War Crimes

CrimesWar Crimes – (end pg 301-302)

Grave BreachesIHL violations (genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes against the peace)

Crimes in a War

War CrimesGrave Breaches

Require only recklessnessHave no statute of limitations

Nexus to armed conflict?

Crimes in a War

SoldiersCivilians directly assisting the war effortAl Qaeda?

If so, how?

Who Can Commit War Crimes

Can there be war crimes in a NIAC?Dogmatic Answer – No Grave Breaches, No

War Crimes, because if Common Article 3 applies, nothing else does

Pragmatic Answer – Maybe Yes, by resort to customary international law.

Updated Answer? - Since 2000, Rome Statute (pg. 100 of Solis) – Sometimes Yes

NIACs

Closed categoryCommon Articles 50/51/130/147AP I – 11.4, 85.3, 85.4Universal jurisdiction?

Willful killing of non-combatantsTorture or Inhumane TreatmentWillfully causing great suffering

What about cannibalism? (Solis at 304)What about rape? (Solis at 310)

Is the death penalty authorized?

Grave Breaches

Kosovo 1999 – in an occupational roleWas on a security detailTook a humvee and drove to an apartment

complexLeft his driver outside and told him he had

special missionIn full battle rattleGoes door-to-door “checking” on thingsEntices a girl to talk to him, pulls her

downstairs, molests and murders her

SSG Frank Ronghi

1.Enact legislation2.Search for violators3.Try violators

GC Obligations

1.Enact legislationW/in 2 YearsEstablishing criminal

justice systems for prosecutions

GC Obligations

1.Enact legislation2.Search for violators

Must work to find themOnce found, must try or turn-over for trial

GC Obligations

1.Enact legislation2.Search for violators3.Try violators

Open and fair systems

GC Obligations

1.Enact legislation (w/in 2 years)2.Search for violators (Grave

Breaches)3.Try violators – nationals,

friends, and enemies using similar standards*

* No Special Tribunals

GC Obligations(Common Articles 49/50/120/146)

Sample Defendant Sample Offense Category of DefendantCourt

JurisdictionAuthority

Trial Location

dependant of a U.S. soldier living in Germany

off-post theftPerson coverd by SOFA

(Status of Forces Agreement)Local National Court Domestic Law Host Country

U.S. soldier Abu Gharaib, Haditha, Gibbs/Morlock U.S. Service Member Court-Martial UCMJ: Article 2(a)(1) Either

Captured soldier during WWII murders another POW after capture Prisoner of War (POW) Court-Martial UCMJ: Article 2(a)(9) Either

State Department employee, local national translator serving

overseas1

All Types of Crimes U.S. v. Ali

Iraqi-Canadian interpreter who stabbed another contractor

(5 months confinement)

Person serving w/ or accompanying the armed force in the field in time of war or contingency

operation*Court-Martial UCMJ: Article 2(a)(10) Either

Karl Dönitz; Hermann Göring2 Nurnberg Trials Anyone (subject to International Law) Court-Martial UCMJ: Article 18 Anywhere

Al Qaeda3 Captured Al-Qaeda driver "Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents" Military CommissionMilitary Commissions Act

10 USC § 948?

Afghani tribal members4"War Crime type stuff"

(i.e. mutiliation, rape, hostage-taking, etc.)

Anyone who commits a special crime against a U.S. Victim

US District CourtWar Crimes Act of 1996

18 USC § 2441US

Laborer who comes onto a U.S. base

(other than MEJA people)5

Felony Level "Street Crimes" U.S. v. Passaro

ex-CIA who assaulted an Afghani

Anyone w/in special maritime & territorial jurisdiction (e.g. "enclaves" and bases)

US District Court 18 USC § 7(9) US

Blackwater contractor; discharged soldier in Iraq

Felony Level "Street Crimes" off-base U.S. v Nazario

discharged marine who killed 2 detainees in Iraq (acquittal)

Service Members and civilians "supporting the mission" of forces outside the U.S.

(Question: Does a contractor working for USAID "supprt the mission of the armed forces," or are

they free to rape, pillage, and plunder with impunity?

US District Court

MEJA (Military Extraterritorial

Jurisdiction Act) of 2000 18 USC § 3261

US

U.S. national vacationing in

Liberia6

Torture U.S. v Roy Belfrast, Jr.

(Liberian Dictator Charles Taylor's Son) (Sentenced to 97 years prison)

Any U.S. citizen who commits designated torture abroad, or foreign national who the same in the

U.S. US District Court

Torture Statute: 18 USC § 2340

US

* Amended in 2007 to include contingency operations

www.haguejusticeportal.net Good Source:

Law enabling prosecution of grave breaches by our citizens, or by other nationals against ours.

War Crimes Act (1996)

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction:1. In a Foreign Country2. That is not exercising jurisdiction3. Would be a U.S. offense but can’t be

reached by ordinary UCMJ or federal statute

Designed to cover “Gap” offenses

MEJA (2000)

2000 – Employed by, or accompanying the force

2005 – Supporting the mission of the DoD

MEJA (2000)

2009, Eastern District of Virginia

Translator seized by AfghansTranslator is doused in oil and set on fire – she burns

to deathCivilian contractor (former SGT) chases and catches

the man who set Ms. Lloyd on fire and restrains him, then shoots him in the head (killing him)

Tried for voluntary manslaughterCharged under MEJA, Not War Crimes Act. (5 yrs

probation)

Ayala Case

Expanded definition of who could be tried in military court to include civilians during contingency operations

UCMJ (2007)

No Standing courtsCourt-martial convening authoritiesBased upon membership, not locationCreates unique issues for non-military

personnel

Peculiar Aspects of UCMJ

21

Congressional March to Accountability for Civilians(Filling “The Gap”)

1996 – Sec. 1151, NDAA for FY ’96 (Pub L. 104-106; February 10, 1996)

Called for DOD/DOJ Advisory Committee Review & Report on adequacy of UCMJ to address civilian misconduct overseas during armed conflict

• 1997 Committee report consisted of two-prong recommendation:

1. Change UCMJ “time of war” to “during contingency operations declared by SecDef,

2. Expand Federal district court jurisdiction

• DoD and DoJ only supported and recommended prong 2

2000 – Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (18 USC 3261 et seq.)

• Prong 2: Federal jurisdiction over felony-level offenses committed outside the

U.S. by DoD civilian employees, DoD contractors (and subcontractors at any tier) and

contractor employees

• Dependents of all included.

2001 – PATRIOT ACT amended 18 USC § 7(9)

• Redefined and expanded definition of “Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States” to cover military installations overseas, but excluded persons subject to MEJA

22

Congressional March to Accountability for Civilians(Filling “The Crevices”)

2004 – Sec 1088 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for FY ’05 (Pub. L. 108-375; October 28, 2004)

• Redefined MEJA definition of persons “employed by the Armed Forces outside the U.S.” to include employees, contractors (and subcontractors at any tier) and contractor employees of any Federal agency or provisional authority whose employment relates to supporting the DoD mission

• But, dependents not included

2008 – H.R. 2740, “MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2008”

• Reaction to 9/16/07 Blackwater Private Security Guard incident in Iraq• Senate bill is product of inter-agency effort to provide alternative to House bill which is considered vague, depends on contingency operation, only requires act in vicinity of a military operation, doesn’t relieve DoD of preliminary proceedings, etc.• Senate bill amends MEJA, creating separate subsections covering persons while:

– Employed by any Department or agency of U.S. other than the Armed Services in a foreign country in which the Armed Forces are conducting a qualifying military operation, or – Employed as an armed contractor or private security contractor of any Department or agency of the U.S. other than the Armed Forces outside the U.S.– Host nation nationals and persons ordinarily a resident are excluded.

23

Congressional March to Accountability for Civilians(Filling “The Crevices”)

2008 – Senate H.R. 2740, “MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2008” (Continued)

• “Qualified military Operation” defined as:

– an operation under a declaration of war or Congressional authorization for use of force, or

– a contingency operation, as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 101, or

– any other military operation outside the U.S. including humanitarian assistance or peace keeping operation, provided such operation is conducted pursuant to an order from or approved by the Secretary of Defense.

• Would delete 2004 Reagan Amendment language that employee or contractors are covered “to extent that employment relates to supporting the mission of DoD overseas.”

• Calls for creation of Investigative Unit for Contractor Oversight.

• Requires Annual Reports by IGs of DoJ, DoD, DoS, etc, and any other Executive agency to report complaints of MEJA violations.

Prediction: Some version of H.R. 2740 may become law, but there is no current activity.

24

MEJA Summary(March 3, 2005 – July 20, 2009)

SUMMARY: DoD - DoJ/DSS - Referral to U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO)

Not Referred Not Referred Prosecuted USAO USAOOffender Cases to DoJ/DSS to USAO or Charged Pending Declined

1. 18 USC(7)(9), etc. 3 0 0 3 0 0

2. Adult Dependent 10 0 1 4 4 1

3. Juvenile Dependent 6 0 0 2 4 0

4. DoD Civilian Employee 16 0 1 2 8 5

5. US National Contractor 42 0 4 9 22 7 (Price)

6. TCN Contractor 15 0 3 0 6 6 (Ali)

7. Former Mil. Members 7 0 0 1 2 4

8. Military Members under 1 0 0 0 1 0

(§ 3261(d)(2)) (Corbello)

Total: 100 0 (0%) 9 (9%) 21 (21%) 47 (47%) 23 (23%)

Total Charged or Pending: 68/100 = 68%

25

Federal Prosecution Summary – OIF/OEF AORs(March 3, 2005 – July 20, 2009)SUMMARY: DoD - DoJ/DSS - Referral to U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO)

Contractors in Not Referred Not Referred Prosecuted USAO USAOIraq/Afghanistan Cases to DoJ/DSS to USAO or Charged Pending

Declined

1. 18 USC(7)(9) 2 0 0 2 0 0 - Iraq - - - - - - - Afghanistan 1 - - 1 - - - Qatar 1 - - 1 - -

2. US Nat’l Contractor 40 0 4 8 21 7 (Price)

- Iraq 33 - 2 4 20 7 - Afghanistan 4 - 1 2 1 - - Kuwait 2 - 1 1 - - - S. Arabia 1 - - 1 - -3. TCN Contractor 15 0 3 0 6 6 (Ali)

- Iraq 15 - 3 - 6 6 - Afghanistan - - - - - -

Total: 57 0 (0%) 7 (12%) 10 (18%) 27 (47%) 13(23%)

Total Charged or Pending: 37/57 = 65%

26

Congressional March to UCMJ Accountability for Civilians

2006 – Sec 552 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY ’07 (Pub. L. 109-364; October 17, 2006): -- DoD did not initiate or request legislation and pointed out DoD/DoJ preference for prong 2 of 1997 Advisory Committee recommendation

-- Amends persons subject to the Code under Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ, by adding 5 words: “In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.” -- Legislation goes beyond DoD/DoJ Advisory Committee recommendation by including all 10 USC 101(a)(13) contingency operations, not just those contingency operations designated by SecDef

27

UCMJ Accountability for Civilians

Time of Declared War – Congressionally Declared

Contingency Operation – 10 USC 101 (a)(13): A military operation against enemy or opposing forces by

Secretary of Defense designation, or by operation of law (mobilization/stop-loss, etc.)

Persons – Statutorily Unlimited (DoD employees/contractors/

Third Country Nationals) Serving with or Accompanying

Two separate conceptsAccompanying = Connected with or reliance upon armed

forces or its personnel, not necessarily an employee of armed forces.

Armed Forces – 10 USC 101(4): A, AF, N, MC, CG

28

UCMJ Accountability for Civilians

“In the Field” – Judicially construed to mean a military

operation with a view toward the enemy

(purpose), not locality

Place – No geographic limitation on UCMJ (Art. 5, UCMJ)

Why? – Numbers/Functions of those serving with or

accompanying have growing impact on good

order and discipline and potential effect on

military mission

29

UCMJ Accountability for Civilians(Sense of the Jurisdictional Scope)

As of July 20, 2009, JCS J1 (Personnel) reports the following civilian employees serving w/forces (not including contractors)

Afghanistan – 1,335 Iraq – 2,355 USCENTCOM AOR – 4,956

30

UCMJ Accountability for Civilians(Sense of the Contractor Scope) CENTCOM Census Data for 2nd Qtr, FY 2009, DOD

has: Iraq: 132,610 contractor personnel

36,061 U.S. citizens 60,244 Third Country Nationals (TCNs) 36,305 Iraqi contractors

Afghanistan: 68,197 contractor personnel 9,378 U.S. citizens 7,043 TCNs 51,776 Afghanistan contractors

USCENTCOM AOR: 242,657 contractor personnel 54,387 U.S. citizens 94,260 TCNs 94,010 local/host Country Nationals

31

UCMJ Accountability for Civilians(Sufficiently “War-like”?)Contingency Operations (10 USC

101(a)(13))1.SECDEF Designated Contingency Operation

An operation in which members of the armed forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military force (Emphasis added.)

Possible Methods: Include in Execute Order; Issue Memorandum

Against enemy or opposing force: Humanitarian Relief and Disaster Relief military operations would not qualify as SECDEF designated contingency operations

32

UCMJ Accountability for Civilians(Sufficiently “War-like”?)2. Contingency Operation by Law:

A military operation that results in the call or order to, or retention on, active duty of members of the uniformed services under one of the following sections of title 10, United States Code:

688 – Order to active duty of retired members of the armed forces [DoD has and continues to order retirees to active duty for military operations in support of the global war on terrorism]

12301(a) – Full Mobilization

12302 – Partial Mobilization [Operations Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Iraqi Freedom (OIF)]

12304 – Presidential Selected Reserve Call-up [DoD has used for Bosnia and Kosovo for military operations in support of the fight against

terrorists, etc.]

33

UCMJ Accountability for Civilians(Sufficiently “War-like”?) Contingency Operations by Law (Continued):

12305 – Continuation on active duty of members of armed forces (stop-loss) 12406 – Members of the National Guard called into Federal service Chapter 15 – Presidential request for call into Federal service of the States’

(National Guard) to suppress an insurrection, or

any other provision of law during a war or during a national emergency declared by the President or Congress [National Emergency Act under title 50, USC; not a Stafford Act declaration of emergency relief effort]

BUT, keep in mind the UCMJ’s “in the field” requirement that limits which

contingency operations will qualify for UCMJ jurisdiction.

34

UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction(Current Array of Potential Accountability)

Subject to host-nation law, if conduct is a host-nation crime

Unless SOFA or international agreement between host-nation and U.S. primarily look to the U.S. to discipline under U.S. laws

Since 2000, subject to prosecution in Federal district court under Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) for felony-level Federal crimes committed while outside the United States

Subject to foreign government not prosecuting offense

Now, subject to Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ, court-martial jurisdiction, depending upon whether

UCMJ offense applies at all to civilians;

UCMJ is exclusive jurisdiction over purely military offenses; or UCMJ offense is concurrent jurisdiction with Federal offense, and

any DoJ/DoD agreement on exercise of respective jurisdiction applies

35

UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction(UCMJ Offenses) Some offenses by nature do not apply to civilians because

they only apply to “members of the armed force” or elements require service member offender UCMJ statutory language

E.g., Desertion, AWOL, Fraternization

Some are “purely military offenses” because they have no analog in Federal law Exclusive court-martial jurisdiction (Rule for Courts-Martial

201(d)(1)) E.g., Disorderly conduct, drunk driving, provoking speech

Some are violations of both UCMJ and Federal law (e.g., MEJA) and are, therefore, concurrent jurisdiction (RCM 201(d)(2)) Exercise of jurisdiction to be sorted out by agreement with DoJ

E.g., most common law crimes (murder, rape, drugs, etc.)

36

UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction(Concurrent and Exclusive Jurisdiction)

(Draft Analysis)

Of 163 offenses listed in UCMJ and Part IV, MCM, 14 are not applicable to civilians (e.g., Desertion, AWOL, Fraternization, Contempt Toward Officials) Offender must be a member of armed forces, or Nature of offense or elements are only applicable to service members

Of remaining 149 UCMJ listed offenses, 68 offenses have no analog in Federal law and, therefore, are exclusive court-martial jurisdiction (RCM 201(d)(1))

25 are felony-level offenses 43 are “minor offense” level

Of the remaining 81 UCMJ listed offenses with an analogous offense under Federal law, 62 are concurrent jurisdiction and require an agreement as to who would prosecute (RCM 201(d)(2))

62 are felony-level offenses, to which MEJA concurrent jurisdiction applies

19 are “minor offense” level, and not concurrent because MEJA only applies to felony-level offenses

37

UCMJ TIP-Related Offenses To be reported annually, per Para 5.1.8, DODI 2200.11, based

on facts and circumstances

1. Article 120, UCMJ:a. Rape;b. Various Sexual Assault or Sexual Abuse (Lewd) Offenses

2. Article 134, UCMJ:a. Kidnapping;b. Pandering;c. Prostitution / Patronizing a Prostitute;d. Soliciting Another to Commit an Offense (that is TIP-related).

3. Additional Offenses:a. Aiding and Abetting Another (to commit a TIP-related offense), Article

77, UCMJ;b. Accessory After the Fact (to a TIP-related offense), Article 78, UCMJ;c. Attempts (to commit a TIP-related offense), Article 80, UCMJ;d. Conspiracy (to commit a TIP-related offense, Article 81, UCMJ.

38

Managing UCMJ Civilian JurisdictionWhat we know may not be done …

By regulation or policy, repeal or eliminate UCMJ jurisdiction

By regulation or policy, direct the type of disposition, or direct the type or amount of punishment or sentence to be imposed by subordinate authorities (Unlawful Command Influence)

39

What Can Be Done …Options Considered.

Manage how, when, where, and by whom courts-martial are initiated, by:

Legislative Amendments to UCMJ,

Presidential Executive Order Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, or

Secretarial Action to Modify Current Court-Martial Process, Procedure, and Policies

Use existing UCMJ and MCM authority as the Department’s most superior court-martial convening authority

Quick to establish, flexible to adjust to particular cases with SecDef modifications, as appropriate, and allows for thorough review of proposed action in light of litigation risk to UCMJ authority

Managing UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction

40

Managing UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction

Applying Guidance and Policy …Provide guidance that the court-martial of

civilians is generally warranted only under extraordinary circumstances or when conduct is adverse to a significant military interest of the United States

Make sure RCM 306, “Disposition,” Discussion of factors, and guidance for commanders are adequate to address cases involving non-military members

Suggest consultation with civilian HR Specialist (if reasonably available) or contracting officer to understand and appreciate the nature of civilian administrative adverse actions and contractor remedies available prior to determining appropriate RCM 306 administrative or punitive disposition

41

Managing UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction

Keeping in mind Current Rule for Court-Martial 306(b), Manual for Courts-Martial:

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) and Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) are created by Presidential Executive order IAW 10 U.S.C. § 836 (Article 36, UCMJ)

“Policy. Allegations of offenses should be disposed of in a timely manner at the lowest appropriate level of disposition listed in subsection (c) of this rule.”

(c) (1) – No action (2) – Administrative action (3) – Nonjudicial punishment (4) – Court-martial

42

Managing UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction

Existing Authorities …

Use existing MCM authority (as Presidential Executive order implementing the UCMJ) for a superior competent authority to withhold authority to dispose of offenses under Article 2(a)(10) jurisdiction in individual cases, types of cases, or generally (R.C.M. 306, 401, 601)). Withhold authority to Act:

Except for offenses committed and persons located outside the United States

Except by commanders (generally or as specified) possessing general court-martial convening authority

To impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ

A superior competent authority may cause charges, whether or not referred to court-martial, to be transmitted to that superior authority for further consideration, including, if appropriate, referral (R.C.M. 601(f))

By policy, require subordinates who are contemplating UCMJ action under Article 2(a)(10) jurisdiction to first notify a superior competent authority

43

Managing UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction

HOW?

Within DoD, Secretary of Defense could act as the most senior military justice superior competent authority possessing general court-martial convening authorityConvening authority may not be delegated (10 USC § 822,

RCM 504) Superior to Commanders of Combatant Commands, who

possess general court-martial convening authority Keep “withheld authority” within Combatant Commands,

to keep authority “high, but not too high”Responsible for overseas AORs and “good order and

discipline”Avoids elevating all cases to Secretary, but keeps Secretary

available for disqualifications or other problems necessitating a transfer to another convening authority or Secretary handles himself

Avoids situation where only superior authority to Secretary acting is the President’s general court-martial convening authority

44

Managing UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction(SecDef Memorandum Guidance of March 2008)

“It is important that the exercise of this jurisdiction be based on military necessity to support an effective fighting force and be called for by circumstances that meet the interests of justice, such as: When U.S. federal criminal jurisdiction otherwise does not apply or

federal prosecution is not pursued, and/or When the person’s conduct is adverse to a significant military

interest of the U.S. (e.g., may jeopardize good order and discipline or discredit the armed forces and thereby have a potential adverse effect on military operations.”

“Before initiating (preferring) court-martial charges and nonjudicial punishment under this jurisdiction, and regardless of whether the suspected offense may also be an offense under federal criminal laws, the geographic combatant commander shall first provide notice of the case in writing (including by email or facsimile), in accordance with the procedures established in DODI 5525.11.”

Commanders should continue law enforcement, criminal investigations, and other military justice procedures that precede the initiation (preferral)

of court-martial charges (and during pendency of DoJ review).”

45

Managing UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction(SecDef Memorandum Guidance of March 10, 2008)

Require specific training for DoD civilian employees and DoD contractors, as required for MEJA jurisdiction under DoD Instruction 5525.11 (Part 153 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations)

At time of employment or prior to deployment, and

Upon arrival in AOR of qualifying contingency operation

SecDef Guidance of March 10, 2008:

Provides summary of “Command Law Enforcement Authority“ “Unique nature of this UCMJ jurisdiction requires sound management

over when, where and by whom it is exercised”; “There is a particular need for clarity regarding the legal framework that

should govern a command response to any illegal activities by DOD civilian employees and DoD contractor employees overseas with our Armed Forces”;

“It is important that the exercise of this jurisdiction be based on military necessity to support an effective fighting force and be called for by circumstances that meet the interests of justice, such as: When U.S. federal criminal jurisdiction otherwise does not apply or federal

prosecution is not pursued, and/or When the person’s conduct is adverse to a significant military interest of the U.S.

(e.g., may jeopardize good order and discipline or discredit the armed forces and thereby have a potential adverse effect on military operations.”

46

Managing UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction(SecDef Guidance Combines Withholding Actions & Oversight)

Manage Cases by Withholding Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ, Jurisdiction:

1. A. Over all UCMJ offenses except those committed outside the various states of

the United States and its territories, possessions, and commonwealths, and

B. Over all UCMJ dispositions against all persons then located within the

various states of the United States and its territories, possessions, and

commonwealths;

2. All court-martial convening authority (i.e., summary and special courts-martial) from commanders who do not possess general court-martial convening authority;

A.. Commander, Combatant Command (COCOM ) has authority to further limit by action withholding authority to specified general court-martial convening authorities within the COCOM and by limiting authority to specified geographic areas within COCOM theater of the contingency operation;

B. Commander, COCOM has authority to further limit by action withholding authority by subordinates against host-nation or third country national employees/contractors serving with or accompanying the armed force in the field;

47

Managing UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction (SecDef Guidance Combines Withholding Actions & Oversight)

Withholding Action (Continued):

3. Over nonjudicial punishment actions (Article 15 actions) from all commanders who do not possess general court-martial convening authority;

4. For concurrent jurisdiction offenses:

By agreement between DoJ and DoD, withhold UCMJ authority to act until:

1. DoD/GC first formally notifies DoJ/DSS of COCOM-reported case, and

2. DoD affords DoJ/DSS 14 calendar days to review the case and advise if Federal

jurisdiction will be pursued. Extension requires agreement of Deputies AG and DoD

3. After 14-day review period, DoD may inform DoJ of intent to pursue UCMJ

jurisdiction and inform command it may proceed at its discretion.

48

Managing UCMJ Civilian Jurisdiction (SecDef Guidance Combines Withholding Actions & Oversight)

Oversight:

1. Civilian employees or contractors attached for UCMJ purposes to a specific armed force general court-martial convening authority conducting contingency operation;

2. Secretary’s “withholding action” to general court-martial convening authorities would be accompanied by requirement that general court-martial convening authorities first notify Commander, Combatant Command (COCOM) before initiating courts-martial or nonjudicial punishment actions;

Provides option for Commander, COCOM to withhold authority or exercise his or her own

authority pursuant to RCM 601

3. Following notification procedures of DODI 5525.11 for potential MEJA cases, similar formal notice would first be given to DoD/GC of all intended actions under Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ, jurisdiction;

Provides option for DoD civilian leadership to be notified and for the Secretary to withhold authority or exercise his or her own authority

Provides DoD/GC opportunity to notify DOJ/DSS of possible U.S. Federal offense (MEJA)

United States v. Alaa Mohammad Ali is the first UCMJ Case – Convicted in 2008 and sentenced to 5 month’s confinement. Case is under ongoing post-trial review, but Ali is now back in Canada.

Approved proposals to be incorporated in changes to DODI 5525.11 and Part 153, of title 32, CFR

49

Notification Process(Senior Official Oversight)