USA Al-Shimari CACI, Premier Technology Inc Case Brief
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
USA Al-Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology Inc. Case Brief
Discussion
I. Classification of the Situation and Applicable Law
1. (Document A, paras [1], [4]; Document B, paras [1], [10]-[12])a. Using the information available in this case, could you classify the situation in Iraq between 2003 and 2004 when the
alleged acts took place? What was the applicable law? (GC I-IV, Common Art. 2)
b. Does Common Article 3 apply to this case? Why or why not? Does Common Article 3 apply in times of international
armed conflict? Are breaches of Common Article 3 war crimes? In IAC? In NIAC? Can violations of Common Article 3
constitute grave breaches? How do you understand the use of the term grave breach of common Article 3 employed
by the U.S. in its War Crimes Act of 1996? (Document B, para. [10])? (GC I-IV, Common Arts. 2 and 3; GC I-IV, Arts.
50/51/130/147; CIHL, Rule 156)
c. Based on the information given, who are the parties to the conflict? What kind of entity is CACI Premier Technology,
Inc.? Describe its involvement in this conflict. Do its agents qualify as State actors or non-State actors? Could CACI be a
party to the conflict? Why/Why not? Do the answers to these questions matter when determining whether a violation of
IHL or a war crime has been committed? (GC III, Art. 4; CIHL, Rules 3, 4)
II. Classification of Persons
2. (Document A, paras [1]-[2]; Document B, para [1])
a. How would you classify the plaintiffs in this case? How would you classify the CACI employees? For both groups,
what additional information do you need to evaluate their status? (GC III, Art. 4; GC IV, Art. 4; CIHL, Rules 3-5)
b. What protection does IHL offer the plaintiffs? What obligations are imposed upon CACI Personnel by IHL? (GC I-IV,
Common Art. 1; GC III, Arts. 12-17; GC IV, Arts. 4, 27, 32, 76; CIHL, Rules 87, 90, 139)
c. Does the relationship between the US government and CACI affect the classification of CACI personnel? (GC I-IV,
Common Art. 2; GC III, Art. 4)
III. Levels of Control
3. (Document A, paras [5]-[11])
a. For what purposes does the Court discuss the level of control by the US over CACI ? To classify the conflict? To
attribute IHL violations committed by CACI to the US? To determine whether courts can give victims of CACI a remedy
under US law?
b. Can State control over a non-State entity affect the classification of the conflict? Under what circumstances? What
level of control is required to affect the classification of the conflict? In this case, does the U.S. control over CACIs activities in Iraq affect in any way the classification of the conflict? Why/Why not?
c. What level of control over the actions of CACI employees does the U.S. military need to exercise in order for the
actions of those employees to be attributable to the U.S. under the rules of State Responsibility? Finally what level of
control does the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit say the U.S. military must have over CACI in order for the
political question doctrine to apply? Is this level of control sufficient for the political question doctrine to apply, or are
there other questions that should be fulfilled? How are these levels of control different from each other, if at all? (GC I-IV,
Common Art. 2; GC III, Art. 4; CIHL, Rule 4, 149; ICJ, Nicaragua v. United States, paras 80 122; ICTY, The Prosecutor v.
Tadi?, paras 87 145; ICJ, Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, paras 396 – 407)
4. (Document A, para [6]) Does the appellate Court use the terms direct control and actual control synonymously?
5. (Document A, paras [7]-[15]) What does the Court say about the formal and actual control of CACI actions by the
military? What level of control will make the political question doctrine applicable? Under what circumstances? What
does this mean for our case?
IV. Abuse of detainees
6. (Document A, paras [13]-[22]; Document B).
a. Are torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CIDT) ever permitted under IHL? (GC I-IV, Common Art. 3; GC I-
IV, Arts. 50/51/130/147; GC III, Art. 13; GC IV, Art. 27; CIHL, Rule 90)
b. What is the definition of torture under U.S. law? Under IHL? What is the definition of CIDT under U.S. law? Under IHL?
Are there any differences between the U.S. definitions and the IHL definitions? (GC I-IV, Common Art. 3; GC III, Art. 13; GC
IV, Art. 32; CIHL, Rule 90)
c. (Document B, paras [5]-[7]) May a non-state actor commit torture? According to the district court, what type of authority must a non-state actor enjoy in order to commit torture under U.S. law? Does the same apply for IHL? Must the
non-state actor have control over the person to commit torture? Under US law? Under IHL? (GC I-IV, Common Art. 3;
CIHL, Rules 90, 139)
d. (Document B, para [8]) According to the District Court, is the determination of the U.S. Executive Branch relevant to
evaluations of whether certain conduct constituted torture under international law? Why/Why not?
e. (Document B, paras [9]-[10]) What is CIDT? How has it been defined by the U.S? What is the relationship between
torture and CIDT? Is there any difference between the two concepts in IHL? (GC I-IV, Common Art. 3; GC I-IV, Arts.
50/51/130/147; GC IV, Arts 27 and 32; CIHL, Rule 90)
f. (Document B, para [13]) Does approval of acts of torture, CIDT, or other war crimes by the military chain of command
affect the classification of those acts as war crimes? In this case? In IHL? Why or why not? (GC I-IV, Common Art. 3; GC
I-IV, Arts. 50/51/130/147; CIHL, Rule 90, 152, 153)
g. (Document B, para [12]) May war crimes be committed by non-State entities? By private individuals? Only by belligerents? What is the difference between a war crime and a common crime committed in an armed conflict? (GC I-IV,
Arts. 49/50/129/146, 50/51/130/147)
h. (Document A, para [4]) In addition to the perpetrators of the acts, do you think others should be held responsible for
the violations referred to in this case? How are the command vacuum and the failure of military leaders to exercise
effective oversight over CACI interrogators and military police relevant in answering the preceding question? (GC I-IV,
Arts. 49/50/129/146; CIHL, Rules 152, 153)
i. (Document B, para 14) Does the issuewhether the Geneva Conventions are self-executingaffect State Parties’
obligations to respect IHL treaties? Why or why not? Does that issue affect the application of IHL to the case of Al-
Shimari? Why or why not? (GC I-IV, Common Art. 1; CIHL, Rule 139)
j. Document A, paras [12]-[14]; [18]) The district court concluded that it was unequipped to evaluate whether the use of
certain extreme interrogation measures in the theatre of war was appropriate or justified. (para [12]) It also alleged
difficulties in applying international law (para. [18]). In what ways are these conclusions problematic from an IHL
perspective? What obligations of States are at stake? (GC I-IV, Common Art. 1; GC I-IV, Arts. 49/50/129/146,
50/51/130/147; CIHL, Rules 139, 157)
k. Who may seek remedies for violations of IHL? Under IHL, do victims have a right to compensation for IHL violations?
How may individuals seek redress as victims of IHL violations? In your opinion, is it appropriate for individuals to seek
civil judicial remedies for violations of IHL? What are the pros and cons of this approach? (Hague Convention IV, Art. 3; P
I, Art. 91; CIHL, Rule 150)
USA Al-Shimari CACI, Premier Technology Inc Case Brief
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow USA Al-Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology Inc. Case Brief
USA Al-Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology Inc. Case Brief