skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: united states america jama idle ibrahim

> Refine results with advanced case search

363 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 6 of 73   next > last >>

Ghailani: United States of America v. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani

Opinion, 12 Jul 2010, United States District Court, S.D. New York, United States

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was arrested in July 2004 in Pakistan and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) in September 2006. He was charged with terrorism and war crimes (among other) in connection with the 1998 attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In June 2009, Ghailani became the first prisoner of Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to the United States for prosecution.

In November 2009, Ghailani’s lawyers filed a motion for dismissal of the case of his case arguing that the nearly five years that Ghailani spent in secret CIA prisons and at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment.

In July 2010, the District Court found that Ghailani’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated becase, considering all circumstances, the delay did not infringe upon any interest protected by this constitutional right.


Ghailani: United States of America v. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani

Opinion, 21 Jan 2011, United States District Court, S.D. New York, United States

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was arrested in July 2004 in Pakistan and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) in September 2006. He was charged with terrorism and war crimes (among other charges) in connection with the 1998 attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In June 2009, Ghailani became the first prisoner of Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to the United States for prosecution. On 17 November 2010, Ghailani was found guilty conspiring to destroy property and buildings of the United States and acquitted of all other charges.

Ghailani’s defense lawyers filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, or in the alternative, for a new trial, arguing that in the light of the acquittals, it was inconsistent to enter a finding of guilt with respect to one count.

The District Court disagreed, finding that there is no requirement of consistency of verdicts. It also rejected the argument in the alternative, holding that the conviction was not a manifest injustice (which could give rise to a new trial).


Abdulmutallab: United States of America v. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

Judgment in a Criminal Case, 16 Feb 2012, United States District Court – Eastern District of Michigan, United States

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a Nigerian national who was accused of attempting to set off an explosive device on a plane travelling from Amsterdam (the Netherlands) to Detroit, Michigan (the United States of America) on 25 December 2009. 

In an indictment filed before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, prosecutors charged Abdulmutallab with eight counts, including conspiracy to commit terrorism. Abdulmatallab pleaded guilty on 21 October 2011 to all counts, including conspiracy to commit terrorism. On 16 February 2012, the District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment for four counts (including conspiracy to commit terrorism), and an additional 50 years for the remaining counts.


El-Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company and Salah El Din Ahmed Mohammed Idris v. United States of America

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 01cv00731), 27 Mar 2009, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, United States

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.

In March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter. El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries attempted to exclude from its appeal the political question doctrine, however, the Court of Appeals found that the other raised claims were ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the political  question doctrine and therefore, must be considered together. The Court of Appeal affirmed the District Court’s earlier finding that the raised issues are political questions and hence, non-justiciable.


El Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company and Salah El Din Ahmed Mohammed Idris v. United States of America

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 8 Jun 2010, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, United States

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shaifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plan had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.

On 27 March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter.

On 3 August 2009, the Court of Appeals ordered that the case be re-heard by the court sitting en banc (where the case is heard before all judges of the court).

On 8 June 2010, the Court of Appeals sitting en banc affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of El-Shifa’s claims on the grounds that the question brought before the Court remained a political question despite the plaintiffs’ efforts to characterize the case differently. Accordingly, the claims could not be heard by the court.


<< first < prev   page 6 of 73   next > last >>