USA Al-Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology Inc. Case Brief
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
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)
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!