M.E.J.A.

MEJA was brought up today in class in response to the presentation on creating an additional protocol to the Geneva Convention to encompass Private Security / Military Companies, so I thought I'd elaborate on it just a little bit.

Passed in 2000, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act was intended to fill the jurisdictional gap that existed when Americans committed crimes on foreign territory and the host nation could not or would not pursue legal action.
MEJA grants jurisdiction over members of the Armed Forces or persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces (including civilians) outside the United States if they commit an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.

When originally passed, MEJA had the potential to be a great tool for prosecutors in the fight against IHL and IHRL violators, however, in the four years between passage and amendment, only one person has been tried under MEJA. Perhaps this is because there is a inherent loophole in the definitions accompanying the Act. The definitions require that the civilian upon which jurisdiction is exercised be a DoD contractor or contractor's employee. This definition is a HUGE loophole. It means that it'll be impossible to use MEJA to prosecute employees or contractors of other branches of the government. Employees of the CIA, State, or any number of other government agencies with large numbers of employees posted overseas are not subject to the jurisdictional reach of MEJA. Thus, a large numbers of overseas U.S. employees falling outside of MEJA. Furthermore, it creates a situation where contractors and employees can escape potential accountability by simply establishing contracts with any other branch besides the DoD.

This loophole isn't just theoretical, but proved to be a real problem in the case of Abu Ghraib. As part of the scandal, CACI, Inc., a defense-contracting firm located in Arlington, Virginia was named as one of the two firms responsible for the prisoner abuses. However, U.S. courts could not exercise jurisdiction over CACI, Inc. employees because CACI, Inc.’s contract was with the Interior Department’s National Business Center in Fort Huachuca, Arizona and NOT DOD.

However, there are proposals to amend MEJA's definitions to include all employees, contractors, and employees of contractors of any other Federal agency, or any provisional authority, to the extent such employment relates to supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas. Thus, we shall see if MEJA will prove to be effective in the long run...