congress has not affirmatively and unmistakably indicated that a law applies outside the united states it does not still apply what the teaching of morse's teaching is that congress cannot look at  a court cannot look at what congress might have thought if it had thought about the issue it must it must look only at whether or not there is an explicit or other clear indication of extraterritoriality in the in the explicit clear indication of congressional intent congress is free to violate the law of nations if it if it if it wants to but i think it would violate the law of nations applying u s law to what is essentially a street crime in such a crime and if we don't focus on the international law our focus is on the congress and if it whether or not there's a clear indication of congressional intent the government of course  has been overruled by morrison but even by its terms bowman applies only to statutes that clearly target the us government and and into specifically involve fraud bowman are crimes where i think it would be either inherent nature it's clear that they're targeting the u s government very hard to do from targeting but i guess there's no requirement in boeing that you had no  clear that there was targeting of the u s government where as in this case you don't have such targeting of the u s government you don't necessarily have that under the statute and in fact on the facts of the case you didn't have the people who attacked these american agents did person connected with the u s law encompasses persons who happen to be assisted american employees in carrying out their official duties and again there's no need that the person the defendant know that that that the  person being targeted says in gauging that assistance in the long compass is not just murder but but manslaughter which can be unintentional conduct you know as we we set up briefly give an example in our brief of that is that the maid of a political officer in the u s embassy in colombia for example was sent to the supermarket to buy to buy to buy groceries for an official reception and she was killed in the street by a white bread drag racer that under the the jury was told you could only make a special finding the death and result if it convicted under one hundred and eleven for and well is that let's assume that was an error was it harmless never fundamentally the opponents had a right to have the jury follow the instructions and they could make a finding you know learn to understand not that i'm just asking can you identify any scenario under which the instructions which did not allow it but even setting that aside i think the district court would have discretion as to whether or not it was whether or not it wanted to impose a life sentence and it might it might choose not to do so know it's the function of the statute applying in targeting hard to united states government because it protects united states employees and officers during the course of performing their official duties that it protects the harm and it has many obvious applications outside of the united states in particular  well because i think it demonstrates congress intent and that was added in one thousand nine hundred and six and i would just like to point out what the statute said when congress added that it included among the list of employees officers that were including the statue in protected any security office of the department of state or the foreign service it also specifically could include any officer or employee of any department or agency within the intelligence community i mean that shows a clear indication that congress intended this to apply to employees abroad indicated in the house committee report with this it specifically mentioned what prompted a few events in one of the events that it that identified was the murder of william hague and in lebanon and i believe in samples of the cases that my friend has cited regarding this this can mean there's a little bit of ambiguity there is there are some differences there's there's a complex statutory scheme this is a binary issue what does it apply actually territorially or does it not  tell clearly that it does and at the time and also i would note that these were not obscure cases they were both reported on in the washington post these were murders of d n a agents in foreign countries that got public attention  statute to the extent it can not to be inconsistent with international law but the charming betsie can also makes clear that congress is not constrained by international law so even to violate international law congress you hear what we've said  e other cases and if we can't tell the statutes in big us we look to see whether it's whether x or tour it's your territorial application it's consistent with international law yes with those cases because it's one method of determining whether the there's a clear indication you look to all of this the kansas statutory interpretation and this is something just like in our gender biscoe where you look to the incorporation of certainly reconcilable with other cases it's never been overruled by the supreme court certainly or any other court of appeals has never determined that bowman does not bind them and therefore we return we in our view boman determines the outcome of this case but it's it looked to what congress had included in it and it at the time in one thousand nine hundred and six wanted to find violent felony to include robbery and then it looked at the fact that congress expanded it and then it determined that that statutory history indicated that  that the definition of the st clause of the entrepreneur life includes robbery and so the same here you have a statutory interprete you have a statute that clearly included foreign officers abroad in our view and intelligence members of the intelligence community congress expanded the statute and did so at a time when the only authority to the court of appeals decisions had held clearly that it applied extraterritorial in congress didn't in any way abrogate would reject those decisions and expanded it anyway only not only expanded on it also included made clear that included members of the uniform services which plainly are going to be many of them are going to be abroad and i take you to the penalty issue briefly this out of your lie on  which in turn incorporates one thousand one hundred and eleven and what does it tell us so far as the penalty is concerned for crimes committed states right yes so what is left for the penalty for a crime that is based on a territorial application well i don't think that the penalty of a particular element percent of the same connecting one start to compete later attached to another structure i don't think the court said you have to find an element for the other statute i think he was the way he was phrasing it was that you have to and eleven dollars the court was basically saying if you find the murderer then this is it's the same standard and so there's really no dispute that i think the evidence clearly establishes the commission of the murder territorially any error in charge of constructing those predicates would be harmless beyond reasonable doubt your honor that's similar to what this court found in the thompson case where there was a conspiracy and there were three objects of the conspiracy charge court concluded that the error was harmless because the distribution plainly applied after territorially and there was no basis for concluding that instructing the jury on both of those objects of the conspiracy plea conspiracy affected the outcome of the trial here makes in defiance predicate offenses as an element of a crime and it defines those predicates to expressly include extraterritorial offenses then a commission of the crime that's based on those predicates applies so therefore the same reasoning of argenta biscoe about encompassing those extra territorially predicates also applies in that context as well not make this offense extraterritorial and i think of it the burden is on the government to show extraterritoriality but even if that were not the case i think that the fact that congress did that in the a p a strongly suggest that it did not want that and certainly in many respects they expanded the coverage of the statute but i think that good vet in fact supports our arguments a very expensive statute and it's very easy to think that you know what it was much more limited i don't think so but maybe in any detail address the international argument but certainly we need we emphasize that one of the reasons for the presumption against extraterritoriality is that foreign countries would be unhappy about us applying our domestic i'm not sure that would be the case i think that would be the case if there was a deliberate targeting of u s officials but this law is so broad i think it goes beyond the protective principle in international law why not twenty four c does not apply outside the us but setting that aside i think the case would need to go back as i mentioned to the district court for the district court based that nine hundred and twenty four j sentenced on the fact that there had