English/ please help revise

In the Federal Court case United States vs. Fawaz Yunis, five men hijacked a Jordanian airliner. Among the passengers were two American citizens who were apparently not the target of the terrorist activity. Hijackers latter released the passengers and blew up the aircraft. The defendant was lured into international waters, arrested and brought to the United States, where he was convicted of conspiracy, hostage taking, and air piracy (1118).
Traditionally, international law was portrayed as a self-executing code that trumps domestic law whenever the two conflict (1120). However, United States vs. Fawaz Yunis, demonstrates a deviation from the norms and principles of customary international law. Yunis case arise the concern over the authority of the United States statutes permitting extraterritorial jurisdiction and application of the United States Constitution to aliens. On appeal, the appellant challenged the courts indictment on the grounds that the “court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction under the general principles of international law” (1119). Therefore, United States courts could not try him because as a foreign national he committed crimes on foreign soil and federal law provided no independent basis for jurisdiction (Clarizo). Motion was denied. The United States contended jurisdiction, found in section 1203 of the Hostage Taking Statute and section 32 of the Aircraft Piracy Statue, adopted from traditional international legal bases of universal and passive personality principle (Emory 116). Thus the appellant’s claims as a matter of international law had no validity in federal court. Congress concern was only “to enforce the Constitution, laws and treatise of the United States, not to conform the law of the land to norms of customary international law” (1120).
Subsection (b) of the Hostage Taking Act sets forth the terms for congress to impose legal responsibility on offenders “the offender is found in the United States” (Emory 117). The appellant argued that he was “not found” in the United States within the meaning of the statue. He was, on the other hand, apprehended and forcibly brought to the United States for trial which he contends blocked any jurisdiction under the statute. Furthermore, bringing someone to the United States by force to be charged with a crime over which the United States had jurisdiction only when he was inside United States territory is unreasonable (Emory 117). In addition, the abduction of the suspect is contrary to the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

  1. 👍 0
  2. 👎 0
  3. 👁 26
asked by Christy

Respond to this Question

First Name

Your Response

Similar Questions

  1. English/Please revise

    In the United States vs. Fawaz Yunis, five men hijacked a Jordanian airliner. Among the passengers were two American citizens who were apparently not the target of the terrorist activity. Hijackers latter released the passengers

    asked by Christi on April 9, 2008
  2. English/ please revise

    The issue arising out of the Yunis case is the concern over the authority of the United States statues permitting extraterritorial jurisdiction and application of the United States constitution to aliens. Thus, Yunis argued that

    asked by Christy on April 9, 2008
  3. please revise

    It is normally accepted among nations that “territorial jurisdiction” is based on a crimes committed within the territory of a sovereign state. However, sometimes states also exercise jurisdiction based on a crimes that was

    asked by Christi on April 30, 2008
  4. please revise my intro

    Hello, I am writing a paper for international law course can someone please revise my intro? thank you. It is ordinarily accepted among all nations that territorial jurisdiction is based on the fact that a crime is committed

    asked by christy on April 28, 2008
  5. please revise

    It is ordinarily accepted among nations that territorial jurisdiction is based on a crime that is committed within the territory of the sovereign state. However, sometimes states also exercise jurisdiction because the crime was

    asked by christy on April 28, 2008
  6. History

    16.)Which answer best describes the impact of the McCulloch vs. Maryland court case? A.)The case proved that federal banks had to follow state laws. B.)The case established the right for states to tax federal agencies. C.)The case

    asked by #FreeGucci on March 29, 2016
  7. ss pls check answers

    8. “…With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we

    asked by Jman on January 30, 2013
  8. History

    Which branch of government is Article III about? Who is given judicial power? How many justices are on the Supreme Court? Who appoints a justice to the Supreme Court? Who confirms the nomination? P. 26 How long is the term? P. 26

    asked by Chiki on September 15, 2017
  9. american goverment check answers

    9. What criteria might a judge who abides by a philosophy of judicial restraint use to decide a case? (1 point) The judge would consider previous court decisions on the topic but ultimately consider the current circumstances and

    asked by Anonymous on November 21, 2016
  10. Government Help Please

    All of the following statements regarding the process of selecting a case for Supreme Court consideration are true EXCEPT 1) A case selected for argument usually involves interpretations of the U. S. Constitution or federal law.

    asked by Anonymous on February 10, 2016

More Similar Questions