April, 22 2016, 04:15pm EDT

Court Rules ACLU Lawsuit Against CIA Torture Psychologists Can Proceed
Judge Rejects Psychologists’ Motion to Dismiss Case Filed on Behalf of Three CIA Torture Victims
SPOKANE, Wash.
In a decision today that is unprecedented for a lawsuit involving CIA torture, a federal judge said that he would allow a lawsuit against the two psychologists who designed and implemented the CIA program to move forward.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three men -- Gul Rahman, Suleiman Abdullah Salim, and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud -- who were tortured using methods developed by the CIA-contracted psychologists, James Mitchell and John "Bruce" Jessen.
Announcing his ruling from the bench at a hearing today on the psychologists' motion to dismiss, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Justin Quackenbush gave attorneys in the case 30 days to come up with a plan for discovery, a first in a lawsuit concerning CIA torture.
"This is a historic win in the fight to hold the people responsible for torture accountable for their despicable and unlawful actions," said ACLU Staff Attorney Dror Ladin, who argued in court today. "Thanks to this unprecedented ruling, CIA victims will be able to call their torturers to account in court for the first time."
The judge said that he would deny the psychologists' motion, which had argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the judiciary could not consider the case because it is a "political question" for only the executive and legislative branches to decide. Mitchell and Jessen also argued that they have immunity from lawsuits because they were working as government contractors.
Until now, every lawsuit trying to hold people accountable for the CIA torture program has been dismissed before reaching the merits because the government successfully argued that letting the cases proceed would reveal state secrets. But earlier this month, in an unprecedented move, the Justice Department filed a "statement of interest" in the case but specifically did not invoke the state-secrets privilege.
To the contrary, the government indicated that it would be open to the case proceeding to discovery if certain information is off limits, such as the identities of covert CIA operatives. The ACLU said it believes it can come to an agreement with the Justice Department on a set of procedures for information that is not relevant to the lawsuit.
The torture endured by the plaintiffs was 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 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.
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. 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 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. 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 his young daughter.
The third plaintiff is Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud. He fled his native Libya in 1991, fearing persecution for his opposition to Muammar Gadhafi'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. Ben Soud was freed in 2011 after Gadhafi 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.
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 was 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.
All case documents are at:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/salim-v-mitchell-lawsuit-against-psychologists-behind-cia-torture-program
A short documentary featuring interviews with a plaintiff and a psychology expert, plus graphics and more information, are at:
https://www.aclu.org/darkness
Photos of the plaintiffs for press use are at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1u48invqaxeji5t/AACtreHhompyNo4uEQTopS2fa
This statement is at:
https://www.aclu.org/news/court-rules-aclu-lawsuit-against-cia-torture-psychologists-can-proceed
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
Trump Signs Executive Order to Advance 'Deeply Dangerous' Deep-Sea Mining
"The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn't restricted to the ocean floor: It will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it," one campaigner warned.
Apr 24, 2025
Amid global calls for a ban on deep-sea mining to protect marine ecosystems, U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to advance the risky practice and "restore American dominance in offshore critical minerals and resources."
"The broad order avoids a direct confrontation with the United Nations-backed International Seabed Authority and seeks essentially to jump-start the mining of U.S. waters as part of a push to offset China's sweeping control of the critical minerals industry," notedReuters, which had previewed the measure aimed at attaining nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, titanium, and rare earth elements.
"The International Seabed Authority—created by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. has not ratified—has for years been considering standards for deep-sea mining in international waters, although it has yet to formalize them due to unresolved differences over acceptable levels of dust, noise, and other factors from the practice," the agency reported.
Trump's order directs Cabinet members including Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick—whose department oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—to expedite the permit process and work on various related reports.
"Authorizing deep-sea mining outside international law is like lighting a match in a room full of dynamite—it threatens ecosystems, global cooperation, and U.S. credibility all at once."
Deep-sea mining is opposed by over 30 countries as well as academics and advocacy groups worldwide. Among them is Greenpeace USA, whose campaigner Arlo Hemphill said Thursday that "authorizing deep-sea mining outside international law is like lighting a match in a room full of dynamite—it threatens ecosystems, global cooperation, and U.S. credibility all at once."
"We condemn this administration's attempt to launch this destructive industry on the high seas in the Pacific by bypassing the United Nations process," Hemphill declared. "This is an insult to multilateralism and a slap in the face to all the countries and millions of people around the world who oppose this dangerous industry."
"But this executive order is not the start of deep-sea mining. Everywhere governments have tried to start deep-sea mining, they have failed. This will be no different," he added. "We call on the international community to stand against this unacceptable undermining of international cooperation by agreeing to a global moratorium on deep-sea mining. The United States government has no right to unilaterally allow an industry to destroy the common heritage of humankind, and rip up the deep sea for the profit of a few corporations."
No exaggeration, deep sea mining could cause the massive collapse of the entire deep sea ecosystem and food chain. This is an existential risk to every person on this planet. www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/c...
[image or embed]
— Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net) April 24, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Ocean Conservancy vice president for external affairs Jeff Watters also blasted the move, saying that "this executive order flies in the face of NOAA's mission. NOAA is charged with protecting, not imperiling, the ocean and its economic benefits, including fishing and tourism; and scientists agree that deep-sea mining is a deeply dangerous endeavor for our ocean and all of us who depend on it."
"Areas of the U.S. seafloor where test mining took place over 50 years ago still haven't fully recovered," Watters pointed out. "The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn't restricted to the ocean floor: It will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it. Evidence tells us that areas targeted for deep-sea mining often overlap with important fisheries, raising serious concerns about the impacts on the country's $321 billion fishing industry."
He highlighted that "NOAA is already being threatened by this administration's unprecedented cuts. NOAA is the eyes and ears for our water and air. NOAA provides Americans with accessible and accurate weather forecasts; it tracks hurricanes and tsunamis; it responds to oil spills; it keeps seafood on the table; and so much more. Forcing the agency to carry out deep-sea mining permitting while these essential services are slashed will only harm our ocean and our country."
"It's not just our country this executive order would harm: This action has far-reaching implications beyond the U.S.," Watters added, warning that by unilaterally allowing deep-sea mining, "the administration is opening a door for other countries to do the same—and all of us, and the ocean we all depend on, will be worse off for it."
As The New York Timesreported:
The executive order could pave the way for the Metals Company, a prominent seabed mining company, to receive an expedited permit from NOAA to actively mine for the first time. The publicly traded company, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, disclosed in March that it would ask the Trump administration through a U.S. subsidiary for approval to mine in international waters. The company has already spent more than $500 million doing exploratory work.
"We have a boat that's production-ready," said Gerard Barron, the company's chief executive, in an interview on Thursday. "We have a means of processing the materials in an allied friendly partner nation. We're just missing the permit to allow us to begin."
In response to the late March disclosure—which came during International Seabed Authority negotiations—Louisa Casson, senior campaigner for Greenpeace International, said that "this is another of the Metals Company's pathetic ploys and an insult to multilateralism. It shows that a moratorium on deep-sea mining is more urgently needed than ever. It also proves that the company's CEO Gerard Barron's plans never focused on solutions for the climate catastrophe."
"The Metals Company is desperate and now is encouraging a breach of customary international law by announcing their intent to mine the international seabed through the United States' Deep-Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act," the camapigner asserted. "This comes after the Metals Company has spent years exerting immense pressure on the International Seabed Authority to try and force governments to allow mining in the international seabed—the common heritage of humankind."
Casson stressed that "states, civil society, scientists, companies, and Indigenous communities continue to resist these efforts. Having tried and failed to pressure the international community to meet their demands, this reckless announcement is a slap in the face to international cooperation."
Less than a week later, the Norwegian deep-sea mining company Loke Marine Minerals declared bankruptcy—which Haldis Tjeldflaat Helle, a campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic, noted came "on the same day that we shut down a deep-sea mining conference in Bergen."
The Norwegian government in December halted plans to move forward with deep-sea mining in the Arctic Ocean, which Steve Trent, CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, had called "a testament to the power of principled, courageous political action, and... a moment to celebrate for environmental advocates, ocean ecosystems, and future generations alike."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Doctors Without Borders Says Trump Aid Cuts 'Are a Human-Made Disaster' for Millions
"We are an emergency response organization, but we have never seen anything like this massive disruption to global health and humanitarian programs."
Apr 24, 2025
As the Trump administration, spearheaded by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, dramatically slashes U.S. humanitarian assistance, the international medical charity Doctors Without Borders warned Thursday that the cuts are already "having devastating consequences for people who rely upon aid" across the Global South.
"The U.S. has long been the leading supporter of global health and humanitarian programs, responsible for around 40% of all related funding," Doctors Without Borders, known by its French acronym MSF, said in a statement. "These U.S. investments have helped improve the health and well-being of communities around the globe—and totaled less than 1% of the annual federal budget."
"It's shocking to see the U.S. abandon its leadership role in advancing global health and humanitarian efforts."
However, with the Trump administration slashing funding for U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contracts by 90%, including for programs that fed and provided healthcare for millions of people and fought diseases like malaria and HIV/AIDS, MSF USA CEO Avril Benoît said there will be "more preventable deaths and untold suffering around the world."
"These sudden cuts by the Trump administration are a human-made disaster for the millions of people struggling to survive amid wars, disease outbreaks, and other emergencies," Benoît warned. "We are an emergency response organization, but we have never seen anything like this massive disruption to global health and humanitarian programs."
"The risks are catastrophic, especially since people who rely on foreign assistance are already among the most vulnerable in the world," she added.
Although MSF received no U.S. government funding, the group noted that "we work closely with other health and humanitarian organizations to deliver vital services, and many of our activities involve programs that have been disrupted due to funding cuts."
"It will be much more difficult and costly to provide care when so many ministries of health have been affected globally and there are fewer community partners overall," the group said. "We will also be facing fewer places to refer patients for specialized services, as well as shortages and stockouts due to hamstrung supply chains."
"It's shocking to see the U.S. abandon its leadership role in advancing global health and humanitarian efforts," Benoît said. "U.S. assistance has been a lifeline for millions of people... We urge the administration and Congress to maintain commitments to support critical global health and humanitarian aid."
The MSF warning comes after the United Nations World Food Program said earlier this month that the Trump cuts to lifesaving aid programs "could amount to a death sentence for millions of people facing extreme hunger and starvation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Chief Urges 'Maximum Restraint' as India-Pakistan Tensions Flare After Kashmir Massacre
"Any issues between Pakistan and India, we believe can be and should be resolved peacefully through meaningful mutual engagement," said a spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres.
Apr 24, 2025
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Thursday led calls for India and Pakistan to "exercise maximum restraint" as the nuclear-armed neighbors took tit-for-tat measures against each other in the wake of Tuesday's massacre of 26 people in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan warned India that it was committing an "act of war" by suspending the landmark Indus Waters Treaty, which allows both countries to share the vital river system's flow. Pakistan announced the suspension of trade and closed its airspace to Indian flights. Both countries closed border ports of entry, canceled visas, and took other measures against each other.
India said it was downgrading relations with Pakistan, whom it blamed for supporting "cross-border terrorism" after gunmen killed 25 Indians and one Nepali and wounded at least 17 others at a popular vacation spot in Pahalgam, Kashmir on Tuesday.
"May sanity prevail between both nations."
A front group of the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba claimed responsibility for the attack, which killed mostly tourists.
Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif countered that his country's government believes "very strongly" that the attack "was a false flag operation."
Speaking Thursday, Stephane Dujarric, Guterres' spokesperson,
said that "we very much appeal to both the governments of Pakistan and India to exercise maximum restraint, and to ensure that the situation and the developments we've seen do not deteriorate any further."
"Any issues between Pakistan and India, we believe can be and should be resolved peacefully through meaningful mutual engagement," he added.
Progressives from both sides of the border echoed calls for restraint.
"We, the people of Kashmir, have already suffered so much over the years—and now, more than ever, we want peace to prevail in our homeland," Kashmiri social activist Jasib Shabir Bhat said on social media Wednesday. "We stand united for peace, for humanity, and for a better future for all."
Pakistani authori and activist Ehtesham Hassan wrote that "as a Pakistani who visited India and received immense love, I am devastated by the news from Pahalgam."
"I wish peace for the common people of India and Pakistan regardless of religion," Hassan added. "May sanity prevail between both nations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular