Court rules against 2 US citizens in Iraq
Court Alerts
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against two U.S. citizens held in Baghdad who tried to use American courts to challenge their detention.
The unanimous decision came in the cases of Shawqi Omar, taken into custody in Iraq for allegedly assisting a terrorist network, and Mohammad Munaf, whose death sentence by an Iraqi court was recently overturned. Munaf has been accused in Iraq of setting up the 2005 kidnapping of three Romanian journalists.
Held by the U.S. military at Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport, both men are Sunni Muslims who say they will be tortured if turned over to the Iraqi government.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that U.S. courts are not allowed to intervene in an ongoing foreign criminal proceeding and "pass judgment on its legitimacy."
The justices ruled that basic protections do extend to American citizens held overseas by U.S. military operating as part of a multinational force. At the same time, however, the court said those protections provide Omar and Munaf with no legal relief.
The Bush administration argued that U.S. courts lack authority to review the claims of Munaf and Omar because they are held abroad by a multinational force, of which the United States is only a part.
Nations including Iraq have criminal jurisdiction over those within their borders, said the Justice Department solicitor general's office.
Arrested in 2004 by U.S. soldiers at his home in Baghdad, Omar was to have been transferred to Iraqi courts for trial, but a U.S. district court blocked the move.
In a case that is continuing, an Iraqi court recently reversed Munaf's death sentence.
Related listings
-
Justices rule against worker who lost job
Court Alerts 06/09/2008The Supreme Court says the Constitution's equal protection clause does not enable individual public employees to sue for workplace discrimination.In a 6-3 decision, the justices said that Anup Engquist must be a member of a class targeted for discrim...
-
Va. court upholds women's college move to coed
Court Alerts 06/06/2008A former all-women's college did not break a contract with female students when it decided to enroll men, a divided Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday.In a 5-2 decision, the court rejected a claim by nine female students at Randolph College — former...
-
Court limits Vioxx monitoring payments by Merck
Court Alerts 06/05/2008Drugmaker Merck & Co. doesn't have to cover medical-monitoring expenses for Vioxx users who aren't claiming injury from the recalled painkiller, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled.Phyllis Sinclair and Joseph Murray sued Merck in 2004, seeking to ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.