CACI response to July 27 article on Iraq contracts

We represent CACI International Inc and CACI PT, Inc. This letter is in response to the above-referenced article appearing in GovExec.com on July 28, 2004. That article contains a false insinuation that we call upon you to correct in your next edition.

Specifically, your article states that a review of government contracting documents shows that "[s]ome contractors working at U.S.-run prisons and military locations in Iraq were expected to oversee, monitor and manage security and intelligence-related activities, including the interrogation of detainees." In the next sentence, your article asserts that "[t]he description of [the contractors'] work stands in contrast to the picture painted in the wake of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, when officials indicated military personnel fell within the military chain of command."

These statements leave the false impression that the CACI personnel providing interrogation services in Iraq operated outside of the military chain of command, when in fact just the opposite is true. The CACI personnel performing services in Iraq were at all times subject to the military chain of command and took their orders from military personnel.

While some CACI personnel in Iraq provided administrative supervision over CACI contractors, such as managing and monitoring their pay, billeting, and leave schedules, control over the interrogation operations at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere remained vested exclusively in the military chain of command. For instance, interrogation operations at Abu Ghraib prison was, and remains, under the operational control of the JIDC, a military unit under the command and control of military personnel.

Indeed, the statements of work quoted in your article specifically state that CACI contractors perform under the direction of competent Untied States military authorities and do not empower CACI personnel to exercise operational control over military or federal civilian personnel in Iraq. This reality is confirmed by the sworn congressional testimony of several of the highest-ranking civilian and military personnel in the Defense Department. For example:

• In May 6, 2004 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that civilian interrogators in Iraq "are responsible to the military intelligence who hire them, and have the responsibility for supervising them."
• At the same May 6, 2004 hearing, Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee added that "in the theatre we have employed civilian interrogators and linguists. The Central Command has done this. And these people have no supervisory capabilities at all. They work under the supervision of the officers in charge or non-commissioned officers in charge of whatever team or unit they are on ... ."
• In July 22, 2004 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lieutenant General Mikolashek provided the same information: "[I]n terms of what [civilian contractors] did and how they performed their oversight on a day-to-day basis, it was that military supervisor, that M.I. person in that organization to whom they reported.

It appears that the inaccuracies published in your article are based on a few senior intelligence advisor positions staffed by CACI personnel under the relevant delivery orders. These positions, depending on the delivery order, are staff positions supporting the intelligence officer of either the Army general staff or the joint task force staff. These advisors are located either at the Army or joint task force headquarters, not in the prisons where interrogations take place. While these advisors provide valuable insight and advise to the military intelligence officers they serve, they do not issue orders or exercise operational control of interrogation activities, as such operational control is vested solely in the military chain of command.

The insinuation in your article that CACI personnel conducted interrogation activities that was not subject to the military chain of command, despite the repeated explanations of CACI's management and high-level defense officials to the contrary, casts aspersions on CACI's character, prestige and standing within its field of business. We insist that you immediately and unambiguously correct the false and misleading impression made by your article. We expect that such a correction will be displayed as prominently as the erroneous article that it corrects.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

J. William Koegel, Jr.
Counsel for CACI International Inc. and CACI PT, Inc.