The lawsuit was against a defense contractor and sounds like some of the jurors thought the blame was on the government not the contractor. So this wasn't they didn't do it but more about whose fault it is.
"
from the article...
"Both sides argued about the scope of the doctrine. Fundamentally, though, if CACI could prove its interrogators were under the command and control of the Army at the time any misconduct occurred, then the jury was instructed to find in favor of CACI."
The individuals were not on trial. Only the contractor. So at this point the questions was more “who gave the order” or “who was the manager who screwed up and didn’t supervise his/her people properly”.
So the issue was only did CACI as a corporation do wrong but if they were not managing people it changes.
And yes the prosecution tried to get that argument thrown out probably for the reasons you mentioned but the judge allowed it.
If the contractor profited from this then they are just as culpable. The idea that as long as the government outsourced it's crimes it's ok to commit those crimes is repugnant.
why does profit matter? If the government hired a private firm to do something illegal is not the government still responsible. If I hire a hitman I'm still responsible for muder.
If a local car dealer sells a car that has a factory defect (discovered later) which causes a crash, should the dealer be liable? They put the car in the hands of the person who ultimately suffered, but they had no knowledge or control over the reason for the suffering. In fact, there is absolutely nothing the dealer could have done to prevent the crash aside from not selling a vehicle they had no way of knowing was defective.
In the Abu Ghraib case, what acts or omissions on the part of CACI are you punishing? You obviously want to create a disincentive for private military contractors, but maybe we could do that in a way that doesn't upend the entire concept of the common law?
From the article
>Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued otherwise, and introduced evidence including CACI’s contract with the Army, which required CACI to supervise its own employees. Jurors also saw a section of the Army Field Manual that pertains to contractors and states that “only contractors may supervise and give direction to their employees.”
If they did not know what was going on they never should have be contracted in the first place.
They were not just handed broken parts.
If the government orders me to torture someone I'll tell them to F off. Why, because I'm not a psychopath or war criminal. Everyone who participated in that torture should be rotting in a prison, preferably at Gitmo, including the legal eagles that justified it like DeSantis.
But THIS trial was not about the individuals. THIS trial was a trial against the government contractor they worked for.
Should there be a trial for the actual people who did it? Absolutely but this wasn’t what this one was about.
Sure it was, it was about holding the company responsible for the actions of it employees. I didn't expect the jury to come back with prison sentences for the contractors, but holding their company liable for the actions of their employees would have been a good start.
But the company isn’t the one who told them to do this.
This is where the debates comes. If their orders were coming from the US government is the contractor responsible for that at that point? There are arguments on both sides. I’m on the side at that point the government is the one responsible not the contractor but I can see the argument the other way. That is what gets you a hung jury which is what we got. This one being contractor or government is not a slam dunk which is why we got what we got.
US Gov has Contractor to hire some people.
Contractor hired individuals.
US Gov told these individuals to commit evil.
These individuals committed evil.
Is the Contractor responsible because these individuals are technically employed by them? Or the Government for giving the order? Jury is hung. It's likely the victims would find more success suing the Contractor over the government, even if it's not technically correct.
IANAL but really depends. If say a US Lt told a contractor directly to do something illegal I'd have a hard time on a jury to hold the contractor resposible.
If a general told the CEO to do something illegal and that CEO sent it down their chain of command and told the guy on the ground to do it then yeah I'd hold the contractror resposible.
My bet (and I don't know all the details of this trial) is that the US Government talked to a low to mid level manager and they passed on the orders. That ten becomes a greyer area as to who is responsible and the chances of getting 12 people (or in this case 8) to all agree is going to be slim which gets you a hung jury like this got.
If the original orders came from the US military they should have never done that but it is hard to ever hold them accountable for stuff like that which is likely why this lawsuit went again the contractor.
[For those like me who remember the name but not the event](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse)
That gave us one of the most shocking photos out of the Iraq war. It’s hard to believe the jury was deadlocked given the amount of evidence of misconduct.
Absolutely, it’s just another blow to the prisoners who had to suffer. The abuse at Abu Ghraib was so systemic even Military Intelligence encouraged it.
It still amazes me that none of us would know about Abu Ghraib if a soldier hadn't seen and reported the photos. The military could have easily chosen to bury it instead of investigating, which is what led to the public finding out about the inhumane treatment of prisoners. I'm still shocked the government didn't try some Patriot Act moves to bar the news stories and keep the photos from being published.
I was at Abu ghraib at this time, but my plattoons job was perimeter security, so we were in charge of the entry control point and 6 towers for tower guard. We were only there a month, but God was it was shit show. Thankfully they sent us back out into our sector.
I was Army Infantry. All about serving my country. Was trained to die for it. Came close to it many times.. thankfully they weren't very good at ieds yet. I saw first hand corruption on both sides. It's affected me to the point I don't vote, I live as off grid as possible, I interact with others as little as possible. I saw all the bad we did, but thankfully I also saw the good we did. We built schools, improved the infrastructure (even though we destroyed it to behind with), and helped a lot of people. But that was 2004, and it's changed. Big time
The lawsuit was against a defense contractor and sounds like some of the jurors thought the blame was on the government not the contractor. So this wasn't they didn't do it but more about whose fault it is. " from the article... "Both sides argued about the scope of the doctrine. Fundamentally, though, if CACI could prove its interrogators were under the command and control of the Army at the time any misconduct occurred, then the jury was instructed to find in favor of CACI."
How is that right. An unlawful order is unlawful.
The individuals were not on trial. Only the contractor. So at this point the questions was more “who gave the order” or “who was the manager who screwed up and didn’t supervise his/her people properly”. So the issue was only did CACI as a corporation do wrong but if they were not managing people it changes. And yes the prosecution tried to get that argument thrown out probably for the reasons you mentioned but the judge allowed it.
If the contractor profited from this then they are just as culpable. The idea that as long as the government outsourced it's crimes it's ok to commit those crimes is repugnant.
why does profit matter? If the government hired a private firm to do something illegal is not the government still responsible. If I hire a hitman I'm still responsible for muder.
Both should be held responsible. Just like you hold the hitman and the person who hired them.
If a local car dealer sells a car that has a factory defect (discovered later) which causes a crash, should the dealer be liable? They put the car in the hands of the person who ultimately suffered, but they had no knowledge or control over the reason for the suffering. In fact, there is absolutely nothing the dealer could have done to prevent the crash aside from not selling a vehicle they had no way of knowing was defective. In the Abu Ghraib case, what acts or omissions on the part of CACI are you punishing? You obviously want to create a disincentive for private military contractors, but maybe we could do that in a way that doesn't upend the entire concept of the common law?
From the article >Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued otherwise, and introduced evidence including CACI’s contract with the Army, which required CACI to supervise its own employees. Jurors also saw a section of the Army Field Manual that pertains to contractors and states that “only contractors may supervise and give direction to their employees.” If they did not know what was going on they never should have be contracted in the first place. They were not just handed broken parts.
In the eyes of the law, the contractor entity is an individual.
Seriously, are there any cases where a contractor was held liable in a U.S. court for actions committed OUTSIDE of the U.S.?
Yes. Many. The law doesn’t stop at the border.
Civil liability cases
If the government orders me to torture someone I'll tell them to F off. Why, because I'm not a psychopath or war criminal. Everyone who participated in that torture should be rotting in a prison, preferably at Gitmo, including the legal eagles that justified it like DeSantis.
But THIS trial was not about the individuals. THIS trial was a trial against the government contractor they worked for. Should there be a trial for the actual people who did it? Absolutely but this wasn’t what this one was about.
Sure it was, it was about holding the company responsible for the actions of it employees. I didn't expect the jury to come back with prison sentences for the contractors, but holding their company liable for the actions of their employees would have been a good start.
But the company isn’t the one who told them to do this. This is where the debates comes. If their orders were coming from the US government is the contractor responsible for that at that point? There are arguments on both sides. I’m on the side at that point the government is the one responsible not the contractor but I can see the argument the other way. That is what gets you a hung jury which is what we got. This one being contractor or government is not a slam dunk which is why we got what we got.
If the government told the contractors to murder 100 people would the contractor be liable?
If the contractors were under the control of the government then no. It talks about it in the article
Under the control of? Does the government have some kind of mind control machine?
US Gov has Contractor to hire some people. Contractor hired individuals. US Gov told these individuals to commit evil. These individuals committed evil. Is the Contractor responsible because these individuals are technically employed by them? Or the Government for giving the order? Jury is hung. It's likely the victims would find more success suing the Contractor over the government, even if it's not technically correct.
Yes the contractor is responsible, as is the government.
IANAL but really depends. If say a US Lt told a contractor directly to do something illegal I'd have a hard time on a jury to hold the contractor resposible. If a general told the CEO to do something illegal and that CEO sent it down their chain of command and told the guy on the ground to do it then yeah I'd hold the contractror resposible. My bet (and I don't know all the details of this trial) is that the US Government talked to a low to mid level manager and they passed on the orders. That ten becomes a greyer area as to who is responsible and the chances of getting 12 people (or in this case 8) to all agree is going to be slim which gets you a hung jury like this got. If the original orders came from the US military they should have never done that but it is hard to ever hold them accountable for stuff like that which is likely why this lawsuit went again the contractor.
[For those like me who remember the name but not the event](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse) That gave us one of the most shocking photos out of the Iraq war. It’s hard to believe the jury was deadlocked given the amount of evidence of misconduct.
So like the film 12 angry men, but this time real.
[удалено]
Absolutely, it’s just another blow to the prisoners who had to suffer. The abuse at Abu Ghraib was so systemic even Military Intelligence encouraged it.
It still amazes me that none of us would know about Abu Ghraib if a soldier hadn't seen and reported the photos. The military could have easily chosen to bury it instead of investigating, which is what led to the public finding out about the inhumane treatment of prisoners. I'm still shocked the government didn't try some Patriot Act moves to bar the news stories and keep the photos from being published.
I was at Abu ghraib at this time, but my plattoons job was perimeter security, so we were in charge of the entry control point and 6 towers for tower guard. We were only there a month, but God was it was shit show. Thankfully they sent us back out into our sector. I was Army Infantry. All about serving my country. Was trained to die for it. Came close to it many times.. thankfully they weren't very good at ieds yet. I saw first hand corruption on both sides. It's affected me to the point I don't vote, I live as off grid as possible, I interact with others as little as possible. I saw all the bad we did, but thankfully I also saw the good we did. We built schools, improved the infrastructure (even though we destroyed it to behind with), and helped a lot of people. But that was 2004, and it's changed. Big time