Opinion ID: 771184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the narrow issue presented

Text: 60 The majority and I share significant common ground. I agree that neither the Constitution nor the principles of international law would prevent Congress from extending the reach of a federal criminal law to Corey, a U.S. citizen. See Aramco, 499 U.S. at 248 (Congress has the authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States); Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 73, 85 L. Ed. 1193, 61 S. Ct. 924 (1941) (The United States is not debarred by any rule of international law from governing the conduct of its own citizens upon the high seas or even in foreign countries when the rights of other nations or their nationals are not infringed.); McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 588 (9th Cir. 1983) (Nationality and the protective principle do allow the United States to assert jurisdiction over individuals for events occurring at United States embassies and consulates.); see generally United States v. Vasquez-Velasco, 15 F.3d 833, 840 & n.5 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining various bases of jurisdiction under international law). 2 61 I also agree that the relevant international agreements, namely (1) the Agreement Under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States of America and Japan, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan (SOFA), Jan. 19, 1960, 11 U.S.T. 1652, and (2) the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes, Apr. 18, 1961, 23 U.S.T. 3227, 500 U.N.T.S. 95, provide the necessary authority for Congress to enact criminal legislation applicable to these locales. In short, there is no doubt that Congress can ensure that U.S. citizens who engage in heinous criminal activity overseas will stand trial in a United States court. 62 But this is not a case about power. The issue before us is whether Congress exercised that power, specifically whether Congress intended the penal statutes that criminalize Corey's conduct to apply extraterritorially. See Aramco, 499 U.S. at 248 (Whether Congress has in fact exercised that authority . . . is a matter of statutory construction.); Vasquez-Velasco, 15 F.3d at 839. Put another way, we are not considering here whether Congress can bring Corey within the reach of the U.S. Criminal Code, nor are we considering whether Congress should do so. The only question before us is whether Congress did so, and it is on this point that the majority and I differ.