Al Odah v. United States

On March 11, 2003 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on Al Odah v. United States 321 F.3d 1134 (2003 C.A.D.C.). The short facts are as followed "aliens captured abroad during hostilities in Afghanistan and held abroad in United States military custody at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba brought three actions contesting the legality and conditions of their confinement. The ultimate question presented in each case is whether the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate their actions.

The complaint alleges: The complaint alleges that the detainees were in Afghanistan and Pakistan as volunteers providing humanitarian aid; that local villagers seeking bounties seized them and handed them over to United States forces; and that they were transferred to Guantanamo Bay sometime between January and March 2002. A representative of the United States Embassy in Kuwait informed the Kuwaiti government of their whereabouts...plaintiffs claim a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment, tortious conduct in violation of the law of nations and a treaty of the United States, and arbitrary and unlawful governmental conduct. They seek a declaratory judgment and an injunction ordering that they be informed of any charges against them and requiring that they be permitted to consult with counsel and meet with their families. Id. at 1136.

The court held that the rule put forward in Eisentrager 339 U.S. 763 (1950) precluded the aliens from claiming habeas corpus. The majority of the opinion breaks down the courts interpretation of the applicability of habeas corpus to aliens being held at a military detention facility that is on land leased to the United States military. The Court pays short attention to Filartiga or the Alien Tort Statute holding: the detainees are in all relevant respects in the same position as the prisoners in Eisentrager. They cannot seek release based on violations of the Constitution or treaties or federal law; the courts are not open to them. Whatever other relief the detainees seek, their claims necessarily rest on alleged violations of the same category of laws listed in the habeas corpus statute, and are therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Nothing in Eisentrager turned on the particular jurisdictional language of any statute; everything turned on the circumstances of those seeking relief, on the authority under which they were held, and on the consequences of opening the courts to them. With respect to the detainees, those circumstances, that authority, and those consequences differ in no material respect from Eisentrager. Id at 1145

Sandhu v. Burke 2000 WL 191707

Sandhu v Burke, was decided on February 10, 2000 and is currently not reported in the federal reporters. The case can be found online at 2000 WL 191707.

In Sandhu v. Burke the plaintiffs, Sukhminder Singh Sandhu and Ranjit Singh Gill were both attempting to prevent extradition to India. Sandhu was charged with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery of a national bank in Ahmedabad, India. Mr. Gill was charged with murder, attempted murder and murder in furtherance of a common intention in connection with the shooting deaths on July 31, 1985 of a member of the Indian Parliament, his wife, and a constituent in Delhi, India.

The case history spans over a decade and had numerous procedural issues. Throughout the case the petitioners were attempting to prevent an extradition to India claiming that upon extradition they would face torture, false imprisonment and other harms.

The court heard oral arguments stating that the principles of international law preclude extradition to India even if Article 3 of the Convention (Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) is not self-executing . Sandhu v. Burke 2000 WL 191707-10. The plaintiffs contend that under jus cogens norms of international law, the right to bodily integrity as well as the right to be free from torture and extradjudicial execution are rights that are judicially enforceable independent of any treaty. Id. The court did not agree holding that jus cogens is only applicable when there is no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision. Id.

In regards to Filartiga, the court held in a footnote that the reliance on Filartiga is misplaced. Filartiga concerned tort claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute...the case currently before this Court, however, arises not in the realm of torts but in the context of extradition. In the extradition context, there is no equivalent to the ATS. Id at ft.10

Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani

In Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani the prisoner had a stun belt placed on him prior to sentencing proceeding and later activated. Hawkins brought a civil rights action against county, judge, sheriff, and other defendants. The court held that most of the plaintiff's causes of actions were bared for one reason or another. Plaintiff cited Filartiga, claiming that the actions of the defendant constitute torture.

Plaintiff claimed that torture is a violation of jus cogens norms. When dealing with jus cogens that courts will look at different sources of law including international law. 33 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1255. (1999 C.D. Cal.) The court held that the treaties put forward by the plaintiff were not self-executing treaties (Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture) nor were they treaties but non-binding resolutions of the General Assembly. 33 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1257 (1999 C.D. Cal). The court was unwilling to go into detail regarding Filartiga.