October, 13 2015, 08:45am EDT
ACLU Suing Psychologists Who Designed and Ran CIA Torture Program
Three former Central Intelligence Agency prisoners represented by the American Civil Liberties Union are filing a lawsuit today against the two psychologists who designed and implemented the CIA's torture program.
SPOKANE, Wash.
Three former Central Intelligence Agency prisoners represented by the American Civil Liberties Union are filing a lawsuit today against the two psychologists who designed and implemented the CIA's torture program.
The CIA-contracted psychologists, James Mitchell and John "Bruce" Jessen, helped convince the agency to adopt torture as official policy, making millions of dollars in the process. The two men, who had previously worked for the U.S. military, designed the torture methods and performed illegal human experimentation on CIA prisoners to test and refine the program. They personally took part in torture sessions and oversaw the program's implementation for the CIA.
The lawsuit is being brought on behalf of three men -- Gul Rahman, Suleiman Abdullah Salim, and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud -- who were tortured using methods developed by Mitchell and Jessen, as detailed in the Senate Intelligence Committee's landmark report on CIA torture. The U.S. has never charged or accused the victims of any crime. One of them was tortured to death, and the other two are now free.
"Mitchell and Jessen conspired with the CIA to torture these three men and many others," said Steven Watt, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. "They claimed that their program was scientifically based, safe, and proven, when in fact it was none of those things. The program was unlawful and its methods barbaric. Psychology is a healing profession, but Mitchell and Jessen violated the ethical code of 'do no harm' in some of the most abhorrent ways imaginable."
Torture methods devised by Mitchell and Jessen and inflicted on the three men include slamming them into walls, stuffing them inside coffin-like boxes, exposing them to extreme temperatures and ear-splitting levels of music, starving them, inflicting various kinds of water torture, depriving them of sleep for days, and chaining them in stress positions designed for pain and to keep them awake for days on end. The two victims who survived still suffer physically and psychologically from the effects of their torture.
The plaintiffs include the family of Gul Rahman, who died because of torture. He was an Afghan refugee living in Pakistan with his wife and their four daughters, making a living selling wood to fellow residents of their refugee camp. While in Islamabad for a medical checkup in 2002, Rahman was abducted in a joint U.S.-Pakistani operation and rendered to a CIA "black site" in Afghanistan. According to the Senate report, Rahman was tortured by a team of CIA interrogators that included Jessen and died in his cell. An autopsy and internal CIA review found the cause of death to be hypothermia caused "in part by being forced to sit on the bare concrete floor without pants," with the contributing factors of "dehydration, lack of food, and immobility due to 'short chaining.'" The family has never been officially notified of his death, and his body has never been returned to them for burial.
Another plaintiff is Suleiman Abdullah Salim, a fisherman from Tanzania. He had recently married a Somali woman and was doing business in Somalia when he was abducted by the CIA. He was then rendered to two of the agency's black site prisons in Afghanistan, where he was held and tortured for over a year before being transferred to Bagram Air Force Base. The U.S. military released him over five years after his abduction with a letter acknowledging that he poses no threat to the United States. He now lives in Zanzibar with his wife and three-year-old daughter.
"The terrible torture I suffered at the hands of the CIA still haunts me. I still have flashbacks, but I've learned to deal with them with a psychologist who tries to help people, not hurt them." said Salim. "This lawsuit is about achieving justice. No person should ever have to endure the horrors that these two men inflicted."
The third plaintiff is Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud. He fled his native Libya in 1991, fearing persecution for his opposition to Muammar Qaddafi's dictatorship. In 2003, Ben Soud was captured in a joint U.S.-Pakistani raid on his home and sent to two secret CIA prisons in Afghanistan, where he was held and tortured for over two years. Ben Soud saw Mitchell in the first of these prisons, later identifying him as a man present in a room where CIA interrogators were torturing him by forcibly submerging him in ice water. In 2005, the CIA sent him to Libya, where he was tortured and sentenced to life imprisonment after a sham trial. Ben Soud was freed in 2011 after Gaddafi was deposed, and he now lives with his wife and three children.
In addition to torturing prisoners themselves, Mitchell and Jessen trained and supervised other CIA personnel in their methods. In 2005, they founded a company -- Mitchell, Jessen & Associates -- that the CIA contracted with to run its entire torture program, including supplying interrogators and security for black sites and rendition operations. According to the Senate report, the government paid the company $81 million over several years. The CIA let Mitchell and Jessen themselves evaluate the effectiveness of their torture in "breaking" detainees, and the agency has since admitted that this was a mistake.
Citing experiments conducted on dogs in the 1960s, Mitchell and Jessen proposed to the CIA a program based on the intentional infliction of intense pain and suffering, both physical and mental. In the 1960s' experiments, dogs were subjected to random electric shocks, and they eventually collapsed into a passive state termed "learned helplessness." According to Mitchell and Jessen's theory, if humans were psychologically destroyed through torture and abuse, they would become totally unable to resist demands for information. Mitchell and Jessen invented different "phases" of the torture process with the aim of breaking down prisoners into a state of "learned helplessness" in a systematized fashion.
"These psychologists devised and supervised an experiment to degrade human beings and break their bodies and minds," said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "It was cruel and unethical, and it violated a prohibition against human experimentation that has been in place since World War II."
The CIA adopted Mitchell and Jessen's proposals, and in August of 2002, the agency secured Justice Department authorization in the so-called "torture memos," which were later rescinded by the Justice Department.
The lawsuit is being filed in federal court in Washington State, where Mitchell, Jessen & Associates was based and where Jessen still lives. The plaintiffs are suing Mitchell and Jessen under the Alien Tort Statute -- which allows federal lawsuits for gross human rights violations -- for their commission of torture; cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; non-consensual human experimentation; and war crimes.
The attorneys on the case are Steven Watt, Dror Ladin, Hina Shamsi, and Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU, and Emily Chiang and La Rond Baker of the ACLU of Washington.
A short documentary featuring interviews with a plaintiff and a psychology expert, plus graphics and more information, are at:
https://www.aclu.org/darkness
Today's complaint is at:
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/salim-v-mitchell-complaint
Photos of the plaintiffs for press use are at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1u48invqaxeji5t/AACtreHhompyNo4uEQTopS2fa
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Experts Sound Alarm Over Trump's Promise to Let RFK Jr. 'Control' Health Agencies
"RFK Jr. is an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist," said one scientist. "A Trump win will be an absolute catastrophe for public health."
Oct 30, 2024
Public health experts reacted with alarm Wednesday to reports that former President Donald Trump promised anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. control over federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Agriculture should the Republican nominee defeat Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in next week's election.
Speaking at last week's bigotry-laden campaign rally at Madison Square Garden in New York, Trump said that if he wins, he'll let Kennedy—who in August suspended his Independent presidential campaign and endorsed the GOP nominee—"go wild on health."
"I'm gonna let him go wild on the foods," Trump vowed. "I'm gonna let him go wild on the medicines."
In a video posted Tuesday on social media, Kennedy said that the GOP nominee promised him control of the Health and Human Services Department, Department of Agriculture, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health, "and a few others."
Kennedy said control of these agencies "is key to making America healthy, because we've got to get off of seed oils, and we've got to get off of pesticide-intensive agriculture."
Despite his stated interest in tackling major public health issues including government corruption and Big Pharma greed, experts warned that, as Columbia University molecular biologist Lucky Tran
said earlier this week: "RFK Jr is an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. A Trump win will be an absolute catastrophe for public health."
Kennedy is arguably the world's leading proponent of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, including that vaccines cause autism. He has mixed spurious disparagement of the safety and efficacy of vaccines, including for Covid-19, with attacks on the well-documented deadly greed of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is some ideological overlap between Trump and Kennedy—who, like the ex-president is a former Democrat—including the shared belief in defunding federal public health agencies, purging their ranks, and investigating and possibly prosecuting some of their employees.
"If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags," Kennedy recently
wrote on social media.
Keep ReadingShow Less
16 AGs Push Congress to Pass Federal Ban on Price Gouging
"During and after a crisis, it is unfair—and harmful to our economy—for companies to reap higher profits for selling goods and services that families need to survive."
Oct 30, 2024
The attorneys general of 15 states and the District of Columbia on Wednesday wrote to the top Democrats and Republicans in Congress to advocate for a federal prohibition on price gouging.
"Businesses should never be able to hike prices during an emergency just to increase their profits," said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the letter. "When companies take advantage of major disruptions and raise prices of food and supplies that New Yorkers rely on, my office holds them accountable, getting people their money back and protecting their wallets."
"Our federal government should have the same power to protect Americans when disaster strikes and stop price gouging at the national level that threatens both hardworking families and small businesses," asserted James, a Democrat.
The letter points out that "over 40 states across the country make price gouging unlawful, reflecting the widespread national consensus that exists, across ideological and regional differences, that in the immediate run-up to and aftermath of a crisis, it is unfair—and harmful to our economy long-term—to reap higher profits for selling goods and services people need to survive."
"As crises, whether natural or human in origin, become more common... now is the time to work constructively in a bipartisan fashion to create federal price gouging protections."
"Despite that consensus, there is currently no federal price gouging prohibition—and individual states face heightened challenges when protecting consumers from price gouging when so many product supply chains are nationwide," it continues. "A federal price gouging prohibition would provide critical partnership to state enforcement and protect consumers and small businesses alike."
The letter—addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) as well as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—lays out how price gouging bans address market failures and strengthen the economy, explaining that "they act like 'circuit breakers' in a stock market: They put a pause on panic-driven price changes and give everyone a chance to make sure they are making the right pricing choices for the long-term."
Price gouging prohibitions also "prevent inefficient pricing overreactions in the heat of a crisis" and "help to prevent hoarding," the letter adds. Further, they "can restrain inefficiently high prices for products where there is very little competition."
"A federal price gouging prohibition that complemented state prohibitions would allow federal enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, to identify and restrain unjustified and irrational price increases throughout the entire supply chain, unconstrained by the complications of state-by-state enforcement," the attorneys general wrote. "Such a prohibition should not preempt state laws, but complement and strengthen them by focusing federal enforcement on price gouging that cannot practicably be stopped by a single state."
"Our states provide many different models for how such a price gouging statute might be framed," the coalition noted. "But as crises, whether natural or human in origin, become more common and the cost of living continues to be too high for working families, we believe now is the time to work constructively in a bipartisan fashion to create federal price gouging protections to complement price gouging protections that already exist in almost every state."
In addition to the D.C. attorney general, James was joined by the AGs in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
"During and after a crisis, it is unfair—and harmful to our economy—for companies to reap higher profits for selling goods and services that families need to survive," said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. "That is why California's price gouging law protects Californians during and after wildfires, severe weather storms, and other emergencies."
"A federal price gouging prohibition that complements state law would build on successful partnerships between states and the federal government to protect consumers by making it easier to enforce price gouging prohibitions nationally, up the supply chain," the Democrat added. "This would benefit California consumers and small businesses who currently bear the brunt of their suppliers' price setting."
The letter comes amid a fossil fuel-driven climate emergency featuring extreme weather that is increasingly impacting U.S. communities and less than a week away from Election Day, when Americans will choose the next Congress and President. In the race for the White House, former Republican President Donald Trump faces Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. In August, the Democrat proposed a federal ban on price gouging by food supplies and grocery stores.
"I still remember our mother sitting at that yellow formica table late at night, cup of tea in hand, a pile of bills in front of her, trying to make it all work. And I've heard from so many of you who are facing even greater financial pressures," Harris said in a Tuesday campaign speech. "I will enact the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on groceries, cap the price of insulin, and limit out-of-pocket prescription costs for all Americans. I will fight to make sure that hardworking Americans can actually afford a place to live."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Low-Wage Workers Endorse Slate of Candidates to Win Fairer Economy
One Fair Wage Action is endorsing 25 national and state candidates who are "committed to raising the minimum wage and ending the federal subminimum wage of just $2.13 an hour."
Oct 30, 2024
A U.S. advocacy group fighting for a living wage for its hundreds of thousands of service industry employee members on Wednesday announced its endorsement of a slate of "pro-worker candidates" in next week's elections.
One Fair Wage (OFW) Action—whose members include more than 300,000 U.S. restaurant workers, owners, and other service industry employees—said following its recent endorsement of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris that "these candidates—from Arizona to Michigan to New York—are committed to raising the minimum wage and ending the federal subminimum wage of just $2.13 an hour, a poverty-level wage that leaves tipped and service workers struggling in one of the nation's fastest-growing, yet lowest-paid sectors."
"These candidates understand the need to challenge corporate interests that have long held back meaningful wage reform."
"As families across the nation struggle with rising costs, One Fair Wage Action's coalition of over 300,000 service workers, employers, and allies are mobilizing to amplify the call for living wages," the group continued. "In key battleground states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, the organization will focus on reaching voters who are demanding economic justice and solutions to the cost-of-living crisis."
OFW Action endorsed Democratic candidates including:
- Arizona: Ruben Gallego (U.S. Senate); Junelle Cavero and Oscar De Los Santos (U.S. House); and Mariana Sandoval (state Legislature);
- California: Rose Penelope Yee, Lateefah Simon, Laura Friedman, Rudy Salas, Jimmy Gomez, David Kim, and Stephen Houlahan (U.S. House);
- Illinois: Nikki Budzinski and Lauren Underwood (U.S. House);
- Massachusetts: Leigh Davis and Natalie Higgins (state Legislature);
- Michigan: Elissa Slotkin (U.S. Senate) and Carl Marlinga (U.S. House);
- Nevada: Steven Horsford (U.S. House);
- New York: Adriano Espaillat, John Avlon, Rob Lubin, Grace Meng, Andrea Morse, and John Mannion (U.S. House); and
- Wisconsin: Rebecca Cooke (U.S. House).
"These candidates understand the need to challenge corporate interests that have long held back meaningful wage reform," OFW Action president Saru Jayaraman said Wednesday "For years, powerful lobbying groups have fought to preserve the subminimum wage for tipped workers at just $2.13 an hour, forcing millions of tipped and service workers, who are overwhelmingly women and people of color, to suffer from the highest rates of economic instability and sexual harassment of any industry."
"These candidates are committed to putting a stop to this practice and ensuring that every worker is paid fairly and with dignity," she asserted. "By electing leaders who prioritize fair wages over corporate profits, we can finally create an economy that values the contributions of all workers—not just those at the top."
Last month, OFW applauded Harris for backing an end to the subminimum wage for tipped workers, arguing the policy stands in stark contrast with the platform of former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, whose scheme to end taxes on tipped employees has been panned by experts as potentially harmful to the workers it purports to help.
"For too long, well-funded interests have blocked progress on fair wages," Jayaraman added. "These candidates bring a commitment to meaningful change from within the system. They understand the urgent need to address the imbalance that keeps so many workers struggling to make ends meet. One Fair Wage Action is mobilizing to ensure that these voices are heard, so that workers themselves drive this change at the polls."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular