hide message

Hello! Welcome to the Resource Centre.

We hope you find our free tools and resources useful. Did you know we also work directly with community advocates, providing them with the skills and resources to document corporate human rights abuses and effectively communicate with business?

This is only possible through generous donations from people like you.

Please consider supporting our work.

Thank you,
Phil Bloomer, Executive Director

Donate now hide message

You are being redirected to the story the piece of content is found in so you can read it in context. Please click the following link if you are not automatically redirected within a couple seconds:
en/abu-ghraib-lawsuits-against-caci-titan-now-l-3-0#c172530

US judge rules Abu Ghraib interrogators may be questioned incognito in lawsuit against military contractor CACI over torture allegations

Author: Peter Blumberg, Bloomberg (USA), Published on: 10 May 2018

"Abu Ghraib Interrogators May Be Questioned Incognito in Lawsuit", 9 May 2018

As a decade-old lawsuit over alleged torture by a U.S. military contractor at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq finally moves toward revealing what really happened 15 years ago, a judge ruled that the interrogators can be questioned but their identities must remain secret.  The federal judge in Virginia issued an unusual order to accomplish this: The lawyers for contractor CACI Premier Technology Inc. asking the questions will conduct a deposition of the interrogators from a separate location without use of video recording.  U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said in her May 4 order that the U.S. government should try to make the interrogators available so that the company can defend itself.  But she agreed with the Justice Department that they should stay incognito...CACI, which lost a motion to dismiss the lawsuit last year, said it’s “essential” to question the interrogators to figure out who may have directed any mistreatment of the three Iraqi detainees who are suing...Brinkema said that she’d be willing to revisit her ruling on the "pseudonymous” depositions if the company determines after questioning the interrogators that it still doesn’t have enough information.

Read the full post here

Related companies: CACI