Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether federal judges can hear arguments from American citizens who are being held in Iraq by the U.S. military for alleged crimes there.

The justices today said they will review the cases of Shawqi Ahmad Omar, who was captured during a raid that targeted a former al-Qaeda leader, and Mohammad Munaf, who is facing execution for taking part in a kidnapping plot. Both men are seeking to avoid being turned over to Iraqi authorities.

The cases raise questions similar to those in a pending high court dispute over the power of federal judges to hear arguments from the 300 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Together, the cases will shape the constitutional role of federal judges when the U.S. military detains people beyond the nation's borders.

The issues are of ``exceptional importance,'' U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement said in a court filing. He said a ruling that blocked Omar's transfer to Iraqi officials was unprecedented and a ``far-reaching and internationally unsettling exercise of American judicial power.''

Clement, the Bush administration's top courtroom lawyer, said American courts have no authority to act because Omar and Munaf are in the legal custody of multinational coalition forces in Iraq, not that of the U.S. military.

Omar, an American-Jordanian citizen, was captured in October 2004 in a coalition raid targeting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. U.S. officials say Omar had plans to kidnap foreigners for ransom and had weapons and bomb- making materials in his Baghdad home, where the raid took place.

Lower Court Ruling

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, voting 2-1, said federal courts had power to consider Omar's case and upheld a lower court order that temporarily blocked his transfer to Iraqi authorities for prosecution.

Omar's lawyers said a 2004 Supreme Court ruling made clear that federal courts can hear cases ``whenever a U.S. citizen is seized overseas and held in the actual, physical custody of U.S. officials.''

The cases center on the reach of habeas corpus, a legal device that dates back to 14th century England and lets inmates claim they are being wrongfully held.

Munaf, an Iraqi native who became a U.S. citizen in 2000, traveled to Iraq in 2005 with three Romanian journalists who had asked him to serve as their guide.

Kidnapping Plot

The group was kidnapped shortly after arriving and held for more than two months before being freed by coalition forces. Munaf was then detained by the U.S. military under suspicion of involvement in the kidnapping.

The Bush administration says Munaf admitted, in writing and on camera, that he took part in the kidnapping-for-profit plot. While still in the custody of U.S. forces, Munaf was convicted by an Iraqi court and sentenced to death.

A different three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled U.S. courts had no power to consider Munaf's case, saying his conviction distinguished his situation from that of Omar.

That distinction is ``simply irrational,'' Munaf's lawyers said in their appeal. ``Under the rule adopted by the court of appeals, the district court apparently had jurisdiction when Mr. Munaf filed his habeas petition in August 2006, but somehow lost it two months later when he was convicted.''

Clement said U.S. court involvement ``would impermissibly interfere with the sovereign acts of a foreign nation.'' He said Munaf's Iraqi citizenship ``heightens'' those concerns.

The justices will hear arguments, probably in March, and rule by early July. The cases are Munaf v. Geren, 06-1666, and Geren v. Omar, 07-394.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: December 7, 2007 14:40 EST