MILITARY JUSTICE:

Civilian challenging his expected court martial

Thursday, Jan. 22, 2009 | 2 a.m.

COURTESY PHOTO

Justin Price is an aircraft mechanic from Las Vegas who was to return from Iraq last weekend after a 120-day job with a contractor.

Uniform Code of Military Justice

In what could be a landmark case, a Las Vegas-based aircraft mechanic is challenging whether it’s constitutional for the U.S. military to court-martial civilians.

The Air Force is holding Justin Price, a 29-year-old contractor working at an air base in Iraq, in connection with a fire that damaged a Predator drone. In detaining him, the military is invoking a 2006 amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice — never applied to a U.S. citizen — that extends military jurisdiction over civilians.

Normally a case like this would be tried by the U.S. attorney’s office, but the Justice Department declined.

The Air Force said it does not comment about ongoing investigations, but according to legal documents, Price’s assigned military defense attorney was told by Air Force prosecutors that charges of arson and reckless endangerment would be filed soon.

Price was supposed to return home from Ali Air Base on Saturday, completing his 120-day rotation working on the unmanned aircraft as an employee of Battlespace Flight Services in Las Vegas. It is contracted to maintain the Predator, operated from Creech Air Force Base, north of Las Vegas.

Price’s civilian attorneys filed a petition in federal court last week claiming the military has no authority to charge him.

That challenge goes to the question of whether the military justice code is constitutional as it now pertains to civilians. Whatever the outcome in U.S. District Court in Washington, it is sure to be appealed as the military attempts to extend its reach over civilian contractors, including those working in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Michael Navarre, one of Price’s attorneys, said there is no need to charge civilians in military court, “particularly when courts in the U.S. are open and able to deal with types of charges at issue here.”

Steve Vladeck, an associate professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, called the Price case “an enormously important test case ... especially given the decades of case law suggesting that the distinction between civilians and service members is one required by the Constitution.”

Courts have repeatedly thrown out cases in which the military has tried to assert jurisdiction over a civilian, most recently in 1970 when a civilian was charged with attempted larceny of 36,000 government-owned batteries. An appeals court ruled that the military justice system has jurisdiction only over civilians “in the field” with the military when Congress has formally declared war.

The amendment to the military justice code, quietly enacted by Congress in 2006, broadened the jurisdiction to civilians involved in “contingency operations” such as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan where there has been no formal declaration of war.

In the petition, Price’s attorneys argue that Congress’ only constitutional power in this matter comes from its ability to declare war. Therefore without a declaration of war, Congress cannot legally subject civilians to court martial.

The court martial is fundamentally unconstitutional, Price’s attorneys say, because it would deprive Price of his rights to a grand jury, a jury of his peers, an appeal, and a unanimous verdict as would be required in federal district court.

“As the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, the Constitution requires that civilians be tried in civilian courts, perhaps always and at a minimum when a civilian trial is possible,” Price’s attorneys wrote in the petition.

Philip Cave, a director of the National Institute of Military Justice, said precedent makes clear that a lack of alternatives — in Price’s case, the decision of the Justice Department to pass on the case — doesn’t green-light prosecution by the military.

As the amended military justice code stands, the defense secretary has to authorize a civilian court martial, according to Price’s attorneys. It isn’t clear whether Secretary Robert Gates has made a decision about Price’s case. A Defense Department spokesman did not immediately respond to the Sun’s queries Wednesday.

Gates cautioned in a memo in March that the military’s ability to court-martial civilians “requires sound management over when, where and by whom such jurisdiction is exercised.”

Until the federal court rules, Price is confined to the air base in Iraq.

Price’s wife, Calene Price, said her husband was distraught when he was first investigated in November but seems to be doing better. The two talk almost every day, she said.

His employer has tried to boost his morale by transferring one of his friends to the base from another part of Iraq. Price, who was a staff sergeant in the Air Force and stationed at Nellis Air Base as an F-15 mechanic before getting out of the service, volunteered for this Iraq rotation.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By vegasgurl4fun2

1/22/09 at 7:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Was this an accident or arson?
By jfnance32

1/22/09 at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

In the article it says, "....charges of arson and reckless endangerment."
By KillerB

1/22/09 at 10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

That a military "court" of any kind would have jurisdiction over any civilian -- and the question be raised legitimately over anybody anywhere -- is lunacy. Under the promise of separate powers alone that should end the discussion.

Our founding fathers feared a standing army for the reason it would always be looking to have plenty to do. Did that come true or what.

Price should be sent home and the feds can present their case locally.
By hamiltonmc1

1/22/09 at 7:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

This is clearly an accident. Other contractors have walked away from much more serious issues. He should be held liable for his actions but should be brought home and his situation should be delt with here by civilian courts.
By greenzoneveteran

1/22/09 at 11:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

ITT Federal Industries had an incident where one of their employees stabbed another ITT employee over a woman. The U.S. Marshals who were there did not know what to do with the case. Both were Americans. ITT sent their employee and his wife to Kuwait. The Provost Marshal there, once he found out he had a murderer on the base, sent the couple back to Iraq. There is no accounting for the mentality or logic of the U.S. Army. None. Which is why we are so loved in Iraq. Ignorance runs rampant. The couple take the C-130 ride back to Iraq and are then quietly taken to the Baghdad Airport and flown home commercial. The UCMJ was never put into action and this crime was far worse.
KBR management who covered up and detained the rape victim in the Green Zone were never brought up on charges. Does the UCMJ not have charges for rape, kidnapping, conspiracy, or a host of other charges? Not only did KBR management not get charged. KBR is still allowed to be a Prime Contractor after that incident, when they should have lost their contract. DCMA - Defense Contract Management Agency oversee that contract. DCMA means the Defense Cover-up Management Agency. They don't do what you think they are supposed to do, like what out for your tax dollar. They cover-up for the crimes of ITT and KBR.
By dirtymilkman

1/23/09 at 7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

He would be lucky to get a Military trial. The consequences would be significantly less.

Please put back on your foil hat mr. Greenzonevet.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question