Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T00:33:26.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Saleh v . Titan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Susan L. Burke
Susan L. Burke*
Affiliation:
Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP; for plaintiffs in Saleh et. al. v. Titan et. al
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Protagonist Or Pawn? The Private Contractor In Foreign Affairs
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 99 , 2005 , pp. 375 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 P .W . Singer , Corporate Warriors : The Rise of the Privatized MilyIndustry (2003).

2 Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988).

3 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/ 46, Annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984), entered into force June 26, 1987; Geneva Conventions [-IV, 75 U.N.T.S. 31, 85, 135, 287, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1350, note; Torture Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2304A; War Crimes Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C.A. § 244; Uniform Code of Military Justice, Arts. 77-134; Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3261 3267; 7 U.S.C.A. § 1733 (prohibiting the export of agricultural commodities to countries that practice cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment); U.S. Army Field Manual (prohibiting use of torture and other inhumane treatment of detainees during interrogation, on the basis that it produces intelligence that is inherently unreliable); 22 U.S.C.A. § 262d(a)(l (stating that U.S. policy prohibits providing international assistance to countries that practice cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment); 22 U.S.C.A. § 2151n (prohibiting development assistance to countries that practice cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment); and 22 U.S.C.A. § 2304 (prohibiting security assistance to countries that practice cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment).

4 S. Con. Res. 31, 108 Cons. 1st Session (Mar. 27, 2003).

5 Federal Activities Inventory Control Act of 1998, PL 105-270 § 5(2)(B).

6 Boyle, supra note 2, at 509 (emphasis added). See also, Neilson v. George Diamond Vogel Paint Co., 892 F 2d 1450, 1454-55 (9th Cir. 1990); Lewis v. Babcock Industries, Inc., 985 F.2d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1993); and Barron v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 868 F.Supp. 1203 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (finding that the “ requisite conflict exists only where a contractor cannot at the same time comply with duties under state law and duties under a federal contract”).

7 Snell V. Bell Helicopter Textron, 107 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 1997).

8 Id., at 746 n.l (citing Nielson v. George Diamond Vogel Paint Co., 892 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1990)) (emphasis added). See also, In re Hawaii Fed. Asbestos Cases, 960 F.2d 806, 810 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that the government contractor defense is only available to contractors “who supply military equipment to the government” )

9 See, e.g., Hudgens v. Bell Helicopters/Textron, 328 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2003) (government contractor defense applied to manufacturer of helicopter); Kerstetter v. Pacific Scientific Co., 210 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2000) (government contractor defense applied to manufacturer of jet); Tate v. Boeing Helicopters, 140 F.3d 654 (6th Cir. 1998) (manufacturer of helicopter could utilize the government contractor defense); Oliver v. Oshkosh Truck Corp., 96 F.3d 992 (7th Cir. 1996) (government contractor defense applicable to manufacturer of military support vehicles); and Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1993) (applying government contractor defense to products liability action brought against government manufacturer of an ambulance).

10 See, e.g., Askirv. Brown & Root Services Corp., 95 Civ. 11008, 1997 WL 598587 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (government contractor defense applicable to contractor who supplied logistical support to U.N. peacekeeping operations in Somalia); Richland-Lexington Airport District v. Atlas Properties, Inc. 854 F.Supp. 400 (D. S.C. 1994) (extending the government contractor defense to an environmental clean-up company contracted by the EPA); Lamb v. Martin Marietta Energy Sys., 835 F.Supp. 959 (W.D. Ky. 1993) (finding the government contractor defense is available to the operator of a gas diffusion plant); and Gillory v. Ree's Contract Servs., Inc., 872 F.Supp. 344 (S.D. Miss. 1944) (government contractor defense is available to a security service contracted by the Veterans Administration).

11 Boyle, supra note 2, at 500, 512.

12 id.

13 Boyle, supra note 2, at 505 n. 1; U.S. ex. rel. Ali v. Danie, Man, Johnson & Mendenhall, 355 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004).

14 Ali, supra note 13, at 1146 (quoting McKay v. Rockwell Intl Corp., 704 F.2d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 1983))(emphasis added).

15 See Taguba, Antonio M.,Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade(Taguba Report) 2004 Google Scholar

16 See Fay, George R.,AR 15-6 Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Detention Facility and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade (Fay Report)) 2004 Google Scholar

17 Id.

18 Id.