Iraq

A naturalized U.S. citizen challenged the certification of his extradition to Iraq to stand trial for the 2006 murders of two Iraqi police officers, allegedly committed while he was a local leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding that competent evidence supported probable cause and reiterating that habeas review of an extradition certification is severely limited and does not permit courts to weigh conflicting evidence or consider evidence that merely contradicts, rather than explains away or completely obliterates, probable cause. The Court also rejected the political offense exception under Article III of the U.S.–Iraq Extradition Treaty: although a violent Sunni insurgency existed in Iraq in 2006, the requested person failed to establish the required nexus between the murders and that domestic uprising, as the offenses were attributed to AQI, which the Court regarded as a transnational terrorist organization pursuing objectives beyond the indigenous insurgency. The Court further held that concerns regarding the Iraqi judicial system and humanitarian conditions were barred by the rule of non-inquiry and were for the Secretary of State to assess, while any future violation of the rule of specialty was speculative and likewise more appropriately addressed to the State Department.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief against an order certifying the extradition of a naturalized U.S. citizen to Iraq to face two charges of premeditated murder arising from the killing of Iraqi police officers in Fallujah in 2006. The Court held that competent evidence supported probable cause and that contradictory evidence, including an alleged eyewitness recantation, could not be considered unless it explained away or completely obliterated probable cause. It further held that the political offence exception did not apply because the requested person failed to establish that the murders, allegedly committed on behalf of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, were incidental to the domestic Sunni insurgency rather than acts connected with an international terrorist organization. The Court also applied the rule of non-inquiry, holding that humanitarian concerns and the treatment likely to be faced in Iraq were matters for the Secretary of State rather than the courts. A concurring judge agreed that a domestic uprising existed but found the required nexus unproven, while the dissent would have applied the political offence exception by focusing on the requested person’s local conduct and objectives rather than the international character and objectives of AQI.