## Facts

- Alaa Mohammad Ali, a dual Iraqi–Canadian citizen, worked as a civilian interpreter for a U.S. defense contractor supporting a U.S. Army unit during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
- He was hired in Kuwait, received pre-deployment training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and deployed to Iraq with an Army unit.
- In Iraq, Ali lived at a combat outpost with the unit, accompanied a squad on missions, wore protective gear and clothing similar to soldiers, and faced routine insurgent attacks.
- After an altercation with another Iraqi interpreter, Ali was charged under the UCMJ with making a false official statement (Art. 107), wrongful appropriation (Art. 121), and wrongfully endeavoring to impede an investigation (Art. 134).
- Ali was terminated by his employer and placed in pretrial confinement pending court-martial.
- The military judge denied Ali’s motion to dismiss for lack of constitutional and statutory jurisdiction; Ali pleaded guilty and received a five-month confinement sentence, later approved as time served under a pretrial agreement.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and affirmed only so much of the sentence as included 115 days of confinement, with credit for time served.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress had Article I authority to subject a civilian foreign national to court-martial under Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ, when serving with or accompanying U.S. forces in the field during a contingency operation.
2. Whether Ali’s relationship to the unit and operational setting satisfied Article 2(a)(10)’s requirements that he was “serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field” during a “contingency operation.”
3. Whether trying Ali by court-martial violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, including the right to a jury trial.

## Decision

- CAAF affirmed the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The court held Congress acted within its Article I war powers in extending UCMJ jurisdiction under Article 2(a)(10) to civilians serving with or accompanying armed forces in the field during a contingency operation.
- The court held Ali, on these facts, was serving with and accompanying U.S. forces in the field in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom and thus was subject to court-martial jurisdiction.
- The court rejected Ali’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment challenges and upheld his trial by court-martial.

## Legal Principles

- Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ, extends court-martial jurisdiction, during declared war or a contingency operation, to persons “serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.”
- A civilian contractor may fall within Article 2(a)(10) when integrated with deployed forces in a combat zone, including living with the unit, accompanying missions, and operating under combat conditions.
- Congress’s Article I powers to raise and support armies, make rules governing the armed forces, and enact necessary and proper measures can support UCMJ jurisdiction over certain civilians closely connected to military operations in the field.
- Supreme Court decisions limiting court-martial jurisdiction over civilians in peacetime or non-field settings do not necessarily bar jurisdiction over civilians embedded with forces in an active theater during a contingency operation.
- When Congress validly places a person within UCMJ jurisdiction based on status and operational connection to forces in the field, trial by court-martial does not, by itself, violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments’ jury-trial guarantees.

## Conclusion

CAAF held that Article 2(a)(10) constitutionally and statutorily authorized court-martial jurisdiction over a civilian interpreter embedded with U.S. forces in Iraq during a contingency operation, and that exercising such jurisdiction did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments.


United States v. Ali, 71 M.J. 256 (C.A.A.F. 2012)