Posted on 05/29/2008 4:28:56 PM PDT by SandRat
BAGHDAD, May 29, 2008 – A contractor in Iraq charged under military law with stabbing another contractor was scheduled to be arraigned today in Baghdad.
Alaa “Alex” Mohammad Ali, a contractor charged with aggravated assault, was scheduled to be arraigned today at Camp Victory here.
The charge against Ali stems from the Feb. 23 alleged stabbing of another contractor at a combat outpost near Hit.
This is the first time a civilian will be tried by court-martial under a 2006 amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice contained in the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, U.S. military officials said. The amendment allows for civilian contractors working for the U.S. government to be punished for violations of the UCMJ.
The pretrial investigating officer, Lt. Col. Charles E. Febus, recommended the charge be forwarded to the general court-martial convening authority, Army Lt. Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of Multinational Corps Iraq, for referral to a general court-martial. Austin referred the charge to a general court-martial May 10.
Ali has been in confinement at Camp Victory since Feb. 29, when he was accused of stabbing a fellow translator four times in the chest. Military officials stressed that he is presumed to be innocent unless and until he is proved guilty.
Officials said Ali is being afforded all the same rights, protections and privileges servicemembers receive in military court, including the right to counsel, right to speedy trial, protection against self-incrimination and presumption of innocence. He is represented by military defense counsel.
(From a Multinational Corps Iraq news release.)
They've GOT to be kidding.
No, they're not. Holding civiians, under any circumstances, to the UCMJ is dificult enough. To do so with less than the protections a uniformed servicemember receives under those same rules would be an impossible task. They are proceeding correctly imho...
the infowarrior
Nope. They are not kidding.
wow
Why would you say that?
“No, they’re not. Holding civiians, under any circumstances, to the UCMJ is dificult enough. “
I don’t understand how they can do it. I took an oath and signed a contract when I joined the service, did this guy? Did someone wave a magic wand and now civilians are subject to military law? It just seems weird.
Which protections would YOU take away from military contractors? Do you favor summary execution upon accusation? Would you be willing to be a military contractor if that was the standard?
Read the article. It appears that *someone* has, indeed, "waved a magic wand", that someone being the US Congress. Rightly, or wrongly, and it would take the SCOTUS to figure *that* out, it's now in force, weird, or not. I'm not saying that I agree with this, but my post was that *all* the protections provided for uniformed service mambers under the UCMJ should apply to civilians undergoing actions under the UCMJ as well. There must be only one set of rules...
the infowarrior
No. If a civilian is going to be tried under UCMJ, then the same rights must be afforded.
It's very rare that a civilian gets UCMJ action, but any of us working directly with the military are subject to it and we sign the dotted line acknowledging this prior to deployment.
That being said, I'd sure hate to be in this guy's shoes. We heard about this on the "Iraq Grapevine" at least a couple of months ago. Stabbing a co-worker...well, if he's guilty, he deserves what he gets.
Not all contractors are subject to UCMJ, but those of us working directly with the military are. We are also subject to General Order #1 and we have to sign papers acknowledging that and the fact that we are subject to UCMJ.
Sux. :-P
Allegra is it just the courts-martial portion of UCMJ or are some contractors subject to or non-judicial punishment (article 15) aspects of UCMJ also?
I do not agree that civilians should be held under the same laws as the military. Ever.
these contractors are big boys. They've signed contracts agreeing to UCMJ jurisdiction, and are being paid multiple times more what an experienced Soldier earns. It is a small price for them to be subject to the UCMJ.
most of your post is absolutely false. And I speak from experience. Do you?
It is completely true. You’re wrong.
So then no, you don’t speak from experience and haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
Having tried cases under both sets of rules, I would rather be tried under the UCMJ than the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure any day.
Bull. I just don’t crow my bona fides.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.