Opinion ID: 187350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecution or Continued Detention

Text: To the extent the detainees seek to enjoin their transfer based upon the expectation that a recipient country will detain or prosecute them, Munaf again bars relief. After their release from the custody of the United States, any prosecution or detention the petitioners might face would be effected by the foreign government pursuant to its own laws and not on behalf of the United States. Decl. of Matthew C. Waxman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs ¶ 5, June 2, 2005. It is a longstanding principle of our jurisprudence that [t]he jurisdiction of [a] nation, within its own territory, is necessarily exclusive and absolute. Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812). As the Supreme Court explained in Munaf, the same principles of comity and respect for foreign sovereigns that preclude judicial scrutiny of foreign convictions necessarily render invalid attempts to shield citizens from foreign prosecution. 128 S.Ct. at 2224 (quoting Brown, J., dissenting in part in Omar v. Harvey, 479 F.3d 1, 17 (D.C.Cir.2007)). Munaf therefore bars a court from issuing a writ of habeas corpus to shield a detainee from prosecution and detention by another sovereign according to its laws. Judicial inquiry into a recipient country's basis or procedures for prosecuting or detaining a transferee from Guantanamo would implicate not only norms of international comity but also the same separation of powers principles that preclude the courts from second-guessing the Executive's assessment of the likelihood a detainee will be tortured by a foreign sovereign. See id. at 2225 (Even with respect to claims that detainees would be denied constitutional rights if transferred, we have recognized that it is for the political branches, not the judiciary, to assess practices in foreign countries and to determine national policy in light of those assessments). Furthermore, the requirement that the Government provide pre-transfer notice interferes with the Executive's ability to conduct the sensitive diplomatic negotiations required to arrange safe transfers for detainees. Prosper Decl. ¶ 10 (Later review in a public forum of the Department's dealings with a particular foreign government regarding transfer matters would seriously undermine our ability to investigate allegations of mistreatment or torture ... and to reach acceptable accommodations with other governments to address those important concerns). [7] In short, habeas is not a means of compelling the United States to harbor fugitives from the criminal justice system of a sovereign with undoubted authority to prosecute them. Munaf, 128 S.Ct. at 2223. Therefore, the district court may not issue a writ of habeas corpus to shield a detainee from prosecution or detention at the hands of another sovereign on its soil and under its authority. As a result, the petitioners cannot make the required showing of a likelihood of success on the merits necessary to obtain the preliminary relief they here seek.