An Art. 32 Investigating Officer recommended dismissal of all charges against two Air Force officers accused of assault, communicating a threat, and conduct unbecoming for alleged acts against contractors in Afghanistan. The recommendation of the IO is available here. The story presents part of a larger on-going issue that was noted first by CAAFlog (here) regarding military justice issues and military contractor’s in the field. The Art. 2(a)(10) issue raised in this report is unmistakable from the IO’s recommendations.

Thanks to Anonymous for spotting, he’s a good man/woman.

5 Responses to “Art. 32 IO Recommends Dismissal of Charges Against Military Officers in Afghanistan”

  1. CAAFlog says:

    Nothing gets the No Man as excited as talking about Article 2, with the possible exception of talking about Apprendi. I’m looking forward to the No Man’s upcoming article: The Apprendi Implications of Article 2’s Extension to Civilian Contractors in Contingency Operations.

  2. Guert Gansevoort says:

    That makes two of you.

  3. John O'Connor says:

    Yep, exactly two.

  4. No Man says:

    Don’t even get me twisted around the potential Apprendi implications of civilian courts-martial. Suffice it to say that such an article would be the functional equivalent of The Perfect Storm. Loving v. United States meet Parker v. Levy, Parker Levy meet Reid v. Covert. The topic, is a system constitutionally supportable where civilians are able to be punished at courts-martial in operations such as hurricane relief and the recovery of the Commerce Secretary’s body from a plane crash? Talk amongst yourselves.

  5. No Man says:

    I wonder if Gittins or the TC addressed the issue of availability of the Blackwater employee from the perspective of a civilian subject to the UCMJ? It seems the Blackwater employee was invited and not made available like a military witness.