News

Benghazi suspect pleads not guilty before judge

06.28.14 | 4:10 pm

U.S. Marshalls guard the area outside of the federal U.S. District Court in Washington Saturday, June 28, 2014, after security was heightened in anticipation of a possible court appearance by captured Libyan militant... U.S. Marshalls guard the area outside of the federal U.S. District Court in Washington Saturday, June 28, 2014, after security was heightened in anticipation of a possible court appearance by captured Libyan militant Ahmed Abu Khattala later in the day. Khatallah is one of the men accused in the deadly Benghazi attack at the U.S. embassy in Libya. He faces criminal charges in the deaths of the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans from the Sept. 11, 2012, attack. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) MORE LESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Libyan militant charged in the Benghazi attacks has pleaded not guilty to conspiracy.

Ahmed Abu Khattala (hah-TAH’-lah) made his initial appearance in federal court in the nation’s capital on Saturday.

A grand jury indictment says Abu Khattala took part in a conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists in the 2012 attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Abu Khattala was flown by a military helicopter from a Navy ship to Washington earlier Saturday.

In court, he wore a two-piece black track suit and kept his hands behind his back. He looked impassively at the judge for most of a 10-minute court hearing.

Send Tips

PETE YOST

Because it’s terrorism. There are a number of counter-terrorism laws enacted in 2002 in conjunction with the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings becoming effective in the US. Here is one law that is possibly applicable:

18 U.S. Code § 2332f - Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities</b

(a) Offenses.—
(1) In general.— Whoever unlawfully delivers, places, discharges, or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into, or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility—
(A) with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or
(B) with the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility, or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss,
shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
(2) Attempts and conspiracies.— Whoever attempts or conspires to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the offenses in subsection (a) if—
(1) the offense takes place in the United States and—
(A) the offense is committed against another state or a government facility of such state, including its embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises of that state;
(B) the offense is committed in an attempt to compel another state or the United States to do or abstain from doing any act;
(C) at the time the offense is committed, it is committed—
(i) on board a vessel flying the flag of another state;
(ii) on board an aircraft which is registered under the laws of another state; or
(iii) on board an aircraft which is operated by the government of another state;
(D) a perpetrator is found outside the United States;
(E) a perpetrator is a national of another state or a stateless person; or
(F) a victim is a national of another state or a stateless person;
(2) the offense takes place outside the United States and—
(A) a perpetrator is a national of the United States or is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States;
(B) a victim is a national of the United States;
(C) a perpetrator is found in the United States;
(D) the offense is committed in an attempt to compel the United States to do or abstain from doing any act;
(E) the offense is committed against a state or government facility of the United States, including an embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises of the United States;
(F) the offense is committed on board a vessel flying the flag of the United States or an aircraft which is registered under the laws of the United States at the time the offense is committed; or
(G) the offense is committed on board an aircraft which is operated by the United States.

As you can see, it is a violation of US law to bomb or attack with explosives or any other lethal device any US embassy of consulate. It is also a violation of US law if a bomb or other lethal device kills or injures an American national. It doesn’t even have to be terrorism (specifically covered by (b)(1)(B) and (b)(2)(D). The US has jurisdiction for bomb or explosives attacks against Americans and American interests by statute backed up by an international treaty that currently has 168 signatories. There are plenty more such laws. See 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B - TERRORISM

You’re right, though – if you get carjacked in Mexico, you’re on your own.

Show Comments

Notable Replies

62fender says:

June 28, 2014

“Not guilty”, eh? That’s good enough for “next FOX Noise commentator.”
marby says:

June 28, 2014

sad but true. For those of us who do believe in the capability of the American justice system (even though imperfect), we will let the process play out.
fiftygigs says:

June 28, 2014

“…He looked impassively at the judge…”

So?

I’ll bet he caught every word. He knows they’ve got more than enough evidence to nail him.
blueberrytomatosoup says:

June 29, 2014

Out of curiosity, how is the court’s jurisdiction determined here? He committed a crime against American interests, but he is neither an American, nor was he on American soil when he committed said crime (unless they can prove he was physically in the embassy, but thus far they have only tried him for conspiracy, not for the attacks themselves). Just committing a crime against an American does not put jurisdiction in American courts. If you drive down to Mexico, and get car jacked within sight of the border, but on the Mexican side there isn’t a thing the American courts can do about it. How is this different?
frankly_my_dear says:

June 29, 2014

Because it’s terrorism. There are a number of counter-terrorism laws enacted in 2002 in conjunction with the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings becoming effective in the US. Here is one law that is possibly applicable:
18 U.S. Code § 2332f - Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities</b

(a) Offenses.—
(1) In general.— Whoever unlawfully delivers, places, discharges, or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into, or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility—
(A) with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or
(B) with the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility, or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss,
shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
(2) Attempts and conspiracies.— Whoever attempts or conspires to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the offenses in subsection (a) if—
(1) the offense takes place in the United States and—
(A) the offense is committed against another state or a government facility of such state, including its embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises of that state;
(B) the offense is committed in an attempt to compel another state or the United States to do or abstain from doing any act;
(C) at the time the offense is committed, it is committed—
(i) on board a vessel flying the flag of another state;
(ii) on board an aircraft which is registered under the laws of another state; or
(iii) on board an aircraft which is operated by the government of another state;
(D) a perpetrator is found outside the United States;
(E) a perpetrator is a national of another state or a stateless person; or
(F) a victim is a national of another state or a stateless person;
(2) the offense takes place outside the United States and—
(A) a perpetrator is a national of the United States or is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States;
(B) a victim is a national of the United States;
(C) a perpetrator is found in the United States;
(D) the offense is committed in an attempt to compel the United States to do or abstain from doing any act;
(E) the offense is committed against a state or government facility of the United States, including an embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises of the United States;
(F) the offense is committed on board a vessel flying the flag of the United States or an aircraft which is registered under the laws of the United States at the time the offense is committed; or
(G) the offense is committed on board an aircraft which is operated by the United States.

As you can see, it is a violation of US law to bomb or attack with explosives or any other lethal device any US embassy of consulate. It is also a violation of US law if a bomb or other lethal device kills or injures an American national. It doesn’t even have to be terrorism (specifically covered by (b)(1)(B) and (b)(2)(D). The US has jurisdiction for bomb or explosives attacks against Americans and American interests by statute backed up by an international treaty that currently has 168 signatories. There are plenty more such laws. See 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B - TERRORISM

You’re right, though – if you get carjacked in Mexico, you’re on your own.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

4 more replies

Participants

Continue Discussion