Justice for victims of Abu Ghraib torture could change the business of war 

In April, I sat in on the closing arguments of Al Shimari v. CACI, a federal lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of three victims of torture at Abu Ghraib against military contractor CACI Premier Technology, Inc. It was the first time the case was made to a jury in a U.S. courtroom, after more than 20 attempts by CACI to get the case dismissed.  Though the jury was unable to reach a verdict, the plaintiffs intend to pursue a retrial.   

The 20-year anniversary of the first reporting on the Abu Ghraib scandal came and went during the trial and these three men are still seeking justice. As young men they survived this chapter of history, but now, pushing into middle age, they are making it: through their fortitude and persistence they might just introduce real penalties for corporations who profit from and exacerbate war crimes. 

 The trial has unmistakable resonance today as we witness another cascade of atrocities in the same region. And its eventual outcome could have radical consequences.  

Imagine if Palestinians could sue the tech corporations who are helping Israel bomb Gaza and killing their families. Imagine if Iraqis could sue the defense contractors responsible for the damage to their homes and livelihoods. Imagine if Syrians could sue the companies that used their homeland as a testing ground for new weapons. It’s unfortunate that we need deterrents like this to keep corporations from committing crimes against humanity, but all the evidence suggests they’ll do so unless they can be convinced it’s bad for business.  

The landmark lawsuit challenges the impunity with which corporations act on behalf of the U.S. military and federal government. While the federal government skirted accountability for the horrific torture at Abu Ghraib, finding legal shelter in the Federal Tort Claims Act that grants them immunity from legal liability, the Al Shimari case is challenging the idea that corporations who contract with the federal government would also hold such immunity. 

The three plaintiffs, Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, Asa’ad Hamza Hanfoosh Zuba’e, and Salah Hasan Nusaif Al-Ejaili, were finally able to share their story, 20 years after their torture was uncovered. The lawsuit, filed in 2008, alleges that “CACI participated in a conspiracy to commit unlawful conduct including torture and war crimes at Abu Ghraib prison, where it was hired by the United States to provide interrogation services.”  

This case has the potential to provide an avenue for accountability for victims of all the corporations who have profited from the Global War on Terror and anti-Muslim violence since 2001. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the entire apparatus of the U.S. government shifted to focus on “counterterrorism,” oftentimes with uncritical support from the media, universities and think tanks, and cultural institutions. And corporations were more than willing to profit from the death and destruction that ensued.  

As we are seeing now, this war never really ended. 

Weapons companies such as Lockheed Martin Corp, Raytheon Technologies and Boeing have made tens of billions of dollars, profiting off an apparatus of violence that targets Muslims here in the U.S. and abroad. The Israeli military is using bombs equipped with Boeing JDAM kits for airstrikes on Palestinian homes. Armed Caterpillar D9 bulldozers are an essential tool in Israel’s ground invasion of Gaza; Caterpillar’s equipment has been a critical tool of destruction of Palestinian homes and farmland for decades. What would it mean if victims of all the violence enacted by corporate military contractors had an avenue to challenge these corporations in a court of law? 

Big Tech like Amazon, Google and Microsoft have contracted with U.S. government agencies pursuing the War on Terror, including the Department of Homeland Security, to provide cloud computing services, GPS software, surveillance technology and more to help run the war. In December 2022, the Pentagon awarded Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle $9 billion to run its Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability program.   

Since accountability from these corporations is next-to-impossible to win, the strategy for addressing their harm is typically consumer activism. This is why, since 2005, Palestinians have called on people of conscience to boycott and divest from companies profiting off Israel’s war.  

Listening to the CACI lawyer defend the company’s record was infuriating — he argued that the military was entirely in charge and thus CACI had no control over its employees. All I could think about is how CACI made millions of dollars from the U.S. government. Why is the sheer fact of the company’s massive profit from torture not enough evidence of their complicity and guilt? 

As we continue to organize politically to end the policies that lead to war on our communities, we must also fight against the corporations profiteering from this violence.  

We must continue to use all avenues at our disposal to lessen the power of those who harm our communities. As voters, we have the power to oust corporate-bought candidates. As consumers and investors, we have power to boycott and divest and urge our affiliated institutions to do the same. The Al Shimari case has the potential to give us yet another critical tool to limit the corporate greed that relies on enacting violence and destruction the world over. 

Indeed, if jurors do eventually find CACI liable, the decision will send a clear warning to corporations worldwide that they may not always get away with the wicked role they play in perpetuating war, militarism, death and destruction. 

Ramah Kudaimi is the Crescendo Campaign Director at the Action Center on Race & the Economy (ACRE). The project focuses on researching and campaigning against corporate complicity in Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry.