U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Virginia-based CACI must face a new trial over its alleged involvement with the notorious Abu Ghraib detention center in Iraq.
Judge Leonie Brinkema granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial and denied CACI’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The decision follows a civil trial earlier this year where an eight-person jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, which is required in federal civil cases.
The case against CACI exists against the backdrop of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which led to the establishment of American-run prisons in Iraq where the U.S. hired corporations like CACI to provide interrogation services at key detention sites such as Abu Ghraib.
The lawsuit was filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. federal courts for serious violations of international law. The plaintiffs, Suhail Al Shimari, Asa’ad Zuba’e, and Salah Al-Ejaili, were detained in the “hard site” section of Abu Ghraib, where severe interrogation techniques were reportedly used. The plaintiffs allege that CACI is liable for conspiracy to commit torture and war crimes.
CACI contended that the plaintiffs had their day in court and that the evidence did not support a verdict against CACI. The contractor argued that its defense was hindered by the government’s assertion of the state secrets privilege, which prevented certain classified evidence from being presented. Additionally, CACI stated that it should not be liable for its employees’ actions if they were under the army’s control pursuant to the “borrowed servants” doctrine. The contractor claimed it should not be held liable for conduct performed in Iraq under a US contract, even if that conduct was found to be unlawful.
The case against CACI is one of many legal actions against private military contractors accused of detainee abuse, including those against Titan Corporation (later known as L-3 Services) and CACI for their roles in alleged abuse at Abu Ghraib, as well as against Blackwater for incidents like the Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad. Many of these cases faced similar legal challenges, specifically dismissals based on national security concerns and the complexities of applying U.S. law to actions taken in war zones.
Iraq and Abu Ghraib
According to a bombshell 2004 news report, members of the United States Army and the Central Intelligence Agency committed a series of human rights violations and war crimes against detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, including physical abuse, sexual humiliation, physical and psychological torture, and rape. These alleged abuses included the killing of Manadel al-Jamadi and the desecration of his body. al-Jamadi was the prime suspect in a bomb attack on a Red Cross facility that killed or injured over 200 people. Two soldiers, giving the thumbs-up gesture, posed with as-Jamadi’s ice-wrapped corpse.
Initially, the George W. Bush administration insisted that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were isolated incidents and not indicative of U.S. policy. Various humanitarian organizations, including the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, disputed that contention. These organizations claimed that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were part of a wider pattern of torture and brutal treatment at American overseas detention centers, including those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.
Subsequently, documents popularly known as the Torture Memos came to light a few years later. These documents, prepared in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States Department of Justice, authorized certain “enhanced interrogation techniques” (generally held to involve torture) of foreign detainees. The memoranda also argued that international humanitarian laws, such as the Geneva Conventions, did not apply to American interrogators overseas. Several subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), have overturned Bush administration policy, ruling that the Geneva Conventions do apply.
In response to the events at Abu Ghraib, the United States Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty. Eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault, and battery. Between May 2004 and April 2006, these soldiers were court-martialed, convicted, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, the commanding officer of all detention facilities in Iraq, was reprimanded and demoted to the rank of colonel. In 2004, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apologized for the Abu Ghraib abuses.
Contractor Duties in Prisons
Frequently, private military contractors, like CACI, play very large roles in prison maintenance. They maintain physical facilities, watch prisoners, and also watch prison guards.
Usually, overseas prisons are in secure, rear areas. However, in anti-insurgency conflicts, there is no front line or rear area. So, prisons require security that goes beyond watching prisoners. Contractors must guard these facilities against outside attacks.
Furthermore, construction contractors maintain the facilities themselves. Prisons, like most other buildings, require constant renovation and expansion. Contractors usually handle these chores, so combat engineers are free to work on other projects.
Guard duty isn’t easy duty. Many guards feel a surge of power over prisoners, and they display that power in inappropriate ways. That mindset probably explains what happened at Abu Ghraib, at least in part. Experienced contractor prison guards know the line between guarding prisoners with a firm hand and abusing them. Many contractors are former law enforcement officers. Wrangling defendants but not abusing them is an everyday activity.
On a related note, prison guards are usually far from home, and morale is a problem. Many contractors are morale officers. They keep staff motivated and as cheery as possible. This combination reduces the likelihood of messes like the one that occurred at Abu Ghraib.
Injury Compensation Available
Prison work is dangerous work. Falls and other injuries are common during construction projects and everyday guard duties. Furthermore, these individuals are often subject to toxic exposure, poisoning, and other occupational diseases.
The Defense Base Act pays all reasonably necessary medical bills in these cases. The benefit includes pretty much all medical expenses, such as:
- Transportation: Most serious trauma injury victims must be transported to large hospitals in different countries or even different continents. These medevac flights could easily cost more than $40,000. Insurance adjusters rarely approve such expenses for what they consider a fancy ambulance ride.
- Emergency Care: Many seriously injured victims must undergo multiple surgical procedures. They’re not strong enough to tolerate a single, extensive procedure. As a result, emergency care medical bills are unusually high. Once again, insurance adjusters usually balk at the added cost, even though it was reasonably necessary.
- Follow-Up Care: The Defense Base Act gives injured victims the right to choose their own doctors and change physicians at any time. This benefit is very meaningful for injured contractors who usually receive emergency care overseas and follow-up treatment closer to their homes.
- Ancillary Costs: Prescription drugs, medical devices, and other ancillary expenses often outweigh the aforementioned costs. Usually, insurance adjusters believe that “reasonably necessary” is synonymous with “cheapest available.” So, they rarely approve ancillary costs, other than de minimis costs.
The Defense Base Act also replaces lost wages. Most victims receive two-thirds of their average weekly wage for the duration of their temporary or permanent disabilities.
The AWW is much like the “reasonably necessary” rule. AWW does not stop at regular cash wages. The AWW also includes non-cash pay, like 401(k) matching contributions, and irregular pay, like missed overtime opportunities.
For more information about DBA eligibility, contact Barnett, Lerner, Karsen, Frankel & Castro, P.A.