Well you identified the issue. MEJA is quite sufficient. The fact that it is underutilized doesn't mean that it is not capable of handling such cases. The use of the UCMJ and military trials for civilians causes me some grave concerns. The military justice system is intended to have good order and discipline as it's primary objective. Accordingly the commander has cognizance over the entire process and is required ensures it's fairness because the commander presumably has the interests of the unit and the accused as his or her primary focus in the process. And in fact, that is why military personnel do not enjoy the full protection of the statutory criminal rights enjoyed by all other defendants in U.S. Courts. . The Supreme Court has found that the military's unique place in our society demands that it be treated differently because the primary objective is good order and discipline and defense of the nation. This is just another example of Congress -Lindsey Graham- of taking action where none was needed and confusing and conflating issues.
Ok, standing by! How about the MEJA ability to prosecute contractors in military court. That's at least one talking point - that it is actually already authorized. The decisions to prosecute in military court or in federal court is dependent on such things as ????
That's about all I can think of and I didn't even come up with any of it -- Neal gave me the tidbit on MEJA. I don't know what MEJA is, but I can look it up.
Marcy On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Haytham Faraj wrote: Hi Marcy, I started to respond to this yesterday and got distracted. This case is not at all like Hamamatsu. Hamama was of course a civilian trial for alleged offenses that were committed in the United States. None of the charges were alleged to have been committed overseas.
As far as this trial, I find the selection of this particular case curious. While there have been dozens perhaps hundreds of serious allegations of crimes by contractors, including the terrible gang rape of Jamie Leigh in Iraq, we decided to try this case in a military court. It's confusing selection that leaves me wondering about ulterior motives or underlying prejudices. I may be wrong. But this is that kind of case that can certainly be tried in a civilian court. We have lots of precedent that allows us to try crimes against those who committ crimes against Americans.
I guess I'm not giving you talking points. I need to think about it a little mosre.
Gentlemen, this is about trying civilian contractors (battlefield) in military courts. Since the Hamama case is similar - please give me two or three bullets talking about this from the Law Firm's perspective ....
Is it a good idea; why or why not? Is there a technical issue (constitutional, issue with citizen vs non-citizen contractor, etc...)
Thxs, Sooner the better to keep the linkage fresh to the news
M
Marcelyn Atwood Marketing Associate
The Law Firm of Puckett & Faraj, PC 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 210 Alexandria, VA 22314
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 703-706-9566 or via a return the e-mail to sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution.
|