Arrested in Djibouti while he was en route to Yemen from Somalia, far from his home in Britain, Madhi Hashi was baffled to find himself jailed in Manhattan.
He admitted to prison officials that he was a member of the militant group al-Shabaab, but he “did not understand why he had been brought to the United States to stand trial,” according to court documents.
The world of soccer was roiled by a similar surprise late last month, heads snapping from Italy to Argentina, when US Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that Brooklyn prosecutors had indicted FIFA officials from the other side of the globe, on corruption charges.
Using a growing body of law that allows the US to prosecute foreign citizens for some actions, the government has been turning the federal courts into international law-enforcement arenas.
In terrorism cases, the broadening of a key law in 2004, the splintering of terrorist groups and a shift away from military detention has led the US to bring more foreigners onto its soil, some with only a tenuous link to the US.
Perhaps no federal prosecutor was more aggressive about expanding her office’s global reach than former US attorney Loretta Lynch. The FIFA arrests suggest that she now leads the US Department of Justice and overseas cases are likely to become even more of a priority.
In the FIFA case, prosecutors chose not to invoke “extraterritorial jurisdiction.” Instead they relied on the defendants’ use of US banks and locations to conduct meetings as the basis for charging them in federal court.
However, in terrorism prosecutions, US courts are trying people who were not targeting the US, are not from the US, and, before their court cases, had never set foot in the US. (In these cases, prosecutors say, the country extraditing or otherwise handing over custody of the defendant is, by definition, choosing to cooperate with the US.)
The US has become “the jailer, the military front and now the prosecutor” of global crimes, particularly terrorism, director for the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law in New York Karen Greenberg said.
NO RIGHTS
In Brooklyn, the trial earlier this year of Abid Naseer, a Pakistan-born al-Qaeda member plotting a to set off a bomb in Manchester, England, saw a parade of MI5 agents, Manchester police officers and an English mall-security expert.
Another man, Lawal Babafemi, who will be sentenced in the summer after pleading guilty to providing support for terrorism, was a Nigerian who traveled to Chad and Sudan before being smuggled to Yemen by a Ugandan, then was arrested and sent to Brooklyn after he returned to Nigeria.
Across the East River, in Manhattan federal court, Mohamed Ahmed, accused of terrorism, wrote to the court that he was detained, beaten and interrogated at the direction of the FBI in Nigeria, denied help from the consulates of Sweden, where he was a permanent resident, and Eritrea, where he is a citizen, until he was blindfolded, put on a plane and sent to New York for prosecution.
Hashi’s case is another example of this phenomenon, illustrating how US federal prosecutors are able to bring these cases, and why they choose to, despite protests from defense lawyers who say their clients are often tortured or denied their rights in the process.
Hashi was born in Somalia and moved to England in 1995. By 2009, he had gone to Somalia and joined al-Shabaab. By 2012, after al-Shabaab intelligence imprisoned him because they thought he was a spy, he had decided to fight in Yemen instead, prosecutors said. En route, he was arrested in the tiny east African nation of Djibouti, along with two other al-Shabaab fighters, Ali Yasin Ahmed and Mohamed Yusuf, both of them Somali-born Swedes.
Hashi told the court that he watched Ahmed being tortured, and he was threatened with torture and sexual abuse by Djiboutian law enforcement. When the FBI joined in the interrogations, he said he was advised of his rights, but remained fearful and gave statements because of that fear.
Prosecutors conceded that to obtain information on any immediate threats, the FBI initially interviewed men without advising them of their rights, but subsequently interviewed them separately and explained their rights to them. Prosecutors eventually agreed not to use any of the statements taken in Djibouti at trial.
All three men were sent to the US for prosecution in late 2012 and have since been held in solitary confinement.
Their lawyers in the US filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them, which included providing material support to a terrorist group and conspiracy to provide such support.
“Nothing that the government has provided to date shows that the defendant had any notice or reason to believe that he was subjecting himself to US law and could be hauled into a US court for his conduct,” Jane Simkin Smith and David Stern, lawyers for Yusuf, wrote in a motion that the other defendants joined.
However, Brooklyn prosecutors prevailed, citing earlier rulings about how terror law can be used globally.
In 2004, when the US Congress updated the terrorism law, it said that extraterritorial jurisdiction applies in six situations. One that was applied here was simple: that the person is “brought into” the country after the conduct in question. Here, the prosecutors and the FBI flew the men into Kennedy International Airport from Djibouti. As Southern District federal judge P. Kevin Castel ruled in the case of Ahmed, bringing someone in “alone is a sufficient statutory predicate for jurisdiction.”
However, prosecutors are reluctant to rely entirely on the fact that the person was flown — by the US government — into the US, and here they relied on two additional justifications. One was that the defendants “aided and abetted” US nationals when they recruited, talked to or fought alongside them in Somalia. Another was that the acts affected foreign or interstate commerce, where these defendants recruited people to go overseas and those people spent money getting there.
Defense lawyers also raised the question of due process and whether trying the defendants in the US was fair. Prosecutors responded that there was a link to the US: Al-Shabaab was a designated foreign terrorist group that had denounced the US. The prosecutors — Shreve Ariail, Seth DuCharme and Richard Tucker — also cited a 2011 decision by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals: Defendants did not need to understand that they could be subject to criminal prosecution in the US, “so long as they would reasonably understand that their conduct was criminal and subject them to prosecution somewhere.”
US Judge Sandra Townes ruled in the prosecution’s favor, and the case went forward.
US federal prosecutors are going after these cases for several reasons, prosecutors and national-security experts said. One is simply that they can, after Congress broadened extraterritorial jurisdiction for terrorism in 2004.
They see the cases as a smart alternative to diplomacy or drone strikes.
YES THEY CAN
The government can “gather information not only for use as evidence at trial, but information to be used by the government to get smarter about the threats it’s trying to quell,” particularly when someone is captured overseas, said David Raskin, a former federal terrorism prosecutor who now teaches national-security law at Columbia Law School in New York and is a partner at Clifford Chance.
Military detention, which several senators have called for in cases involving suspected terrorists, is seen as problematic by national-security experts, human rights groups and much of law enforcement; it is inefficient, and there are evidence problems. Moreover, human rights advocates say the detentions ignore due process.
Federal prosecution of foreigners “is not every foreign national for every bad thing, but it’s certainly much more broad than it used to be,” Raskin said.
However, leaving it to the US to define who is a terrorist based on which groups are against it, and then prosecuting them “is taking exceptionalism to a different level,” Greenberg said.
“We think this is very much about us, and we’re the best place to take care of these suspects, and we trust ourselves,” she said.’
Federal trials are also far preferable to indefinite detention, and represent a vote of confidence in the criminal justice system as opposed to other options, like unlawful interrogation or targeted killings, she said.
“On the downside, it takes on a global responsibility that could one day be troubling in its potential to creep into other areas of law enforcement on global issues, from drugs to cybercrime,” she said.
Hashi pleaded guilty last month along with his codefendants, in return for a suggested 15-year sentence. At the hearing, he seemed polite and friendly, joking with the judge as he asked about where he would be sent once his prison term ended.
Susan Kellman, a lawyer for his codefendant, Ahmed, said afterward that the men remained confused by the role of the US.
“They never wanted to harm the United States,” she said. “That’s what’s so frustrating for them. Their accuser is a country they never intended to hurt, never wanted to hurt.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry