United States v. Ali
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
71 M.J. 256 (2012)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Alaa Mohammad Ali (defendant), a citizen of Iraq, was employed as an interpreter by a United States contractor. Ali’s employer assigned him to work with an army squad stationed in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Prior to beginning his work with the army, Ali attended training at Fort Benning, Georgia. In Iraq, Ali accompanied the squad on each of its missions; wore body armor, a helmet, and clothing that made him virtually indistinguishable from the soldiers in the squad; and lived in a combat outpost with the squad where he was subject to routine attack by insurgents. During his time with the squad, Ali was involved in an altercation with another Iraqi interpreter and was charged with several violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Ali was fired from his job and was held in pretrial confinement pending a trial by court-martial. Prior to trial, Ali moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that (1) Congress could not exercise military jurisdiction over him, and (2) the court-martial lacked jurisdiction over him pursuant to Article 2(a)(10) of the UCMJ. The military judge denied Ali’s motion, and Ali pleaded guilty to the charges. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, and Ali appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Erdmann, J.)
Concurrence (Effron, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.