United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia - Center for ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Debriefing and Interrogation Center states that there are 97 soldiers and 32 CACI employees assigned there). These CACI interrogators were not controlled by the military, but rather repeatedly engaged in unauthorized abuse of prisoners. RS.112, Appendix C-9 at 130-32, 134; RS.112, Appendix C-40 at 48. This evidence simply cannot be reconciled with the District Court’s conclusion that the military, and only the military, exercised absolute operational control over L-3 translators, and gave all the orders that determined how translators performed their duties. A reasonable jury could certainly find that the L-3 translators who conspired with CACI employees to abuse Plaintiffs were not under the United States military’s command or control. B. The District Court Relied on Evidence That is Genuinely in Dispute. The District Court also erred by making a finding of fact that L-3 translators operated “under the direct command and exclusive operational control of military personnel.” The District Court relied on self-interested testimony, and ignored the conflicting evidence that could be relied upon by a jury. In contrast to a clearly-delineated military chain of command, L-3 translators simply showed up and translated for different interrogators on different days. SOF at 15-16. None of these interrogators had any 26
authority to demand that L-3 translators be disciplined, fired or removed from the contract for misconduct. Id. (1) L-3 Executive Winkler’s Testimony Was Self-Serving and Contradicted by Other L-3 Witnesses and the Military. No military person testified that L-3 was prevented from supervising its employees, and preventing them from abusing prisoners. Instead, L-3 argued, and the District Court agreed, that testimony from L-3 Abu Ghraib site manager David Winkler sufficed to establish that L-3 could not supervise its employees. Winkler testified that he was “prohibited by the military from observing linguists performing their duties or from discussing their interrogations,” Ibrahim II, 556 F. Supp. 2d at 6 (quoting Winkler Decl. 36). But Winkler’s testimony about L-3’s inability to observe or discuss interrogations was self-serving, and not entitled to be fully credited. The Supreme Court instructs district courts to “disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe,” and to rely only testimony in favor of the moving party that is “uncontradicted and unimpeached,” and “comes from disinterested witnesses.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150-53.(2000); George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 413 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (overturning grant of summary judgment because plaintiff has proffered ample evidence by which a 27
Page 1 and 2: NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Page 3 and 4: Juma’a, Kamel Abood Khalaf Al Sam
Page 5 and 6: Hammad Abid Atwan, Jasim Faadhil Ha
Page 7 and 8: Mohammed, Ammar Juma’a Abid, Mali
Page 9 and 10: 08-7008 (D.C. Cir.) have filed a di
Page 11 and 12: B. The District Court Relied on Evi
Page 13 and 14: Cases TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1010 Pot
Page 15 and 16: In re Tesch (Zyklon B Case), 13 Int
Page 17 and 18: West Point Elementary School Teache
Page 19 and 20: GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AR U.S. A
Page 21 and 22: STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Distr
Page 23 and 24: District of Columbia. The District
Page 25 and 26: Ghraib. Major General Antonio Tagub
Page 27 and 28: employees adhere to United States s
Page 29 and 30: See also Peltier Dep. 156-157; RS.1
Page 31 and 32: Crowley Decl. 5. L-3 told its trans
Page 33 and 34: RS.112, Appendix C-43. L-3 witnesse
Page 35 and 36: (4) Evidence Produced by the Milita
Page 37 and 38: the Iraqi Republican Guard and enem
Page 39 and 40: Rumminger Dep. 167 (Nakhla “spent
Page 41 and 42: military. Finally, as set forth in
Page 43 and 44: preempted only to the extent necess
Page 45: contract. Id. According to testimon
Page 49 and 50: SEALED MATERIAL DELETED Third, the
Page 51 and 52: Memorandum prevented L-3 translator
Page 53 and 54: 902, 904 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(summary j
Page 55 and 56: L-3 has produced no evidence from t
Page 57 and 58: (3) L-3’s Self-Serving Litigation
Page 59 and 60: obey operational instructions from
Page 61 and 62: A. The Military Is Opposed to Such
Page 63 and 64: their employees, officers, and subc
Page 65 and 66: community governed by a separate di
Page 67 and 68: not change the fact that it was the
Page 69 and 70: in Boyle used as a touchstone wheth
Page 71 and 72: Hudgens v. Bell Helicopters/Textron
Page 73 and 74: Kellogg, Brown and Root, 444 F.Supp
Page 75 and 76: Applying the combatant activities e
Page 77 and 78: applied to insulate the corporate c
Page 79 and 80: The Supreme Court in Sosa examined
Page 81 and 82: Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front, 993
Page 83 and 84: knowing it would be used to kill);
Page 85 and 86: Respectfully submitted, Susan L. Bu
Page 87 and 88: ADDENDUM: STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
Page 89 and 90: Uniform Code of Military Justice, P
Page 91 and 92: or suffering incidental to lawful s
Page 93 and 94: laws. Obtaining personal services b
Page 95 and 96: (c) Outrages upon personal dignity,
Page 97 and 98:
U.S. Army Regulation 190-8, Enemy P
Page 99 and 100:
give directions to their employees.
Page 101:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Saleh, et al
show all

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia - Center for ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?