Cases of 2
Supreme Court Extends Review of Role Federal Judges Play in
Terrorism Fight.
By Robert Barnes
The Supreme Court yesterday extended its
review of the federal courts' jurisdiction over those captured as terrorism
suspects, agreeing to hear the cases of two U.S. citizens who are held
in Iraq for crimes allegedly committed there.
The two
men -- one a Jordanian American suspected of conspiring with al-Qaeda and the other an Iraqi who became
a U.S. citizen in 2000 and has been convicted in Iraq of kidnapping -- have
asked federal courts in Washington to bar American military forces from turning them
over to the Iraqis.
The cases raise "questions of
exceptional importance concerning the separation of powers, the nation's
conduct of foreign and military affairs, and the sovereign prerogative of
foreign nations to try individuals for the commission of criminal offenses
within their own borders," according to a brief filed in one of them by
Solicitor General Paul A. Clement.
The grants
raise the possibility that by the end of its term next summer, the court could clearly articulate the constitutional role that federal
judges should play in the war on terrorism. Justices earlier this week
heard arguments about the constitutional rights of suspects being detained as
enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba.
One of the
cases accepted yesterday involves Shawqi Ahmad Omar, who faces charges after
being captured by multinational forces in a raid that targeted a former
al-Qaeda leader. The government said Omar was harboring an Iraqi insurgent and
four Jordanian Jihadist fighters in his Baghdad home, which contained explosives.
The government said that Omar had plans to kidnap foreigners.
The
multinational force wants to turn Omar over to the Central Criminal Court of
It said
that the court has jurisdiction to hear Omar's claim to the writ of habeas
corpus, the right to challenge his imprisonment before a judge.
The
government strenuously disagreed, with Clement's brief saying "no court
has previously sanctioned such a far-reaching and internationally unsettling
exercise of American judicial power.''
A
different panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled that Mohammad Munaf had no right to
the American courts.
Munaf
traveled to Iraq in 2005 to serve as a guide to a group of Romanian
journalists, who were quickly kidnapped and held until coalition forces freed
them. Munaf was suspected of being involved in the kidnapping.
The Bush
administration said that Munaf confessed to the crime but denied it when he was
put on trial by the Iraqi court. Still held by the
The
appeals court said Munaf's case was different from Omar's because Munaf had
been convicted of a crime, while Omar had not yet even been charged. The court
relied on a 1948 Supreme Court ruling that held U.S. courts had no authority to
"review, to affirm, set aside or annul'' judgments made by non-U.S.
tribunals.
The high
court has consolidated the two cases -- Geren v. Omar and Munaf
v. Geren-- and should hear arguments in March.
The court
took another terrorism-related case yesterday, that of Ahmed Ressam, an
al-Qaeda operative convicted of planning to blow up Los Angeles International Airport on the
eve of the new millennium.
Ressam, an
Algerian, was arrested in Washington state after arriving on a ferry from Canada, his rental car holding an abundance
of bombmaking materials. He was convicted of various charges, including making
a false customs statement and carrying explosives, and sentenced to 22 years in
prison. The sentence was lighter than it could have been because he cooperated
for a while with authorities.
But on
appeal, the
It sent
the case back to the lower court for resentencing, and the government appealed.
The
case is U.S. v. Ressam.