Opening Statement of Chairman Bill McCollum
on H.R. 3380, the "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999"
Today the Subcommittee will consider H.R. 3380, the "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999." This bill was introduced by Congressman Saxby Chambliss and I was pleased to be the original cosponsor of the bill. H.R. 3380 would amend the Federal criminal code to apply it to persons who commit criminal acts while employed by or otherwise accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces outside of the United States. It would also extend Federal criminal jurisdiction to persons who commit crimes abroad while a member of the Armed Forces but who are not tried for those crimes by military authorities before being discharged from the military.
Civilians have served with or accompanied the American Armed Forces in the field or ships since the founding of the United States. In recent years, however, the number of civilians present with our military forces in foreign countries has dramatically increased. Many of these civilians are nonmilitary employees of the Defense Department and contractors working on behalf of DOD. In 1996, there were more than 96,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense working and living outside the United States.
Family members of American service personnel make up an even larger group of the civilians who accompany U.S. forces overseas. In 1999, there were almost 300,000 family members of military personnel and DoD civilian employees living abroad.
While military members who commit crimes outside the United States are subject to trial and punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, civilians are not. In most instances, American civilians who commit crimes abroad are also not subject to the criminal laws of the United States because the jurisdiction for those laws ends at our national borders. As a result of these jurisdictional limitations, American citizens who commit crimes in foreign countries can be tried and punished only by the host nation. Surprisingly, however, host nations are not always willing to prosecute Americans, especially when the crime involves acts committed only against another American or against property owned by Americans.
Because of this, each year incidents of rape, sexual abuse, aggravated assault, robbery, drug distribution, and a variety of fraud and property crimes committed by American civilians abroad go unpunished because the host nation declines to prosecute these offenses. And this problem has been compounded in recent years by the increasing involvement of our military in areas of the world where there is no functioning government -- such as Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans. Because, in those places, no government exists at all to prosecute crimes, American civilians who commit crimes there go unpunished.
The bill before us today would close this gapping hole in the law by extending Federal criminal jurisdiction to crimes committed by persons employed by and accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces overseas. Specifically, the bill creates a new crime under Title 18 that would make it a crime to engage in conduct outside the United States which would constitute an offense under Title 18 if the crime had been committed within the United States. The new crime would apply only to two groups of people. First, persons employed by or who accompany the Armed Forces outside the United States. This group includes dependents of military members, civilian employees of the Department of Defense, and Defense Department contractors or subcontractors and their employees. This group also includes foreign nationals who are relatives of American military personnel or contractors, or who work for the Defense Department, but only to the extent that they are not nationals of the country where the act occurred or ordinarily live in that country.
The second group of people to whom the bill would apply are persons who are members of the Armed Forces at the time they commit a criminal act abroad but who later are discharged from the military without being tried for their crime. This portion of the bill is designed to authorize the government to punish persons who are discharged from the military before their guilt is discovered and who, because of that discharge, are no longer subject to court-martial jurisdiction.
We simply cannot allow violent crimes and crimes involving significant property damage to go unpunished when they are committed by persons employed by or accompanying our military. The only reason why these people are living in foreign countries is because our military is there and they have some connection to it. And so, our government has an interest in ensuring that they are punished for any crimes they commit there. Just as importantly, as many of the crimes going unpunished are committed against Americans and American property, our government has an interest in using its law to punish those who commit these crimes.
I wish to point out that both the Defense Department and the Justice Department support the legislation before the Subcommittee here today. The legislation is the product of close collaboration between the staff of the Subcommittee on Crime and the representatives of these agencies, and I am pleased that both Departments have seen fit to send representatives to our hearing today. I welcome all the witnesses before the Subcommittee today and look forward to receiving their testimony.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/mcco0330.htm That bill was passed...
-----------------------------
Office of the Command Counsel
UNCLASSIFIED
AMSEL-LG POINT PAPER 1 NOVEMBER 2002
SUBJECT: The Status of Contractors on the Battlefield
PURPOSE: To summarize the rules and regulations concerning the use of contractors on
the battlefield.
FACTS:
· The contract establishes the responsibilities of the Government and the
support contractor with respect to the use of contractors on the battlefield.
Every effort should be made, therefore, to specifically incorporate the
respective duties of the two parties from the outset of that agreement. AMC
has issued AMC-P 715-18 ‘Contracts and Contractors Supporting Military
Operations’. This pamphlet seeks to integrate operations and contracting for
support of operations. Included at Appendix C of the pamphlet is a
compilation of suggested contract special requirements. Specific contractual
areas that should be addressed include: pay, accounting for personnel,
logistics, risk assessment and mitigation, force protection, legal assistance,
central processing and departure point, identification cards, medical coverage,
clothing and equipment, weapons and training, vehicle and equipment
operation, passports/visas and customs, staging, living under field conditions,
morale, Status of Forces Agreement, tour of duty, health and life insurance,
management and next-of-kin notification.
<snip>
As a general rule, the UCMJ does not cover contractor personnel although
court-martial jurisdiction may be expanded to cover contractors in time of war.
The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 does provide for federal
jurisdiction over crimes committed outside of the United States. This
jurisdiction covers members of and persons employed by or accompanying the
Armed Forces. The Act allows the Secretary of Defense, under specified
conditions, to authorize DOD law enforcement personnel to arrest suspected
offenders outside the United States involved with crimes punishable by
imprisonment of more than one year.
BRIEFER: John Reynolds, AMSEL-LG-B, ext. 29780.
REVIEWED/APPROVED BY:
Mark Sagan
Deputy Chief Counsel
http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/command_counsel/resources/documents/newsle... From JAG
Civilians and dependent family members accompanying US forces abroad are normally considered subject to the terms of the applicable SOFA
--- While the HN may exercise its jurisdiction, the US commander does not have UCMJ authority over these persons.? Until very recently, the US had no way of obtaining jurisdiction over these personnel
--- If the HN waives primary jurisdiction to the US, the options of the commander are limited.? (See articles entitled Debarment and Family Member Misconduct, Chapter 9, this Deskbook.)
--- To remedy this problem, Congress passed the Military Extraterritoriality Jurisdiction Act of 2000. The Act criminalizes behavior that would have been a crime in the US punishable by more than one year in confinement. The provision applies not only to military members, but also to civilian dependents of military members as well as civilian contractors.
http://milcom.jag.af.mil/ch15/foreign.htm 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
