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).

Question

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.