UNITED STATES V. YOUSEF Parties
United States (Prosecutor-Appellee) v. Yousef (Defendant-Appellant)
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"United States v. Yousef".
Facts
In 1995, a plot was discovered to bomb twelve U.S. commercial airliners. Investigation connected it to a cinema bombing in Manila in 1994, and an explosion on a plane the same year in which a Japanese citizen was killed. Defendant-Appellant Yousef was taken into custody in Pakistan and extradited to the U.S. to stand trial for the World Trade Center attacks. At that time, he was subject to a second prosecution in which he was charged with multiple violations of the U.S. Criminal Code, as it relates to terrorism, use of explosives in violent crimes and attacks on aircraft.
Prior proceedings
The U.S. Attorney General brought suit in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In a jury trial, Defendant-Appellant Yousef was found guilty and convicted. He seeks to overturn the convictions.
Issues
On appeal, the issues are: (1) whether the District Court properly exercised jurisdiction over the defendant, and (2) whether the defendant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2332(b) is improper. The specific legal questions with respect to jurisdiction are: whether U.S. law can grant jurisdiction over acts of terrorism not occurring on U.S. soil or is superseded by customary international law; if U.S. law cannot, does customary international law itself provide that basis. With respect to the conviction, the questions turn on statutory construction: the constitutionality of delegating legislative power to the Executive, and whether defendant was s entitled to a jury instruction regarding “intent to retaliate against the United States or its citizens” (18 U.S.C. § 2332(d)).
Arguments
On the jurisdiction issue, Yousef argued in the alternative. First, that the universality principle of customary international law was improperly applied, because “terrorism” is not one of the universally agreed-upon offenses it is intended to cover. Second, that because U.S. law is superseded by customary international law, it cannot grant jurisdiction if international law does not.
On the conviction issue, Yousef argued: §2332 consists of an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional powers; and, because “intent to retaliate” is an element of the crime, he was entitled to a jury instruction regarding it.
Holding
The District Court mistakenly applied the universality principle of customary international law to grant jurisdiction. Because the protective principle and several legal Conventions provide jurisdiction, however, the Circuit Court upheld the decisions on all counts.
Rationale
U.S. law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2332, provides an adequate basis for jurisdiction, because customary international law does not supersede U.S. law. Rather, in the absence of stated law or precedent, customary international law can be used to fill the gaps; where more than one interpretation of a law is possible, courts should prefer the ones that do not conflict with international law.
As a matter of law, the universality principle does not provide adequate jurisdictional basis. According to the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 404, “[a] state has jurisdiction to define and prescribe punishment for certain offenses recognized by the community of nations as of universal concern” (United States v. Yousef, 2004). Terrorism, because its definition and application cannot be agreed upon, is not one of those offenses. Nevertheless, the protective principle permits the exercise of jurisdiction over crimes committed outside national boundaries when the crimes affect the security of the State; Yousef’s stated intention to affect U.S. foreign policy by bombing planes certainly did.
Yousef’s conviction is proper. First, there is no delegation of legislative power. Who, how and when to prosecute fall within the Attorney General’s mandate. Further, even if there had been a delegation of power, it would have been permissible under established rule of law. And finally, although Yousef correctly asserts that his entitlement to jury instruction and determination on all elements of a crime, subsection (d) is not an element of the crime. It merely indicates who can be properly charged.
- Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, 18 U.S.C. § 2332 (2011).
- Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law (1987).
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F 3rd 56 (2d Cir., 2003).
