Ramzi Yousef, the first defendant, had the intent and committed the act of terrorism. He visited Manila under an impersonation of somebody else effectively conniving in attempts to disguise himself. The defendant and his group had the plan to attack United States Airliners. They intended to execute this plan employing bombs that were to be placed in aboard twelve United States Airliners commuting the United States Southeast Asia routes. The total number of accomplices were four making the group five for the final execution involving placement of bombs. According to the arrangements, the conspirators were to each board the planes, ensure they assemble the bombs before exiting in the first of each plane’s layover. This would ensure the bombers placed the bombs and remained alive unaffected by its later explosion.
However, this conspiracy was discovered before execution during an accidental fire incident at Manila in which Yousef and Murad, both being defendants in the suit, were burning chemicals leading to the eventual fire. The fire departments at Manila, in collusion with the Police Department discovered at the scene bomb chemical components, a laptop that was to later be discovered to contain the details of the plan’s execution, and additional incriminating and leading evidence. Philippine authorities swung into action arresting Morud and Shah, Yousef successfully escaped but was later arrested the following month. The three were later charged in the U.S and found guilty by the jury of conspiracy to bomb the planes.
The defendants had been charged in The United States District Court for Southern District of New York on separate accounts on April 13 and June 15 of 1998. They were found guilty by the jury and convicted of conspiracy to bomb United States Airliners in Southeast Asia and involvement in the bombing of the world trade centre In New York City. These defendants have since appealed both convictions and is the subject of this case.
Issues presented or questions of law
Several issues were raised by the defendants. However, these issues can be summarised in two main questions of law. That is, whether the United States of America had the jurisdiction and legal authority to try the one of the cases given the fact that though it related to the United States Commercial Airlines, the conspiracy was executed outside the territorial jurisdiction of U.S and secondly, whether in both cases, due process was adhered to, in relation to the provision of the governing law as to procedural observations with the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments mentioned illustratively.
Arguments or Objectives of the Parties
The defendants contended that the court prima facie lacked jurisdiction and that due process was not being observed in the entire trail. On the other hand, it was the contention of the plaintiff that the United States had relied on a liberal interpretation of customary international law and the intention of congress in legislating the domestic law in respect to the criminal offence.
Holding or rule of law
That the conviction be upheld. That the United States did not exceed its authority but had jurisdiction over the cases.
The court relied on the provisions of customary law. Jurisdiction of the United States Courts was premised on the fact that the Airlines were of the United States, some of the passengers in the airline planes were United States Nationals. In that vein, the United States satisfied the requirement of the Tokyo Convention on Offences and additional Acts that necessitated the proof of connection between the activity and the United States interests.
Relation of case to core value of integrity
The case relates to the integral need to respect the lives and property of citizens and the government’s responsibility to uphold the security of its nationals.
United States v. Yousef , 327 (United States Courts of Appeal Second Circuit April 4, 2003). Retrieved from http://openjurist.org/327/f3d/56/united-states-v-yousef-a