Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2006/02/22/06-1605/criminal-jurisdiction-over-civilians-employed-by-or-accompanying-the-armed-forces-outside-the-united
Timestamp: 2016-05-03 16:22:16
Document Index: 362533734

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 153', 'art 153', 'ART 153', '§ 153', 'art 153', 'art 153']

Federal Register | Criminal Jurisdiction Over Civilians Employed by or Accompanying the Armed Forces Outside the United States, Service Members, and Former Service Members
Criminal Jurisdiction Over Civilians Employed by or Accompanying the Armed Forces Outside the United States, Service Members, and Former Service Members
Dates: Effective: March 3, 2005.
-8958 (13 pages)
Document Number: 06-1605
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/06-1605 Related Topics
Chapter 212 of title 18, United States Code (Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA)) establishes Federal criminal jurisdiction over whoever engages in conduct outside the United States that would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (i.e., a felony offense) while employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States, certain members of the Armed Forces subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code), and former members of the Armed Forces. This rule is established to correspond with the Department of Defense Instruction 5525.11, “Criminal Jurisdiction Over Civilians Employed By or Accompanying the Armed Forces Outside the United States, Certain Service Members, and Former Service Members,” that the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved on March 3, 2005.
Effective: March 3, 2005.
Mr. Robert Reed, 703-695-1055.
On February 2, 2004 (69 FR 4890) the Department of Defense published a proposed rule. Several comments were received, reviewed, and accepted to better clarify the provisions of the proposed rule and to add appropriate definitions of terms used. Other comments addressed concerns raised and considered during the legislative process and were not adopted as additional modifications for the Final Rule.
Pursuant to the comment opportunity afforded the public by the Federal Register publication of the proposed rule on February 2, 2004, public comments recommended that international agreements involving extradition procedures be considered, ensure that potential conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act and double jeopardy be eliminated, that military defense counsel be clearly designated to serve as qualified defense counsel for limited representation purposes, and that juveniles be include in the discussions of persons subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (“the Act”). Each of these concerns were specifically considered and addressed when the Act was legislatively developed and further changes to the Proposed Rule were considered unnecessary. A recommendation that the term “Designated Commanding Officer (DCO)” be defined was approved and added to the definitions in the Final Rule. Another recommendation was approved to clarify the discussion of the amenability of the Act to Reserve component personnel and proper use of “reservists,” as well as clarify that annual reports due in February were to encompass information for the immediately preceding calendar year. A recommendation was approved to clarify that “command sponsorship” was not to be used to consider whether a person was a dependent for purposes of the Act. It was determined that the Proposed Rules' discussion of union representation was sufficient and a recommendation to expand the discussion of a union's statutory right to bargain over any provision was not approved. However, the provision was modified to reflect collective bargaining unit representation under Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code. A recommendation was adopted to clarify that it was not required under the Act that an individual's misconduct violate both the host nation law and that of the United States under the Act. Illustrative examples contained in the Proposed Rule were deleted from the Final Rule as being misleading and potentially causing confusion. A recommendation that the regulations specify that a Combatant Commander's delegation authority extends to specific subordinates was not adopted, but is left to the best judgment and discretion of the Combatant Commander.
This rule regulatory action is a significant regulatory action, as defined by Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by OMB and approved for publication.
This regulatory action does not contain a Federal mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year. This rule making will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
It has been certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule establishes procedures for coordinating criminal jurisdiction matters between the Department of Defense, Justice, and State that involve crimes committed by civilians employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces overseas.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 153 Back to Top
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 153 is revised to read as follows:
PART 153—CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER CIVILIANS EMPLOYED BY OR ACCOMPANYING THE ARMED FORCES OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, CERTAIN SERVICE MEMBERS, AND FORMER SERVICE MEMBERS Back to Top
153.1 Purpose.
153.2 Applicability and scope.
153.3 Definitions.
153.4 Responsibilities.
153.5 Procedures.
10 U.S.C. 301.
§ 153.3 Definitions
(2) Pursuant to Section 8(c)(5) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 3), and 10 U.S.C. 141(b), ensure the responsibilities described in DoD Directive 5525.7, “Implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense Relating to the Investigation and Prosecution of Certain Crimes,” January 22, 1985,
to “implement the investigative policies [,m]onitor compliance by DoD criminal investigative organizations [, and p]rovide specific guidance regarding investigative matters, as appropriate” are satisfied relative to violations of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000.
(a) Applicability. (1) Offenses and Punishments. Section 3261(a) of the Act establishes a separate Federal offense under 18 U.S.C. for an act committed outside the United States that would be a felony crime as if such act had been committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in section 7 of 18 U.S.C. Charged as a violation of section 3261(a) of the Act, the elements of the offense and maximum punishment are the same as the crime committed within the geographical limits of section 7 of 18 U.S.C., but without the requirement that the conduct be committed within such geographical limits. See section 1 of the Section-By-Section Analysis and Discussion to section 3261 in the Report Accompanying the Act.
(b) Investigation, Arrest, Detention, And Delivery Of Persons To Host Nation Authorities. (1) Investigation. (i) Investigations of conduct reasonably believed to constitute a violation of the Act committed outside the United States must respect the sovereignty of the foreign nation in which the investigation is conducted. Such investigations shall be conducted in accordance with recognized practices with host nation authorities and applicable international law, SOFA and other international agreements. After general coordination with appropriate host nation authorities, as referenced in Appendix A of this part, specific investigations shall, to the extent practicable, be coordinated with appropriate local law enforcement authorities, unless not required by agreement with host nation authorities.
(B) A person arrested or charged with a violation of the Act who is to be detained temporarily shall, to the extent practicable, be detained in areas that separate them from sentenced military prisoners and members of the Armed Forces who are in pretrial confinement pending trial by courts-martial. (C) Separate temporary detention areas shall be used for male and female detainees.
Appendix A to Part 153—Guidelines Back to Top
Appendix B to Part 153—Acknowledgment of Limited Legal Representation (Sample) Back to Top
1. I, ______, have been named as a suspect or defendant in a matter to which I have been advised is subject to the jurisdiction of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (section 3261, et seq., of title 18, United States Code.); hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). I have also been informed that certain initial proceedings under 18 U.S.C. 3265 may be required under this Act, for which I am entitled to be represented by legal counsel.
3. Pursuant to the Act, ______, a Federal Magistrate Judge, has issued the attached Order and has directed that that military counsel be made available:
__ For the limited purpose of representing me at an initial proceeding to be conducted outside the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3265,
__ For the limited purpose of representing me in an initial detention hearing to be conducted outside the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3265(b),
4. ______, military counsel, has been made available in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction 5525.bb, and as directed by the attached Order of a Federal Magistrate Judge.
5. I (do) (do not) wish to be represented by ______, military counsel__ (initials).
6. I understand that the legal representation of ______, military counsel, is limited to:
__ (Initials)
______. __ (Initials)
(*Note: The witness must be a person other than the defense counsel to be made available for this limited legal representation.)
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD
[FR Doc. 06-1605 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am]
1. Available from Internet site http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives.