I talked to a legal scholar this afternoon who specializes in law of armed conflict.

His take on why Ayala's case seems to be moving forward so quickly compared to the Blackwater case (apparently a grand jury has heard that case recently, but the results aren't yet known): Ayala's case has a "political overlay" that's all about sending a message to Karzai and the Iraqi government, at a particularly sensitive diplomatic moment (negotiating SOFA agreement with Iraq; Karzai upset about airstrikes and civilian deaths; a new administration coming in with the promise of more troops in Afghanistan).

The message is that we will take care of business and not allow contractors to get away with crimes committed in their countries. It's also a way to keep jurisdiction over such matters (we don't want our people tried in foreign courts). Pretty simple.

As a sidenote, Ayala is being prosecuted by DOJ under the 2000 MEJA act because it's the safer route than using the UCMJ (a court martial). No U.S. civilian has ever been prosecuted under the UCMJ because Constitutional issues (protections under 5th and 6th amendments). That is, it could successfully argued that court martialing this guy would be unconstitutional because he's a civilian, not a soldier. MEJA was designed to plug that gap and give the DOJ a way to charge civilians working for the military in a war zone.

That ends our legal lesson for the day.