SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 30 2010, 03:45pm EDT
Contact:
press@ccrjustice.org
Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Abu Ghraib Torture Case
A group of 72 Iraqi citizens who allege they were tortured while
imprisoned at detention facilities across Iraq can continue with their
lawsuit against military contractor L-3 Services, Inc. and a former
employee, a federal judge in Maryland ruled Thursday.
NEW YORK
A group of 72 Iraqi citizens who allege they were tortured while
imprisoned at detention facilities across Iraq can continue with their
lawsuit against military contractor L-3 Services, Inc. and a former
employee, a federal judge in Maryland ruled Thursday.
In a 92-page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Peter J. Messitte denied
the defendants' motions to dismiss the Iraqis' federal and state court
claims. He wrote, "On the facts alleged, Defendants' actions arguably
violated the laws of war such that they are not immune from suit under
the laws of war." The court also rejected claims of government
contractor immunity defense.
"During wartime," the court wrote, "'many things are lawful in that
season, which would not be permitted in a time of peace.' Some actions,
however, have been deemed so repulsive to mankind, or so disconnected
from prosecuting and winning a war, that they are universally condemned.
The law of war attempts to rein in these behaviors. ...One such
universally recognized rule is that torture is prohibited."
The former detainees, all of whom were released without charge, are
represented by Susan L. Burke, of Burke PLLC in Washington, D.C.;
Katherine Gallagher, senior staff attorney at the Center for
Constitutional Rights; and Shereef Akeel, of Akeel & Valentine, PLC
in Troy, Mich.
Susan Burke, of Burke PLLC, stated, "With the Court's ruling, these
innocent men are a step closer to completing the true history of the
infamous Abu Ghraib prison. These men were senselessly tortured by a
company that profited from their misery. They came to U.S. courts
because our laws, as they have for generations, allow their claims to be
heard here."
Katherine Gallagher, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, stated,
"This thoughtful and thorough decision makes it crystal clear that when
corporations, including those which contract with the government, engage
in conduct that it universally condemned, they can be held accountable
for their illegal acts. The court rightly found that the defendants'
status as a contractor cannot shield claims of war crimes and cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment from review."
The lawsuit alleges that L-3 employees, including Adel Nakhla, a U.S.
citizen born in Egypt, tortured and otherwise physically and mentally
abused the detainees who were arrested by coalition forces and held for
up to four years between July 2003 and May 2008 at various detention
facilities in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib.
The detainees assert 20 causes of action, including war crimes including
the war crime of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,
sexual assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, pursuant to the federal Alien Tort Statute and under state
law. The abuses they allege include beatings, hanging by the hands and
feet, electrical shocks, mock executions, threats of death and rape,
sleep deprivation, stress positions, sexual assault, and sensory
deprivation.
Nakhla worked as an Arabic translator from June 2003 through May 2004 at
Abu Ghraib. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Nakhla was photographed
participating in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and confessed
his involvement in acts of torture and abuse to military investigators.
The case is "Wissam Abdullateff Sa'eed Al-Quraishi, et al., v. Adel
Nakhla, et al.," Civil No. PJM 08-1696 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division.
Click here for our page on the case.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
Senate GOP Set to Eviscerate Public Media Funding, 'Dismantle' Outlets Relied on by Millions
The bill threatens "emergency alerts that save lives, local journalism that informs communities, and educational tools that support families, job seekers, and teachers," according to Protect My Public Media.
Jul 16, 2025
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate is on the verge of stripping more than a billion dollars from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which could decimate local news stations.
On Tuesday, the chamber voted 50-50, with a tie broken by Vice President JD Vance to move forward with debate on the package, which is underway as of Wednesday morning.
Three Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—joined Democrats in opposition.
If passed, the bill would codify President Donald Trump's illegal impoundment of more than $9 billion in funds that were already appropriated by Congress.
Defenders of public media have mobilized a last-ditch effort to stop the bill, which strips more than $1.1 billion from the CPB, which includes cuts to NPR and PBS.
The progressive group Our Revolution on Tuesday delivered more than 70,000 petitions to the Senate urging them it to vote against the bill's advancement.
"This is a coordinated, authoritarian attempt to silence dissent and dismantle the public good—not 'fiscal policy,'" the group said in a post on social media.
Despite the bill's advancement to the debate stage, the group Protect My Public Media says that the cuts can still be stopped.
"Changes to the bill are still possible," the group said. "Now is the time to urge your senators to remove the proposal targeting public media from the package."
"Taking back this funding—just $1.60 per person per year—wouldn't simply force stations to scale back," the group continued. "It would dismantle services that millions rely on every day: emergency alerts that save lives, local journalism that informs communities, and educational tools that support families, job seekers, and teachers. In many rural and underserved areas, the loss could be total. Some stations may be forced off the air entirely, leaving entire communities without access to essential information."
Legislators have similarly warned about the bill's devastating effects on local news.
This was highlighted in a letter sent Tuesday by Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.).
"The federal government is the largest single funding source for public television and radio stations," the letter said. "CPB's elimination would decimate public media infrastructure, as the vast majority of its funding goes directly to local stations, many of which rely on it for over half their operating budgets."
More than 70% of CPB funding goes to local news and radio stations, according to its website. This funds more than 1,500 locally-owned public radio and television stations. Around half of those are in rural areas, which are often "news deserts" that lack other sources of regular coverage.
Murkowski, one of three Republicans who voted against the bill Tuesday, noted this at a Senate Appropriations hearing last month. Speaking about public news stations in her home state of Alaska, she said, "[A]lmost to a number, they're saying that they will go under if public broadcasting funds are no longer available to them."
In May, NPR President and CEO Katherine Maher disputed the Republican characterization of these cuts as a cost-saving measure.
"This is not about balancing the federal budget," she said. "The appropriation for public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS, represents less than 0.0001% of the federal budget."
Rather, she said, it's an investment in a local news ecosystem that pays off in the long-run.
"Every $1 of federal funding generates $7 from local sources," she said, "enabling stations to produce local journalism, support local and regional music and arts, and develop creative, informative, and entertaining programming for distribution across the nation."
The plan to cut public broadcast funding is overwhelmingly unpopular. In a poll conducted by Data for Progress last week, just 21% of voters said they wanted to defund public broadcasting including NPR and PBS, compared with 67% who said they wanted to either keep funding at its current levels or increase it.
The Senate vote on whether to pass the rescissions package could take place Wednesday following debate and amendment votes. Should it pass, it will return to the House, where the deadline for its passage is Friday.
Though it moved on to the debate stage Tuesday, just one more Republican defector could force the bill's cuts to public broadcasting to be revised.
"Now it's our job to speak up and make sure the Senate hears us," said Protect My Public Media in a final urgent plea. "Pulling back support from local stations would leave communities less safe, children less prepared for school, and all of us less connected."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The 2020 Playbook on Steroids': Trump DOJ Requests for State Voter Data Spark Alarm
"This all is part of a bigger ploy to further undermine our voting in this country," said Colorado's Democratic secretary of state. "They are actively in a power grab."
Jul 16, 2025
The Trump administration has reportedly embarked on what local election officials and rights groups say is an unprecedented effort to collect data on voters across the U.S. and physically examine election equipment in states across the country, heightening concerns that the president is planning a reprise of his lawless attempt to subvert the 2020 contest.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the Justice Department, headed by Trump loyalist Pam Bondi, "has taken the unusual step of asking at least nine states for copies of their voter rolls, and at least two have turned them over." Colorado and Florida "have provided the Justice Department with information from their lists that is generally available to the public, while most other states said they were reviewing the requests," according to the newspaper.
NPR previously reported that the Department of Justice asked Colorado's top election official in May to hand over "all records" pertaining to 2024 federal elections—a request that "could be interpreted to include voter registration materials, ballots, and voting equipment, much of which is retained by counties, not the secretary of state."
Colorado is where "the most unusual activity is happening," the Post reported Wednesday, noting that Republican operative Jeff Small "says he is working with the White House" as he pushes county clerks to "allow the federal government or a third party to physically examine their election equipment."
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, called the Trump administration's efforts "the 2020 playbook on steroids."
"This all is part of a bigger ploy to further undermine our voting in this country," warned Griswold. "They are actively in a power grab."
Even some Republican election officials responded with alarm to the Trump administration's requests for voter data and access to voting equipment.
"To me, it felt like they were wanting to intervene before 2026," Justin Grantham, the Republican clerk in Colorado's Fremont County, told the Post, referring to the upcoming midterms.
Carly Koppes, a Republican clerk in Weld County, Colorado, said she rejected requests for a federal inspection of election equipment.
"That's a hard stop for me," said Koppes. "Nobody gets access to my voting equipment, for security reasons."
"President Trump and his allies are trying to lay the groundwork to interfere with a free and fair election in 2026."
In late March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that, if enacted, would bar states from counting mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day and force states to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote in federal elections, among other changes.
"Enforcement of this unconstitutional executive order would impact tens of millions of Americans every federal election cycle," analysts at the Center for American Progress wrote after Trump signed the directive.
While the president's order has been mostly blocked in federal court, watchdogs warned that it underscores the Trump administration's commitment to restricting ballot access.
The Post reported Wednesday that Justice Department lawyers have pointed to the president's executive order in their requests for states to share voter data, citing a provision of the order instructing the attorney general to "enter into information-sharing agreements" with state election officials.
"President Trump and his allies are trying to lay the groundwork to interfere with a free and fair election in 2026," Samantha Tarazi, CEO of the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, told the Post.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Fighter We Need': Progressive Adelita Grijalva Wins Special Primary for Her Late Father's Seat
"Adelita's victory tonight isn't just a win for families in Southern Arizona," said the national director of the Working Families Party. "It's a win for all those who believe in a government that works for everyday people."
Jul 16, 2025
Adelita Grijalva prevailed Tuesday in an Arizona Democratic primary race to fill the U.S. House seat left vacant by the death of her father, progressive stalwart Raúl Grijalva.
Grijalva previously served on the Pima County Board of Supervisors and the Tucson Unified School District Governing Board, and her congressional bid is backed by prominent progressive lawmakers and organizations including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, National Nurses United, and the Working Families Party.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, implored Arizona voters to turn out for Grijalva in a video message posted on the morning of the primary contest, calling her "the fighter we need to take on Trump and the establishment."
With more than three-quarters of the vote tallied, Grijalva has 62% support. Deja Foxx, a 25-year-old activist and Grijalva's closest competitor, has received 21% of the vote as of this writing, according to The Associated Press.
"This is a victory not for me, but for our community and the progressive movement my dad started in Southern Arizona more than 50 years ago," Grijalva said following her decisive win.
"We know that Adelita is going to be a fearless fighter for working families in her district."
Arizona's 7th Congressional District is heavily Democratic, so Grijalva—who campaigned on defending Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security from Republican attacks, bolstering workers' right to unionize, and lowering housing costs—is virtually guaranteed to win the September special election.
"Adelita's victory tonight isn't just a win for families in Southern Arizona. It's a win for all those who believe in a government that works for everyday people," Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, said in a statement late Tuesday. "Voters are tired of politicians who hide in the pockets of their billionaire donors. We know that Adelita is going to be a fearless fighter for working families in her district."
"There's real energy right now for a different kind of politics, one that puts working people first," Mitchell added. "That's exactly why the Working Families Party was founded—to take on the corporate interests and billionaires who are rigging our economy and taking a wrecking ball to our democracy."
The New York Times faced backlash for its specious coverage of the race's outcome, which characterized Grijalva's win as a blow to progressive momentum generated by Zohran Mamdani's victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary.
The newspaper, whose coverage of Mamdani's mayoral bid has been a frequent source of outrage and ridicule, described Foxx as "a Gen Z activist who tried to recreate the youthful magic" of Mamdani's campaign, glossing over ideological differences and other factors.
Mamdani did not weigh in on the race, and many of the progressive lawmakers and groups that supported the New York City democratic socialist backed Grijalva. Foxx, who has a large social media following, was endorsed by a PAC founded by activist David Hogg.
"This is where superficial generational discourse gets you," writer Adam Johnson observed on social media in response to the Times coverage of the Arizona contest. "An AOC and Bernie-endorsed candidate wins and it's somehow an indictment on Mamdani—who didn't endorse anyone and has nothing to do with the race."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular