such locations.
