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

translators’ performance of their duties during interrogations. Nor was he
responsible for ensuring that L-3 employees followed the laws of war, and
did not abuse prisoners. He could not identify any military person who was
responsible for such oversight. SOF at 15-16.
(2) The District Court’s Interpretation of the Military’s
Memorandum of Understanding Was Contradicted by the
Military Witness Who Drafted the Memorandum, Chief
Warrant Officer Rumminger.
In addition to Winkler’s self-interested deposition testimony, the
District Court relied on a Memorandum of Understanding, prepared by the
military and signed by L-3 translators, as undisputed evidence of the
military’s exclusive operational control. The Memorandum stated that “it is
not the translator’s place to second guess the interrogator and refuse to
translate words or phrases.” Ibrahim II, 556 F.Supp.2d at 7 (quoting
Rumminger Decl., Ex. A). The District Court relied on the Memorandum to
conclude that L-3 translators lacked autonomy, and had to follow orders
given by interrogators. Even if this interpretation was accurate (which it is
not), that does not establish military control. As noted above, there were
many CACI corporate employees acting as interrogators. But even more
importantly, one of the authors of the Memorandum, Chief Warrant Officer
Rumminger, contradicted the District Court’s assumption that the
30