The War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture

 

War Profiteers Main Index

U.S. Military Complex Index

U.S. Department of Defense Index

 

 

The Second Gulf War/Iraq Invasion II - The Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse

 

 

Background

 

 

 

 

Media Reports

 

September 12th, 2009 - Court Rejects Suit Against CACI Over Abu Ghraib Torture

1 news article from the Washington Post

 

September 25th, 2008 - Top Officials Knew in 2002 of Harsh Interrogations

1 news article by the Washington Post

 

February 18th, 2007 - Jailed 2 Years, Iraqi Tells of Abuse by Americans

1 news article by the New York Times

 

November 15th, 2006 - Germany Urged to Prosecute Rumsfeld for War Crimes

1 news article by the Independent

 

August 24th, 2005 - Abu Ghraib General Lambastes Bush Administration

1 news article by truthout

 

June 11th, 2004 - Use of Dogs to Scare Prisoners Was Authorized

1 news article by the Washington Post

 

 

Legal Documents

 

Haidar Saleh et al vs. Titan Corporation et al

U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Case No.: 08-7008

Filed on January 29th, 2008

 

September 11th, 2009 - Judgment & Opinion

 

“[…] Plaintiff Iraqi nationals brought separate suits against two private military contractors that provided services to the U.S. government at the Abu Ghraib military prison during the war in Iraq. The district court granted summary judgment in behalf of one of the contractors, Titan Corp., on grounds that the plaintiffs’ state tort claims were federally preempted. But the court denied summary judgment on those grounds to the other contractor, CACI International Inc.

 

“The court also dismissed claims both sets of plaintiffs made under the Alien Tort Statute (which is appealed only by the Titan plaintiffs) and reserved for further proceedings in the CACI case that contractor’s immunity defense. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under 28 USC §§ 1291 and 1292(b). We affirm the district court’s judgment in behalf of Titan, but reverse as to CACI.

 

“Defendants CACI and Titan contracted to provide in Iraq interrogation and interpretation services, respectively, to the U.S. military, which lacked sufficient numbers of trained personnel to undertake these critical wartime tasks. The contractors’ employees were combined with military personnel for the purpose of performing the interrogations, and the military retained control over the tactical and strategic parameters of the mission. Two separate groups of plaintiffs, represented by the named plaintiffs Haidar Muhsin Saleh and Ilham Nassir Ibrahim, brought suit alleging that they or their relatives had been abused by employees of the two contractors during their detention and interrogation by the U.S. military at the Abu Ghraib prison complex. While the allegations in the two cases are similar, the Saleh plaintiffs also allege a broad conspiracy between and among CACI, Titan, various civilian officials (including the Secretary and two Undersecretaries of Defense), and a number of military personnel, whereas the Ibrahim plaintiffs allege only that CACI and Titan conspired in the abuse.

 

“As we were told, a number of American servicemen have already been subjected to criminal court-martial proceedings in relation to the events at Abu Ghraib and have been convicted for their respective roles. While the federal government has jurisdiction to pursue criminal charges against the contractors should it deem such action appropriate, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340A, 2441, 3261, and although extensive investigations were pursued by the Department of Justice upon referral from the military investigator, no criminal charges eventuated against the contract employees. (Iraqi contract employees are also subject to criminal suit in Iraqi court.) Nor did the government pursue any contractual remedies against either contractor. The U.S. Army Claims Service has confirmed that it will compensate detainees who establish legitimate claims for relief under the Foreign Claims Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2734. Saleh pursued such a route, succeeding in obtaining $5,000 in compensation, despite the fact that the Army’s investigation indicated that Saleh was never actually interrogated or abused. […]”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to U.S. Department of Defense

Back to U.S. Military Complex

Back to main index