Most Read on APEsphere
Most Commented on APEsphere
Blogs we like
Resources
Military contractor can be sued by Abu Ghraib victims
Report Abuse:
So that we can keep the site friendly, legal and on-topic, please click the Report Abuse button if this story breaks the APEsphere Code.
Added by
apesphere on 21 Mar 2009
From: www.commondreams.org
|
| Image courtesy Daquella manera via Flickr |
Detainees tortured at Abu Ghraib prison and later released without charge can sue U.S. military contractor CACI International Inc.
Four former detainees brought the action.
According to a press release issued by Common Dreams:
"U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, of Alexandria, Va., denied CACI's motion to dismiss the detainees' claims which allege multiple violations of U.S. law, including torture, war crimes and civil conspiracy.
CACI sought immunity against the lawsuits and claimed that the actions of its contract interrogators at Abu Ghraib were beyond judicial review. Court martial and other testimony from the soldiers convicted of abuse link the company personnel to the abuse.
In a ruling important to accountability for government contractors in Iraq, the Court ruled Tuesday that "[t]he fact that CACI's business involves conducting interrogations on the government's behalf is incidental; courts can and do entertain civil suits against government contractors for the manner in which they carry out government business. CACI conveniently ignores the long line of cases where private plaintiffs were allowed to bring tort actions for wartime injuries."
The Court also rejected CACI's effort to shield itself from accountability by invoking the political question doctrine. The Court found "the policy is clear: what happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong." The Court reasoned "While it is true that the events at Abu Ghraib pose an embarrassment to this country, it is the misconduct alleged and not the litigation surrounding that misconduct that creates the embarrassment. This Court finds that the only potential for embarrassment would be if the Court declined to hear these claims on political questions grounds. Consequently, the Court holds that Plaintiffs' claims pose no political question and are therefore justiciable.""
Christine Arena 

Comments
Add a comment