United States v. Ali Ali
405 U.S. App. D.C. 279
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Ali Mohamed Ali, a Somali national, helped negotiate a ransom for a hijacked vessel in the Gulf of Aden, with acts largely on land and in territorial waters.
- Ali was charged in a four-count superseding indictment: conspiracy to commit piracy, piracy (aiding and abetting), conspiracy to hostage take, and hostage taking, under various federal statutes.
- The district court dismissed the conspiracy-to-piracy count and limited the piracy count to high-seas conduct, and later dismissed hostage-taking counts due to due process concerns.
- The government appealed, challenging the district court’s limitations and dismissals concerning Counts One, Three, and Four and the scope of Count Two.
- The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of conspiracy to commit piracy, reversed the narrowing of Count Two, and reversed dismissal of Counts Three and Four, allowing hostage-taking prosecutions to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extraterritorial reach of aiding and abetting piracy | United States argues aiding and abetting piracy applies extraterritorially to Ali's conduct. | Ali contends 101(c) requires high-seas conduct or that extraterritorial reach is limited by international law and Charming Betsy. | Aiding and abetting piracy may be prosecuted extraterritorially; Charming Betsy not a bar. |
| Conspiracy to commit piracy under international law | Government seeks conspiracy liability under §371 based on universal piracy concerns. | UNCLOS does not include conspiracy to commit piracy; international-law limits apply. | Conspiracy to commit piracy cannot be sustained; Count One properly dismissed. |
| Hostage-taking counts and due process | Counts Three and Four are valid under universal jurisdiction and due process. | Due process may limit extraterritorial prosecutions absent sufficient nexus. | Counts Three and Four properly survive; due process satisfied via hostages treaty framework. |
| Due process nexus and extraterritoriality for hostage-taking | Treaty-based notice can suffice to satisfy due process for extraterritorial offenses. | Ali argues lack of nexus or notice to subject him to U.S. prosecution. | Due process satisfied; treaty notice to foreign offenders sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (discusses universal jurisdiction and piracy context)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (S. Ct. 2013) (presumption against extraterritoriality narrowing reach of statutes)
- United States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (extraterritorial reach of ancillary offenses)
- Shi v. United States, 525 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 2008) (treaty notice can satisfy due process for extraterritorial offenses)
- United States v. Lin, 101 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (international treaty considerations in hostage-related prosecutions)
- United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (conspiracy liability principles in the D.C. Circuit)
- Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (norms of international law and due process considerations)