Cases of 2 U.S. Citizens in Iraq to Be Heard

Supreme Court Extends Review of Role Federal Judges Play in Terrorism Fight

The Supreme Court yesterday extended its review of the federal courts' jurisdiction over those captured as terrorism suspects, agreeing to hear the cases of two U.S. citizens who are held in Iraq for crimes allegedly committed there.

The two men -- one a Jordanian American suspected of conspiring with al-Qaeda and the other an Iraqi who became a U.S. citizen in 2000 and has been convicted in Iraq of kidnapping -- have asked federal courts in Washington to bar American military forces from turning them over to the Iraqis.

The cases raise "questions of exceptional importance concerning the separation of powers, the nation's conduct of foreign and military affairs, and the sovereign prerogative of foreign nations to try individuals for the commission of criminal offenses within their own borders," according to a brief filed in one of them by Solicitor General Paul A. Clement.

The grants raise the possibility that by the end of its term next summer, the court could clearly articulate the constitutional role that federal judges should play in the war on terrorism. Justices earlier this week heard arguments about the constitutional rights of suspects being detained as enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba.

One of the cases accepted yesterday involves Shawqi Ahmad Omar, who faces charges after being captured by multinational forces in a raid that targeted a former al-Qaeda leader. The government said Omar was harboring an Iraqi insurgent and four Jordanian Jihadist fighters in his Baghdad home, which contained explosives. The government said that Omar had plans to kidnap foreigners.

The multinational force wants to turn Omar over to the Central Criminal Court of Iraq for prosecution. But the district court in Washington blocked his transfer, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2 to 1 to uphold the decision.

It said that the court has jurisdiction to hear Omar's claim to the writ of habeas corpus, the right to challenge his imprisonment before a judge.

The government strenuously disagreed, with Clement's brief saying "no court has previously sanctioned such a far-reaching and internationally unsettling exercise of American judicial power.''

A different panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled that Mohammad Munaf had no right to the American courts.

Munaf traveled to Iraq in 2005 to serve as a guide to a group of Romanian journalists, who were quickly kidnapped and held until coalition forces freed them. Munaf was suspected of being involved in the kidnapping.

The Bush administration said that Munaf confessed to the crime but denied it when he was put on trial by the Iraqi court. Still held by the U.S. military, he was convicted and sentenced to death.

The appeals court said Munaf's case was different from Omar's because Munaf had been convicted of a crime, while Omar had not yet even been charged. The court relied on a 1948 Supreme Court ruling that held U.S. courts had no authority to "review, to affirm, set aside or annul'' judgments made by non-U.S. tribunals.

The high court has consolidated the two cases -- Geren v. Omar and Munaf v. Geren-- and should hear arguments in March.

The court took another terrorism-related case yesterday, that of Ahmed Ressam, an al-Qaeda operative convicted of planning to blow up Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the new millennium.

Ressam, an Algerian, was arrested in Washington state after arriving on a ferry from Canada, his rental car holding an abundance of bombmaking materials. He was convicted of various charges, including making a false customs statement and carrying explosives, and sentenced to 22 years in prison. The sentence was lighter than it could have been because he cooperated for a while with authorities.

But on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit threw out the explosives charge and its automatic penalty because the government hadn't shown that carrying the explosives was related to the felony charge of making the false statement.

It sent the case back to the lower court for resentencing, and the government appealed.

The case is U.S. v. Ressam.