SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
senate intelligence committee
Jeffrey Sterling Completes One Year Of Unjust Prison Sentence
Jun 17, 2016
Yesterday, June 16th, marked one year since Jeffrey Sterling began his 3.5-year prison sentence for divulging classified information to a New York Times journalist, a crime he did not commit. One year, he was deprived of the freedom that so many of us take for granted every day; one year separated from his loving wife, his friends, and his family, and one year of wasted talent as a licensed attorney, a former CIA case officer fluent in Farsi, and a successful investigator who uncovered over 32 million dollars in healthcare fraud.
Today, we want to remind the American people that Jeffrey's conviction and sentence were unjust and renew our appeal to President Barack Obama to pardon him.
Why has he had to suffer such an injustice? Because the United States government wanted to punish Jeffrey for blowing the whistle and for fighting for his civil rights against the CIA?
Jeffrey is a beloved husband, a brother, a friend, and an honorable man who has consistently worked to keep our country safe. He was one of the few African Americans to work as a CIA case officer, and he was incredibly proud of this accomplishment. But he soon became disillusioned by a work environment characterized by racial disparity and was dismayed to learn that the government he worked for was shrouded in mistruths and secrecy.
The CIA planned to use a former Russian nuclear engineer to pass flawed designs to Iranian scientists, a program that was revealed in New York Times Journalist James Risen's book "State of War." Jeffrey had grave concerns about the mismanagement of this program and the potential harm to the citizens of our country, and so he used proper legal channels to inform the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
During Jeffrey's trial, the Department of Justice was unable to present any direct evidence proving that he divulged classified information to James Risen. To convict him, the DOJ relied solely on circumstantial evidence -- emails and telephone conversations -- to try to prove that Jeffrey was Risen's source. In the end, Jeffrey was severely punished for merely communicating with a journalist, which caused a public outcry from press freedom organizations like Reporters Without Borders.
How did the government justify that Jeffrey was their only suspect when over 90 additional individuals had access to the same classified information and could have easily leaked it to James Risen?
As Jeffrey repeatedly made clear throughout his trial, his relationship with Risen was related to his interest in Jeffrey's discrimination lawsuit against the CIA.
When Jeffrey was preparing for his first overseas post for the agency in Germany, his supervisor told him "we are concerned you would stick out as a big black guy speaking Farsi" and informed him that another person would be taking the assignment. When he filed an Equal Opportunity Employment complaint, the CIA fired him. Shortly afterward, he became the first African American to file a racial discrimination lawsuit against the CIA. Still, his suit was never allowed to go forward because the government claimed it would reveal "state secrets."
According to the United States government, Jeffrey then "retaliated" against the CIA by leaking classified information to James Risen. The moment that the administration felt there was an opportunity to incriminate him for fighting for his civil rights, every finger pointed to Jeffrey, and no amount of evidence or lack thereof could defy the verdict that followed.
Jeffrey's case drastically differs from that of former CIA Director General David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to divulging huge amounts of classified information to his biographer and lying to an FBI agent, far more egregious acts than Jeffrey was accused of. Yet Petraeus was able to walk away with two years probation and a fine. Suppose one strips away the race, financial status, and political clout of each of these men and solely compares their alleged crimes. In that case, it is glaringly obvious that this was selective prosecution and sentencing.
Petraeus' treatment solidified the belief in this country that the white man is presumed to be innocent and can do no wrong, and at worst, receives a slap on the wrist, while the black man is guilty until proven innocent and belongs behind bars. Never in the history of this nation has there been a black person who had the courage to fight racial discrimination in the CIA, and a black man in the White House that would allow him to go to jail unjustly.
Justice must be served for this mockery of the truth. Jeffrey is innocent and always has been. Our appeal to the President to pardon Jeffrey is a request for the acknowledgment of this undeniable injustice done to Jeffrey and amends to the wrongful conviction that changed our lives forever. Please don't forget him; he serves time for a crime he didn't commit.
To learn more about Jeffrey's case, click here. To sign the petition asking President Obama to pardon him, click here.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Victims File Suit Against CIA Torture Architects for 'Systemic Brutality'
Psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who thus far escaped accountability, face charges of 'cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; non-consensual human experimentation; and war crimes.'
Oct 13, 2015
The two psychologists credited with creating the brutal, post-9/11 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) torture regime are being sued by three victims of their program on charges that include "human experimentation" and "war crimes."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Tuesday filed the suit against CIA contractors James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen on behalf of torture survivors Suleiman Abdullah Salim and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, as well as the family of Gul Rahman, who died of hypothermia in his cell as a result of the torture he endured.
The suit, which is the first to rely on the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, charges Mitchell and Jessen under the Alien Tort Statute for "their commission of torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; non-consensual human experimentation; and war crimes," all of which violate international law.
The pair, both former U.S. military psychologists, earned more than $80 million for "designing, implementing, and personally administering" the program, which employed "a pseudo-scientific theory of countering resistance that justified the use of torture" that was based on studies in which researchers "taught dogs 'helplessness' by subjecting them to uncontrollable pain," according to the suit.
"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."
In a lengthy report, the ACLU describes each plaintiff's journey.
After being abducted by CIA and Kenyan agents in Somalia, Suleiman Abdullah, a newlywed fisherman from Tanzania, was subjected to "an incessant barrage of torture techniques," including being forced to listen to pounding music, doused with ice-cold water, beaten, hung from a metal rod, chained into stress positions "for days at a time," starved, and sleep deprived. This went on for over a month and was continually interspersed with "terrifying interrogation sessions in which he was grilled about what he was doing in Somalia and the names of people, all but one of whom he'd never heard of."
Held for over five years without charge and moved numerous times, Abdullah was eventually sent home to Zanzibar "with a document confirming he posed no threat to the United States." He continues to suffer from flashbacks and physical pain and has "become a shell of himself."
Mohamed Ben Soud was captured in April 2003 during a joint U.S.-Pakistani raid on his home in Pakistan, where he and his wife moved after fleeing the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Ben Soud said that Mitchell even "supervised the proceedings" at one of his water torture sessions.
Describing Ben Soud's ordeal, the ACLU writes:
The course of Mohamed's torture adhered closely to the "procedures" the CIA laid out in a 2004 memo to the Justice Department. Even before arriving at COBALT, [a CIA prison in Afghanistan] Mohamed was subjected to "conditioning" procedures designed to cause terror and vulnerability. He was rendered to COBALT hooded, handcuffed, and shackled. When he arrived, an American woman told him he was a prisoner of the CIA, that human rights ended on September 11, and that no laws applied in the prison.
Quickly, his torture escalated. For much of the next year, CIA personnel kept Mohamed naked and chained to the wall in one of three painful stress positions designed to keep him awake. He was held in complete isolation in a dungeon-like cell, starved, with no bed, blanket, or light. A bucket served as his toilet. Ear-splitting music pounded constantly. The stench was unbearable. He was kept naked for weeks. He wasn't permitted to wash for five months.
According to the report, the torture regime designed and implemented by Mitchell and Jessen "ensnared at least 119 men, and killed at least one--a man named Gul Rahman who died in November 2002 of hypothermia after being tortured and left half naked, chained to the wall of a freezing-cold cell."
Gul's family has never been formally notified of his death, nor has his body been returned to them for a dignified burial, the ACLU states. Further, no one has been held accountable for his murder. But the report notes, "An unnamed CIA officer who was trained by Jessen and who tortured Rahman up until the day before he was found dead, however, later received a $2,500 bonus for 'consistently superior work.'"
The ACLU charges that the theories devised by Mitchell and Jessen and employed by the CIA "had never been scientifically tested because such trials would violate human experimentation bans established after Nazi experiments and atrocities during World War II." Yet, they were the basis of "some of the worst systematic brutality ever inflicted on detainees in modern American history."
Despite last year's release of the Senate Torture Report, the government has prosecuted only a handful of low-level soldiers and one CIA contractor for prisoner abuse. Meanwhile, the architects of the CIA's torture program, which include Mitchell and Jessen, have escaped any form of accountability.
Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) issued a statement saying they welcomed the federal lawsuit as "a landmark step toward accountability" and urged the U.S. Department to follow suit and criminally "investigate and prosecute all those responsible for torture, including health professionals."
In the wake of the Senate report, the group strongly criticized Mitchell and Jessen for betraying "the most fundamental duty of the healing professions."
In Tuesday's statement, Donna McKay, PHR's executive director, said: "Psychologists have an ethical responsibility to 'do no harm,' but Mitchell and Jessen's actions rank among the worst medical crimes in U.S. history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Feinstein v. the CIA: A Moment of Truth
Mar 13, 2014
It was a truly historic moment Tuesday when Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein took to the Senate floor to warn that the CIA's continuing cover-up of its torture program is threatening our constitutional division of power. By blatantly concealing what Feinstein condemned as "the horrible details of a CIA program that never, never, never should have existed," the spy agency now acts as a power unto itself, and the agency's outrages have finally aroused the senator's umbrage.
As Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee that will be investigating Feinstein's charges noted, "in 40 years here, it was one of the best speeches I'd ever heard and one of the most important." That was particularly so, given that Feinstein's searing indictment of the CIA's decade-long subversion of congressional oversight of its torture program comes from a senator who previously has worked overtime to justify the subversion of democratic governance by the CIA and other spy agencies.
But clearly the lady has by now had enough, given the CIA's recent hacking of her Senate committee's computers in an effort to suppress a key piece of evidence supporting the veracity of the committee's completed but still not released 6,300-page study that the CIA is bent on suppressing.
The Senate's investigation began in earnest with the Dec. 7, 2007, revelation in The New York Times that the CIA had destroyed videotapes of its "enhanced interrogation techniques," despite objections from then-President Bush's director of national security and the White House counsel. At that time, then-committee chair Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., sent staffers to begin the painstaking process of reviewing the limited material that the CIA was willing to make available; their preliminary report wasn't issued until early 2009.
By then, Feinstein had assumed the chairmanship and, as she recalled in her Tuesday speech, "The resulting staff report was chilling. The interrogations and the conditions of confinement at the CIA detention sites were far different and far more harsh than the way the CIA had described them to us."
Feinstein on the Intel Committee's CIA ReportSenator Dianne Feinstein spoke on the Senate floor on March 11, 2014, about the Senate Intelligence Committee's study of the ...
Feinstein, ostensibly backed by new President Barack Obama, who had campaigned as an opponent of the CIA's methods, obtained the committee's bipartisan backing for an expanded investigation. But the CIA, led at the time by Obama appointee Leon Panetta, the former Democratic congressman, put numerous logistical obstacles in the way of the Senate investigation.
As Feinstein pointed out, "the CIA hired a team of outside contractors--who otherwise would not have had access to these sensitive documents--to read, multiple times, each of the 6.2 million pages of documents produced, before providing them to fully-cleared committee staff conducting the committee's oversight work. This proved to be a slow and very expensive process."
It was so slow that the committee's investigation has only now been completed. Along the way, documents that Senate staffers found interesting would then mysteriously disappear from the system. One such set of disappeared documents, referred to as the "Internal Panetta Review," is now at the center of the CIA hacking scandal.
The Panetta Review became relevant in June, when the CIA offered its critique of the Senate study. But as Feinstein points out, "Some of those important parts that the CIA now disputes in our committee study are clearly acknowledged in the CIA's own Internal Panetta Review. To say the least, this is puzzling. How can the CIA's official response to our study stand factually in conflict with its own Internal Review?"
Relations between the Senate committee responsible for oversight of the CIA and the agency were so poor that, as Feinstein states, "after noting the disparity between the official CIA response to the committee study and the Internal Panetta Review, the committee staff securely transported a printed portion of the draft Internal Panetta Review from the committee's secure room at the CIA-leased facility to the secure committee spaces in the Hart Senate Office Building."
Feinstein defended the committee staff's spiriting information away from the CIA:
"As I have detailed, the CIA has previously withheld and destroyed information about its Detention and Interrogation Program. ... There was a need to preserve and protect the Internal Panetta Review in the committee's own secure spaces."
The response of the CIA was to hack the computers that Senate staffers had been using at the CIA off-site location, and the agency's acting general counsel filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice against the Senate committee's staff.
That was too much for Feinstein, who outed the CIA's counsel:
"I should note that for most, if not all, of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program, the now acting general counsel was a lawyer in the CIA's Counterterrorism Center--the unit within which the CIA managed and carried out this program. From mid-2004 until the official termination of the Detention and Interrogation Program in January 2009, he was the unit's chief lawyer. He is mentioned by name more than 1,600 times in our study. And now this individual is sending a crimes report to the Department of Justice on the actions of congressional staff--the same congressional staff who researched and drafted a report that details how CIA officers--including the acting general counsel himself--provided inaccurate information to the Justice Department about the program."
Enough said, except that White House spokesman Jay Carney put the president on the side of those like current CIA Director John Brennan covering up torture: "The president has great confidence in John Brennan and confidence in our intelligence community and in our professionals at the CIA." It's something that George W. Bush would have said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular