United States v. Dire
680 F.3d 446 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of piracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1651, which criminalizes 'piracy as defined by the law of nations,' incorporates the modern, evolving definition of piracy under customary international law, which includes violent acts for private ends, and is not fixed to the 19th-century definition requiring a completed robbery.
Facts:
- On April 1, 2010, the USS Nicholas, a U.S. Navy frigate, was on a counter-piracy mission in the Indian Ocean disguised as a merchant vessel.
- Abdi Wali Dire, Gabul Abdullahi Ali, and Mohammed Modin Hasan approached the USS Nicholas in a small attack skiff, while Abdi Mohammed Umar and Abdi Mohammed Gurewardher remained on a nearby mother-ship.
- Hasan was armed with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher (RPG), while Dire and Ali carried AK-47 assault rifles.
- When their skiff was within sixty feet of the Nicholas, Dire and Ali fired their AK-47s at the naval vessel in an attempt to make it surrender.
- The crew of the Nicholas returned fire, and the exchange lasted less than thirty seconds.
- The attackers then fled, throwing their weapons and a boarding ladder overboard before being pursued and captured by the USS Nicholas.
- All five men were apprehended and later confessed to participating in a scheme to hijack a merchant vessel for ransom.
Procedural Posture:
- The five defendants were indicted on fourteen counts, including piracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1651, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Before trial, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the piracy count, arguing that their actions did not constitute piracy because no robbery was completed.
- The district court denied the motion, ruling that the modern, evolving definition of piracy under the law of nations applies and does not require a completed robbery.
- Following an eleven-day trial, a jury found all defendants guilty on all counts.
- The defendants then filed post-trial motions for judgments of acquittal on the piracy count, which the district court also denied.
- The district court sentenced each defendant to life in prison plus eighty years.
- The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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:
Does an armed attack on a vessel on the high seas, committed for private ends but without a completed robbery, constitute 'the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations' under 18 U.S.C. § 1651?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge King
Yes, an armed attack on a vessel on the high seas for private ends, even without a completed robbery, constitutes piracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1651. The court reasoned that the statutory phrase 'piracy as defined by the law of nations' was intentionally flexible, designed to evolve with customary international law rather than remain static. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the definition was frozen by the Supreme Court's 1820 decision in United States v. Smith, which defined piracy as 'robbery upon the sea.' Instead, the court found that the modern definition of piracy, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), represents current customary international law. UNCLOS defines piracy to include 'any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends' against another vessel, which does not require a successful taking of property. Adopting this modern definition aligns U.S. law with the international consensus and effectuates Congress's intent to exercise universal jurisdiction over the crime.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modernizes the application of U.S. piracy law by untethering it from a nearly 200-year-old definition. It establishes that federal courts should look to contemporary customary international law, particularly treaties like UNCLOS, to interpret 18 U.S.C. § 1651. By holding that a violent attack alone can constitute piracy, the ruling makes it easier for the government to prosecute pirates, who may be apprehended before they can successfully seize a vessel or its property. This case solidifies the U.S.'s ability to combat modern piracy under universal jurisdiction and provides a key precedent for future prosecutions within the Fourth Circuit and beyond.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Dire