Opinion ID: 781722
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction over Counts Twelve through Eighteen

Text: 91 Jurisdiction over Counts Twelve through Eighteen is straight-forward, and we affirm both the District Court's finding of jurisdiction and its reasoning. United States domestic law provides a complete basis for jurisdiction over the conduct charged in these counts, independent of customary international law. Nevertheless, contrary to Yousef's claims, jurisdiction is consistent with three of the five principles of customary international law criminal jurisdiction — the objective, protective, and passive personality principles, described at note 24, ante. 92 First, jurisdiction over Counts Twelve through Eighteen is consistent with the passive personality principle of customary international jurisdiction because each of these counts involved a plot to bomb United States-flag aircraft that would have been carrying United States citizens and crews and that were destined for cities in the United States. Moreover, assertion of jurisdiction is appropriate under the objective territorial principle because the purpose of the attack was to influence United States foreign policy and the defendants intended their actions to have an effect — in this case, a devastating effect — on and within the United States. Finally, there is no doubt that jurisdiction is proper under the protective principle because the planned attacks were intended to affect the United States and to alter its foreign policy.