ALEXANDRIA, Virginia: In a federal court trial in Alexandria, Virginia, a lawyer representing military contractor CACI argued that the plaintiffs, survivors of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, are targeting the wrong entity by suing CACI instead of the US government.
The trial marks the first time a US jury has considered claims related to the notorious Abu Ghraib scandal, where US soldiers were implicated in abusive treatment of detainees.
The lawsuit alleges that CACI-supplied civilian interrogators collaborated with military police to mistreat detainees, contributing to their torture during interrogations. CACI’s defence team invoked the “borrowed servant doctrine,” asserting that the Army directed and controlled the interrogators’ work, thereby absolving CACI of liability.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers countered that CACI retained supervision of its employees, challenging CACI’s claim of non-liability. They presented evidence, including contractual obligations and Army regulations, to support their argument.
Muhammad Faridi, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the simplicity of the case, asserting that CACI could be held liable if its interrogators conspired with military personnel to abuse detainees, regardless of direct involvement in the abuse.
The plaintiffs testified to severe mistreatment, including beatings, sexual assaults, and degrading acts, attributed primarily to soldiers or unidentified civilians. In their testimony, retired generals who looked into the controversy said that CACI interrogators acted improperly.
The trial, delayed by years of legal disputes, questioned CACI’s immunity claims. Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that the US government cannot claim immunity in cases involving fundamental violations of international norms, such as torture, paving the way for this landmark trial.
After three hours of deliberation, the jury paused without reaching a verdict, with deliberations set to resume on Wednesday. The outcome of this trial could have significant implications for accountability in cases of contractor misconduct and US obligations under international law.
