## Facts

- Israel sought extradition of Mahmoud El‑Abed Ahmad, a naturalized U.S. citizen, for alleged involvement in an April 12, 1986 attack on a civilian passenger bus in the West Bank involving firebombs and automatic weapons fire, killing the driver and seriously injuring a passenger.
- After the incident, Ahmad allegedly fled, traveled internationally, entered the United States, and was arrested.
- Extradition was requested under the 1972 U.S.–Israel Extradition Treaty.
- Ahmad petitioned for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to block extradition, asserting (i) the “political offense” treaty exception and (ii) that extradition would expose him to torture, inhuman treatment, and denial of due process in Israel.
- The government argued the conduct was extraditable and that the court should not assess the requesting state’s justice system or confinement conditions under the rule of non-inquiry.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on anticipated treatment in Israel and then resolved the habeas petition on a full record.

## Issues

1. Whether the political offense exception in the U.S.–Israel extradition treaty barred extradition for an alleged armed and incendiary attack on a civilian bus in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
2. Whether, and to what extent, a federal court may consider claimed risks of torture, inhuman confinement, or unfair trial in the requesting state despite the rule of non-inquiry.
3. Whether due process or related legal limits required denial of extradition (or broader judicial review) based on the asserted risk of mistreatment abroad.

## Decision

- The court denied the habeas petition and allowed extradition to proceed.
- The court held the political offense exception did not apply to the alleged conduct, reasoning that the exception must be construed narrowly so as not to protect terrorism or acts of war against civilians.
- The court recognized a limited judicial role to consider credible claims of torture or fundamentally unfair treatment notwithstanding the rule of non-inquiry and permitted an evidentiary hearing on that topic.
- On the evidentiary record, the court found inadequate proof that Ahmad would likely face torture or denial of basic fairness in Israel and concluded adequate guarantees existed that he would be fairly treated.
- The court found treaty requirements were satisfied and that the record supported extradition under the applicable probable-cause standard.

## Legal Principles

- In extradition habeas review, a federal court’s role is limited and generally focuses on the extradition authority’s jurisdiction, treaty applicability, satisfaction of treaty requirements (including exceptions), and whether there is competent evidence supporting probable cause.
- The political offense exception is construed narrowly and does not shield acts characterized as terrorism or indiscriminate violence directed at civilians, even when committed in a politically charged conflict.
- Although the rule of non-inquiry ordinarily limits judicial examination of a requesting state’s penal system and trial procedures, a court may consider credible claims that extradition would result in torture, inhuman treatment, or a fundamentally unfair process.
- Where a due-process-based inquiry is permitted, relief requires a sufficient showing—on the record—that the anticipated treatment likely reaches the level that would bar surrender.

## Conclusion

The court denied habeas relief and permitted extradition to Israel, concluding that an alleged attack on a civilian bus was not protected by the political offense exception and that, even after an evidentiary hearing, the record did not show a sufficient likelihood of torture or denial of basic fairness to prevent extradition.


Ahmad v. Wigen, 726 F. Supp. 389 (E.D.N.Y. 1989)