Jury takes Abu Ghraib abuse civil case against US military contractor

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) — Eight jurors are considering whether a civilian contractor is liable for torture at the hands of U.S. military police in the Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq War.

Deliberations began Monday afternoon in the civil case brought by three Iraqis against a Northern Virginia-based military contractor over its personnels’ potential role in the notorious abuses at the prison.

Eleven U.S. soldiers were convicted and five others were disciplined for abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib in 2003 and 2004. The prisoners were subjected to physical abuse, sexual humiliation and other human rights violations, primarily led by military police who oversaw detainees.

The MPs say they acted at the behest of military intelligence personnel, including civilian contractors, who directed them to “soften up” detainees for interrogations.

The Eastern District of Virginia trial will determine if employees of CACI International Inc., a technology company that provides services to U.S. government defense and intelligence agencies, played a role in setting the conditions for those abuses to continue, and the company thus is culpable for their actions.

No institution, corporate entity or civilian contractor has faced legal penalties for the abuse at Abu Ghraib.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema instructed the jury to determine if the plaintiffs proved three causes of action through a preponderance of evidence: that they were tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment at Abu Ghraib; that CACI was indirectly responsible for those abuses through co-conspiring with military personnel or aiding and abetting those actions; and if CACI personnel were indirectly responsible, that they were acting within the scope of their employment.

All three actions must be proved for CACI to be held liable, the judge said.

If the jury finds in favor of the plaintiffs on those questions, it must then determine if CACI proved its defense: the borrowed servant doctrine, which protects employers from liability if another entity is controlling, directing and overseeing the employees’ work.

The company contends that the military, not its contractors, was responsible for setting and directing policy at Abu Ghraib.

Plaintiff attorney Muhammad Faridi in his closing arguments proposed $3 million per plaintiff in compensatory damages and $32 million in punitive damages. The latter dollar amount represents CACI's estimated earnings through its contract with the military.

Before deliberations, Faridi recounted the case on behalf of the plaintiffs —  Salah Hasan Nusaif Al-Ejaili, Asa’ad Hamza Hanfoosh Zuba’e and Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari — and the abuse they suffered as soon as they arrived at the prison.

“They are stripped of their clothes. They are physically and sexually assaulted,” he said. “They are humiliated.”

Faridi argued the case comes down to who made up the conspiracy to abuse detainees, the purpose of the conspiracy, acts carried out in furtherance of it and its results.

“When these pieces are put together, one thing is clear: CACI is liable for the abuse suffered by our clients,” he said. 

Faridi also showed jurors a section of CACI’s contract requiring it to take responsibility for its personnel and U.S. Army doctrine saying civilian contractors are not in the chain of command and are responsible to their employers.

The jurors’ job is “not an easy one,” Faridi said. He emphasized that the only people held responsible for the abuses were the military police personnel, not the military intelligence or civilian interrogators who encouraged it. 

“Hold CACI accountable just as their co-conspirators were held accountable,” he told the jury.

Defense attorney John O’Connor told the jury that CACI was contracted to provide military interrogators, but had no oversight of its work once the employees reached Iraq.

“They knew where their people were in Iraq and basically that’s it because it’s classified,” he said. “The deal was always ‘you find them, hire them, pay them, get them to Iraq and we’ll take it from there.’”

The plaintiffs face “stringent standards” for proving their claims, O’Connor said.

“It’s not enough to know criminal conduct is going on. It’s not enough to be present,” he said. “You have to reach an agreement to conduct criminal conduct.”

Defense attorneys sought to cast doubt on the credibility of the plaintiffs’ testimony and cautioned the jury not to let their emotions about the abuse cloud their judgment.

“You can believe that Abu Ghraib is a terrible stain on this country. We believe that Abu Ghraib is a terrible stain on this country,” O’Connor said. “You can have all those feelings and come to the conclusion [they] sued the wrong person.”

If the jury does not reach a verdict on Monday, jurors will have the day off on Tuesday and resume deliberations on Wednesday.

Follow @TheNolanStout

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit