Talk:CACI/Archives/2014

California Analysis Center, Incorporated

Officially CACI no longer is an acronym for California Analysis Center, Incorporated so I noted that. 70.174.163.67 03:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a great deal of material to this article, and reorganized it by adding subheadings. Several of my additions, although matters of public record, still require addition of references. I have the references at hand, but require additional time to add all of the citations. I have a great deal of personal experience with this firm.

Woofer23 21:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Woofer23

County Animal Controls of Illinois, Disambiguation page needed

There is a long list of organizations that go by CACI - just google it. A disambiguation page is needed, but I don't know how to set it up.

Delete the sixth paragraph -- POV

The sixth paragraph is not non-POV. There are several errors and non-verifiable facts:

1. "Mercenary" is spelled incorrectly. In addition, "mercenary" in this case is being used as a POV statement. Whether contractors are non-governmental support personnel or mercenaries is debatable.
2. Where is the evidence that the lack of oversight played a "major" role in human rights abuses? The link is broken for the only "reference" listed; the reference, by its title, has a definitive POV.
3. No documentation or reference for even the existence of "CIA secret prisons", much less for the quantity of CACI emplyees or other contractors working in known detention facilities such as Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. In addition, I am sure that there are indeed "accurate records" of how many contractors do exist (how would contractors get paid for their services otherwise?) but they just are not available to the general public.
4. I can't find anything on the existence of an "International Court of Human Rights". Do you mean the International Criminal Court or possibly the International Court of Justice?
5. What is the source of the statement that the use of contractors is one of the "major reason[s]" that the United States won't join the International Court of Human Rights? That they won't join the court because of the employment of CACI or other contract interrogators doesn't make sense. I can think of many other, more relevant reasons that the United States wouldn't join an International Court of Human Rights. 24.96.177.106 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Slant much?

Is this meant to provide information about the company or to run its reputation in the ground for the sake of Iraq for Sale. This page has a decided slant to its rhetoric and is about as fair and balanced as Fox News. This is a disgraceful use of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.16.50 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 September 2006

perhaps it may be best to note that CACI is currently sing over all the claims made in the movie? wich happen to be the ones made in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.144.207 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 9 March 2007

Fluff article

The formerly informative CACI page has been reduced to fluff and banality.

The company operates in secrecy and has its hand in human rights abuses.

Why it is not relevant that CACI has pled guilty to several federal felonies for comitting fraud on the taxpayers and U.S. Depts. of Justice and Defense -- while never being debarred from further government contracts -- is beyond me.

Congress passed a lw making contractors such as CACI criminally culpable under US law for human rights and other violations committed abroad while in the service of the US Defense Dept. To get around this, CACI's contract with the US gov't for its "services" in Iraq (such as those provided at Abu Ghraib), was signed with the US Dept. of the Interior. Since when does the US have national parks in Iraq?

But CACI's minions will not permnit this information to be published here.

Just as the Senate Armed Services and Intellience Committees won't blow CACI's cover, neither will it ever happen here. The poting oftruthful material about CACI is undermined by those who see the truth a "propaganda" and delete anything negative about the comnpany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woofer23 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 April 2007

I'll say-I was passing through, looking for some substance, and I foubnd an article that reads like a defensive response to something no longer in existence. There is little or no solid information here. Actio 05:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There was an extensive presentation of criticisms of CACI in this version of the article from a year ago. It wasn't very well supported by citations, though. Editors who take the time to write out detailed descriptions of a company's misdeeds, but who then don't include their sources, make it easy for corporate flacks to remove the information. My guess is that quite a bit of that criticism could be restored but only if someone is willing to do the work of finding appropriate citations. JamesMLane t c 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)