United States v. Yousef
327 F.3d 56 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
United States law, particularly statutes implementing international conventions like the Montreal Convention, provides a valid basis for exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over individuals who attack foreign aircraft outside the U.S., even if the act does not qualify for universal jurisdiction under customary international law. Jurisdiction is also proper under the protective principle of international law if the act is part of a broader plot intended to coerce or harm the United States.
Facts:
- Ramzi Yousef and his co-conspirators devised a plan to bomb twelve U.S.-flagged commercial airliners serving routes in Southeast Asia.
- The stated goal of the plot was to retaliate against the United States for its foreign policy, specifically its support for Israel.
- In preparation for the attacks on U.S. airliners, Yousef and Wali Khan Amin Shah placed a bomb in a Manila movie theater, injuring several people.
- As a further test run, Yousef planted a bomb on a Philippine Airlines flight traveling from Manila, Philippines to Tokyo, Japan on December 11, 1994.
- Yousef assembled the bomb on the plane and disembarked during a stopover in Cebu, Philippines.
- The bomb later detonated during the second leg of the flight, killing one Japanese passenger and injuring several others.
- The broader conspiracy was discovered in January 1995 after a fire in the Manila apartment shared by Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad led Philippine police to discover bomb-making materials and detailed plans on Yousef's laptop.
- Yousef fled the Philippines but was later captured in Pakistan and turned over to U.S. authorities.
Procedural Posture:
- Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah were charged in a superseding indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with crimes related to a conspiracy to bomb U.S. airliners.
- Prior to trial, Yousef filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the District Court lacked extraterritorial jurisdiction over his conduct.
- The District Court denied the motion to dismiss.
- A jury trial was held on the airline bombing charges, which concluded on September 5, 1996.
- The jury found all three defendants guilty on all counts.
- The District Court entered judgments of conviction and imposed sentences on all defendants.
- Defendants-appellants Yousef and Murad appealed their convictions and sentences to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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 a United States court have extraterritorial jurisdiction under federal statute and customary international law to prosecute a non-citizen for bombing a foreign-flagged commercial aircraft that was flying between two foreign destinations?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Walker
Yes, a United States court has extraterritorial jurisdiction. Congress clearly intended for federal law to apply to such conduct, and this application is consistent with both treaty obligations and principles of customary international law. The court's reasoning proceeded in several steps. First, it found a statutory basis for jurisdiction in 18 U.S.C. § 32(b), which was enacted to implement the Montreal Convention. The statute provides jurisdiction over an offender who attacks a foreign aircraft and is 'afterwards found in the United States.' The court interpreted 'found in' to mean being physically present in the U.S., regardless of how one arrived. Because Yousef was lawfully in U.S. custody for the World Trade Center bombing charges when he was indicted for the airline plot, he was properly 'found' in the U.S. Second, the court rejected the District Court's reliance on the universality principle of customary international law. It held that universal jurisdiction applies only to a very limited class of crimes like piracy and war crimes, and does not extend to 'terrorism' because there is no international consensus on its definition. Third, jurisdiction was proper under the Montreal Convention itself, which creates an 'extradite or prosecute' obligation for signatory nations. Since the Philippines, Japan, and Pakistan did not seek Yousef's extradition, the U.S. was obligated to prosecute him once he was on its territory. Finally, as an alternative basis, jurisdiction was proper under the protective principle of customary international law. The bombing of the Philippine Airlines flight was not an isolated act but a 'test-run' for a larger conspiracy aimed at influencing U.S. foreign policy and harming U.S. citizens and property, which constituted a direct threat to the security and governmental functions of the United States.
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone of U.S. counter-terrorism jurisprudence, clarifying the legal framework for prosecuting international terrorists in American courts. It powerfully affirms Congress's authority to legislate extraterritorially to protect national security, even if doing so appears to conflict with traditional norms of international law. The court's detailed analysis distinguishes between different bases of international jurisdiction, notably rejecting the expansion of the universality principle to cover terrorism while endorsing jurisdiction based on specific treaty obligations (the Montreal Convention) and the protective principle. This provides a clear and robust legal pathway for future prosecutions of individuals who conspire abroad to harm U.S. interests, solidifying the 'long arm' of U.S. criminal law in the fight against global terrorism.
