Preemption
| Pages | 68-69 |
68 Volume 17, July–September 2011 international law update
© 2012 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
violation of international law, a defendant must
provide substantial assistance with the purpose of
facilitating the alleged violation.” 658 F.3d 401.
: Aziz v. Alcolac, 658 F.3d 388 (4th Cir.
2011).
PREEMPTION
F C
A
G ,
U.S. ’
In response to the September 11th attacks on
the United States, a multinational force, including
the United States and Great Britain, invaded
Iraq in March 2003 to depose Saddam Hussein
and rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
After no weapons were found and Hussein was
deposed, the war in Iraq continued. During the
course of the war, the U.S. military seized and
detained Iraqi citizens suspected of being enemy
combatants and some were imprisoned at Abu
Ghraib prison. ere was a severe shortage of
military intelligence personnel, which prompted
the U.S. government to contract with private
corporations to provide civilian interrogators and
interpreters. e contractors included Defendants
CACI Premier Technology, Inc., a subsidiary of
CACI International, Inc. ey were required to
comply with Department of Defense interrogation
policies and procedure whenever they conducted
intelligence interrogations, detainee debriengs,
and tactical questioning of people in custody.
e President signed an order in 2002 stating
that the ird Geneva Convention did not apply to
the conict with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and that
the detainees were not entitled to the protection
aorded prisoners of war by the convention.
However, the order did require that the detainees be
treated humanely and in a manner consistent with
the Geneva Conventions. e Secretary approved a
list of techniques for interrogations, but rescinded
his approval of some, leaving confusion as to which
techniques were approved. e record reected
that there was an ongoing policy not to engage in
torture, but the denition of torture was a subject
of continued debate.
e Plaintis, four Iraqi citizens, were
detained by the U.S. military in Abu Ghraib
prison from 2003 to 2008. ey allege that they
were interrogated in dangerous and unauthorized
stress positions, subjected to sexual assault, repeated
beatings, deprivation of food, water and sleep,
forced witnessing of the rape of another prisoner,
and imprisoned under conditions of sensory
deprivation. ey allege that the Defendants
CACI committed the abuse and covered it up in
conspiracy with U.S. military personnel.
e district court granted CACI’s motion to
stay discovery, but denied its motion to dismiss
based on the political question doctrine, federal
preemption, and derivative sovereign immunity.
CACI appeals.
e United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit reverses and remands with
instructions to dismiss the case. For the preemption
issue, the Court concludes that the plaintis’ tort
claims are preempted based on the uniquely federal
interest involve in the case. e Court uses Boyle v.
United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1998), to
support its reasoning. In Boyle, the Supreme Court
determined that the contractor should not be held
liable for implementing the government’s design
and that entertaining the plainti’s tort case would
undermine the unique federal interests in national
defense. If state tort liability were permitted, the
federal interests would be have been adversely
aected.
“In this case, that uniquely federal interest
was especially important in view of the recognized
shortage of military personnel and the need
for assistance in interrogating detainees at Abu
Ghraib prison. Not only would potential tort
liability against such contractors aect military
To continue reading
Request your trial