Abstract To ensure that all contractors who commit crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan can be prosecuted effectively in the United States, Congress must pass legislation to update Federal criminal law and fill the gaps that may leave certain types of contractors free from any criminal liability. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2010 (CEJA) attempts to do just that, and while it may deter some PMCs from participating in the U.S. military and security contracting market, the benefits of having a fully accountable U.S. legal system outweigh the drawbacks for individual contracting companies.

(The memorandum opinion dismissing Slough is here.)

Text of H.R. 4567.IH.

Current status: Latest Major Action: 4/26/2010 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. There are 33 co-sponsors to Rep. Price’s piece of legislation.

FayObserver reports:

The 11th juror was provisionally seated in the court-martial of Army Master Sgt. Timothy B. Hennis on Wednesday. The court-martial, a capital murder trial, needs a minimum of 12 jurors to proceed.

Air Force Times reports:

An airman stationed at Minot Air Force Base faces court-martial in the alleged sexual abuse of his 14-month-old son.

Wasau Daily Herald reports:

A 23-year-old Wausau man accused of deserting from the U.S. Navy in 2008 was arrested this weekend and could face punishment from the Navy.

Huffington Post reports on private military and security contracting (PMSC) issues:

As much of the public discussion, including college campuses, of private military and security contracting (PMSC) is, unfortunately, noted for its inaccurate characterization of contractors as mercenaries, and frequently over the top characterizations of companies as war profiteers, or extreme right wing Christian crusaders (a not so subtle reference to the presumed religious beliefs of Eric Prince of what was Blackwater, now Xe Services) it is refreshing, indeed, a bit astonishing, to find a student publication that actually tries to take a level headed, dispassionate look at the subject.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Justice Department prosecutors improperly built their case on sworn statements that had been given under a promise of immunity. Urbina said the government’s explanations were “contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.”

And all charges have been dismissed, reports Air Force Times.

In ruling one month before the defendants were to face trial in Washington, Judge Urbina dismissed the case not for its merits, but for the way the government had handled the prosecution, calling the government’s explanations for the improper use of statements “contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.”

Reports New York Times.

Here is the ruling (courtesy NYT). The military analogy would be attempts to build a case and use statements from a FEB/FNAEB, or aviation mishap safety investigation, or a hospital QQ/RM situation. I’m not sure this is the kind of a ruling that would come out of a court-martial, so these guys potentially benefitted from a civilian prosecution vice court-martial.

Maybe not, here is a quote from the Army Times on the case.

Investigators promised the men that their statements were to be used only for the internal inquiry and would not be used in a criminal case. Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate. The deal meant that prosecutors had to build their case without using those statements. Urbina said the Justice Department failed to do so. Prosecutors read those statements, reviewed them in the investigation and used them to get search warrants, Urbina said.