Former Abu Ghraib prisoners awarded $42 million as US military contractor found liable for helping in torture
A U.S. jury on Tuesday awarded $42 million to three former detainees of Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison, holding a Virginia-based military contractor responsible for contributing to their torture and mistreatment two decades ago.
The decision from the eight-person jury came after a different jury earlier this year couldn’t agree on whether Reston, Virginia-based CACI should be held liable for the work of its civilian interrogators who worked alongside the U.S. Army at Abu Ghraib in 2003 and 2004.
The jury awarded plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Salah Al-Ejaili and Asa’ad Al-Zubae $3 million each in compensatory damages and $11 million each in punitive damages.
The three testified that they were subjected to beatings, sexual abuse, forced nudity and other cruel treatment at the prison.
They did not allege that CACI’s interrogators explicitly inflicted the abuse themselves, but argued CACI was complicit because its interrogators conspired with military police to “soften up” detainees for questioning with harsh treatment.
CACI’s lawyer, John O’Connor, did not comment after Tuesday’s verdict on whether the company would appeal.
Baher Azmy, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the lawsuit on the plaintiffs’ behalf, called the verdict “an important measure of Justice and accountability” and praised the three plaintiffs for their resilience, “especially in the face of all the obstacles CACI threw their way.”
The trial and subsequent retrial was the first time a U.S. jury heard claims brought by Abu Ghraib survivors in the 20 years since photos of detainee mistreatment — accompanied by smiling U.S. soldiers inflicting the abuse — shocked the world during the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
CACI had argued it wasn’t complicit in the detainees’ abuse. It said its employees had minimal interaction with the three plaintiffs in the case and any liability for their mistreatment belonged to the government.
As in the first trial, the jury struggled to decide whether CACI or the Army should be held responsible for any misconduct by CACI interrogators. The jury asked questions in its deliberations about whether the contractor or the Army bore liability.
CACI, as one of its defenses, argued it shouldn’t be liable for any misdeeds by its employees if they were under the control and direction of the Army. under a legal principle known as the “borrowed servants” doctrine.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that CACI was responsible for its own employees’ misdeeds.
The lawsuit was first filed in 2008 but was delayed by 15 years of legal wrangling and multiple attempts by CACI to have the case dismissed.
Lawyers for the three plaintiffs argued that CACI was liable for their mistreatment even if they couldn’t prove that CACI’s interrogators were the ones who directly inflicted the abuse.
The evidence included reports from two retired Army generals, who documented the abuse and concluded that multiple CACI interrogators were complicit in the abuse.
Those reports concluded that one of the interrogators, Steven Stefanowicz, lied to investigators about his conduct and that he likely instructed soldiers to mistreat detainees and used dogs to intimidate detainees during interrogations.
Stefanowicz testified for CACI at trial through a recorded video deposition and denied mistreating detainees.
