United States v. Ali
885 F. Supp. 2d 17
D.D.C.2012Background
- Piracy incident: hijacking of the Bahamas-flag CEC Future on the high seas in Gulf of Aden (Nov 7, 2008) with ransom paid by owner Clipper Group A/S.
- Ali Mohamed Ali, a Somali, allegedly aided the pirates, communicated demands, and departed after ransom; he was arrested in 2010–2012.
- Indictment charges: Count One conspiracy to commit piracy, Count Two piracy and aiding/abetting, Count Three conspiracy to hostage taking, Count Four hostage taking and aiding/abetting.
- Counts 1 and 2 rely on universal jurisdiction for piracy; Counts 3 and 4 rely on Hostage Taking Convention-based and treaty-based jurisdiction.
- Court’s ruling: grant in part and deny in part Ali’s motion to dismiss; dismiss Count One, allow Count Two, and deny others pending trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extraterrestrial reach of piracy and hostage-taking statutes | Ali challenges extraterritorial application | Ali argues U.S. statutes cannot reach non-U.S. conduct | Extraterritorial reach recognized for §1651 and §1203 under Charming Betsy framework |
| Conspiracy to piracy under universal jurisdiction | Conspiracy to piracy is within universal jurisdiction | UNCLOS piracy definition does not include conspiracy | Count One dismissed; conspiracy to piracy not encompassed by universal jurisdiction under §1651 |
| Aiding/abetting piracy and scope under §2 | Aiding/abetting liability extends to universal-piracy acts | Ali must commit acts on high seas; §2 cannot expand to non-high-seas acts | Count Two valid as aiding/abetting under §2 for high-seas piracy; §2 cannot broaden to non-high seas acts here |
| Due process limits on extraterritorial §1203 | Hostage-taking prosecutions allowed by treaty-based jurisdiction if consistent with due process | Potential arbitrary extraterritorial reach | Due process satisfied; treaty-based and universal-jurisdiction framework permits Count Four and supports Count Two |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dire, 680 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2012) (defines contemporary piracy under law of nations and supports universal jurisdiction)
- Hasan, 747 F. Supp. 2d 599 (E.D. Va. 2010) (district-level treatment of universal piracy and extraterritoriality (cited))
- Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (due process and extraterritorial jurisdiction limits; non-specified case law)
- Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (treaty-based and universal jurisdiction concepts; limits of conspiratorial liability)
- Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) (Congress may punish piracy by reference to international-law definitions)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993) (presumption against extraterritoriality and jurisdictional reach)
- Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052 (3d Cir. 1993) (due process nexus considerations for extraterritoriality)
- Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (treaty-based jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction distinctions)
- Dire, 680 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2012) (situates UNCLOS as authoritative piracy definition for universal jurisdiction)
- Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610 (1818) (early limits on piracy jurisdiction and foreigners on foreign vessels)