A US military contractor is about to stand trial over allegations that he participated in a plot to torture detainees at Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq War – 20 years after infamous images of abuse were seen around the world.
The plaintiffs, three Iraqis detained and tortured at Abu Ghraib, originally sued military contractor CACI, which provided interrogators for the prison, in 2008. Now the civil trial, expected to last two weeks, is scheduled to begin on Monday at US District Court. in Alexandria, Virginia. The legal proceedings represent the first time Abu Ghraib victims will present their claims to a U.S. jury, said the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents the plaintiffs.
CACI has denied any wrongdoing and has argued in court filings over the years that plaintiffs did not allege that their interrogators directly inflicted abuse or sufficiently proved that they directed it.
Charles Tiefer, a retired law professor and former commissioner of the Federal Commission on Wartime Hiring in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2008 to 2011, says this judgment is “extremely important.”
“The decisions and judgment in this case will set the stage for how future combat will be conducted by the United States,” says Tiefer.
If the jury rules against CACI, contractors could “be controlled in the future,” says Tiefer, But if not, “the very reasons we rely so heavily on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead us to trust them for future military services that used to be unthinkable.” The US military still hires CACI, with the Army in March rewarding the company a US$239 million deal to modernize its network.
CACI and the Center for Constitutional Rights declined to comment Friday before the trial.
Four Iraqi civilians sued the CACIanother contractor, and three individual contractors in 2008. Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, after whom the case is named, was imprisoned for four years “for no reason,” including two months in Abu Ghraib, his original complaint he said.
There, he was subjected to electric shocks, beaten with a baton-like instrument, deprived of food and sleep, stripped naked, forcibly shaved and threatened with dogs and death, the complaint said.
The other contractor and individuals were dismissed as defendants from the beginning. A plaintiff later dropped the case.
The abuses at Abu Ghraib caught the world’s attention in 2004, when CBS News published shocking photos of prisoners subjected to abuse by US soldiers similar to what the plaintiffs described. In one image, a soldier held a collar on the neck of a detainee; in another, soldiers smiled alongside naked and hooded prisoners stacked in a pyramid. The photos sparked worldwide condemnation, sorry of US leaders, and the closure of place of detention. Eleven soldiers were condemned criminal charges in the scandal that occurred in and after 2004.
An early complaint accused CACI of committing acts of torture and other crimes, in addition to conspiracy. However, in 2018, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkeman, who will take the case to trial, rejected three charges claiming direct responsibility.
Brinkeman ruled that CACI could still face conspiracy charges on the grounds that its interrogators “explicitly instructed (military police) deputies to ‘soften’ detainees to prepare them for interrogation.” This was based on the testimony of Ivan Frederick, a former military sergeant who was sentenced to eight years in prison by a military court for detainee abuse in 2004. CACI argued in court filings that the military had “actual control over conduct related to interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison.”
CACI also argued that it and the US government were immune from the lawsuit, but in what experts consider to be a significant order, Brinkeman ruled that they were not entitled to immunity if the allegations were true.
The three plaintiffs are expected to testify at the trial starting Monday, one in person and two remotely, along with retired Army General Antonio Taguba, who led an investigation in the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Associated Press reported.
Prosecuting contractors for crimes allegedly committed abroad is rare and challenging.
There are “numerous barriers” to doing so, including gathering evidence, the need for extradition and complex issues of jurisdiction, said Steven Schooner, a professor at George Washington University School of Law who written on the subjectsays in an email.
Another civil suit alleging abuse by a contractor––against two psychologists who designed CIA torture techniques––settled in 2017, shortly before going to trial, resulting in compensation for damages to victims or their families.
Tiefer says there is “no specific statute” for filing a lawsuit against contractors. He adds that the CACI case was subjected to a “mixture” of international law and Alien Tort Statute, which states that U.S. district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions brought by noncitizens alleging violations of international law.
The case will be closely watched because it involves this “unique” statute that “is not often used in lawsuits,” said Mark Bina, an attorney and litigation partner at Quarles & Brady LLP, who wrote about contractor’s responsibility at Abu Ghraib, says via email. He says that because of the relatively recent increase in U.S. military contractors over the past 50 years, there are not many legal precedents that courts can turn to to assess the liability of contractors in combat.
If a jury finds wrongdoing, “this would be a significant step toward helping other victims seek redress for serious abuses in CIA or U.S. military detention after the 9/11 attacks,” he says. Letta Tayler, associate director of the crisis and conflict division at Human Rights Watch, who leads work on terrorism and counterterrorism. If found guilty, CACI will face damages, and it’s possible that a judgment against them could count as a negative when they bid on future contracts, Tiefer says.
The outcome of the case could have ramifications beyond solutions for victims, given the US military’s dependence on service providers. “It’s fair to say that the U.S. military today cannot move, communicate, fight, or sustain itself without the support of contractors,” says Schooner.
Bina says it is difficult to predict what precedent the case will set until a final decision by the appeals court, which could take years. “But the fact that this issue survived summary judgment and that there are triable claims signals that there are legal risks for military contractors operating during armed conflict,” he says.
This story originally appeared on Time.com read the full story
