DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Document Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 105 Filed 11/18/16 1 BETTS, PATTERSON & MINES P.S. 2 Christopher W. Tompkins (WSBA #11686) [email protected] 3 701 Pike Street, Suite 1400 4 Seattle, WA 98101-3927 5 BLANK ROME LLP 6 Henry F. Schuelke III (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] 7 600 New Hampshire Ave NW Washington, DC 20037 8 9 James T. Smith (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] 10 Brian S. Paszamant (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] 11 One Logan Square, 130 N. 18th Street 12 Philadelphia, PA 19103 13 Attorneys for Defendants Mitchell and Jessen 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE 16 17 SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, MOHAMED AHMED BEN SOUD, NO. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ 18 OBAID ULLAH (as personal DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO representative of GUL RAHMAN), 19 DISMISS 20 Plaintiffs, January 19, 2017 vs. 21 With Telephonic Oral Argument 10:00 a.m. PST 22 JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN "BRUCE" JESSEN, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS One Convention Place - i - 701 Pike Street, Suite 1400 - NO. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ Seattle, Washington 98101-3927 (206) 292-9988 139114.00602/103941833v.2 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 105 Filed 11/18/16 1 2 3 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 4 II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND......................................................1 5 A. Suleiman Abdullah Salim..............................................................................2 6 B. Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud (formerly Mohamed Shoroeiya Abd Al- Karim) ....................................................................................................................3 7 C. Gul Rahman...................................................................................................3 8 III. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................4 9 A. Applicable Legal Standard............................................................................4 10 B. The MCA Divests The Court Of Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs’ Claims.........5 11 1. The MCA....................................................................................................5 2. Element 1 Is Satisfied -- Defendants, CIA Contractors, Were “Agents” 12 Of The United States..........................................................................................7 13 3. Element 3 Is Satisfied -- Plaintiffs Were Determined By The United States To Have Been Properly Detained As Enemy Combatants .....................9 14 IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................18 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS One Convention Place - ii - 701 Pike Street, Suite 1400 - NO. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ Seattle, Washington 98101-3927 (206) 292-9988 139114.00602/103941833v.2 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 105 Filed 11/18/16 1 Table of Authorities 2 3 Federal Cases Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 4 2005).......................................................................................................................8 Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald, 741 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................6 5 Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez, 669 F.3d 315 (D.C. Cir. 2012)....................................6, 12 6 Assoc. of Am. Med. Coll. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2000).................4 Barhoumi v. Obama, 609 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ..............................................12 7 Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008)...............................6, 11 8 Doe v. Saravia, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (E.D. Cal. 2004) ...........................................8 Grondal v. United States, CV-09-0018-JLQ, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9 19398 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 16, 2012).........................................................................4 Hamad v. Gates, 732 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2013) .....................................................6, 9 10 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 126 S. Ct. 2749, 165 L. Ed. 2d 723 11 (2006)......................................................................................................................5 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) ............................................... 9, 10, 11, 18 12 Janko v. Gates, 741 F.3d 136 (D.C. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1530, 191 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2015) ................................................................... passim 13 Jawad v. Gates, No. 15-5250, 2016 WL 4255001 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 12, 14 2016).................................................................................................................9, 10 Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2nd Cir. 1995) .......................................................8 15 Kiyemba v. Obama (Kiyemba II), 561 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................6 16 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) .......................................5 LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389 (D.C. Cir.1996) ..............................................12 17 Nat’l Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 147, 40 S. Ct. 237, 64 L. Ed. 496 (1920)......................................................................................................13 18 Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 124 S. Ct. 2686, 159 L. Ed. 2d 548 (2004)...............11 19 United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951)......................................1 United States v. Bailey, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 238, 256, 9 L. Ed. 113 (1835) .................13 20 United States v. Wilson, 290 F.3d 347 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .........................................12 21 Washington Constitutional Provisions Art. I, § 9, clause 2.....................................................................................................6 22 Federal Statutes 23 10 U.S.C. 801.............................................................................................................5 28 U.S.C. § 1350........................................................................................................8 24 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(1)...........................................................................................6, 7 25 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2)..................................................................................... passim Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS One Convention Place - iii - 701 Pike Street, Suite 1400 - NO. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ Seattle, Washington 98101-3927 (206) 292-9988 139114.00602/103941833v.2 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 105 Filed 11/18/16 1 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(5)...............................................................................................7 2 5 U.S.C. § 301............................................................................................................1 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).............................................................................................1, 4 3 Federal Rules and Regulations 4 66 Fed. Reg. 57,833, 57,834 (Nov. 13, 2001) .........................................................11 5 Other Authorities 152 Cong. Rec. H7, 947-48 .....................................................................................15 6 152 Cong. Rec. S10,403 ......................................................................................5, 14 152 Cong. Rec. S10,407 ......................................................................................7, 13 7 Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 8 224 (2001)..................................................................................................... passim DTA § 1005(e)................................................................................................ 5, 7, 13 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS One Convention Place - iv - 701 Pike Street, Suite 1400 - NO. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ Seattle, Washington 98101-3927 (206) 292-9988 139114.00602/103941833v.2 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 105 Filed 11/18/16 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 The Military Commissions Act (“MCA”) deprives a court of jurisdiction 3 over non-habeas detention-related claims when an alien plaintiff was determined to 4 have been properly detained by the United States as an enemy combatant. 5 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2). The MCA deprives this Court of jurisdiction over this 6 case. 7 Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim (“Salim”), Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud 8 (“Soud”) and Obaid Ullah, as personal representative of Gul Rahman (“Rahman”) 9 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)—all foreign citizens—assert non-habeas claims arising 10 out of their detention by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) 11 following the events of September 11, 2001. Plaintiffs were properly detained by 12 the United States as enemy combatants within the meaning of the MCA, and 13 Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). 14 II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND 15 Plaintiffs allege that they are foreign citizens and were subjected to 16 psychological and physical torture at the hands of the CIA and Defendants James 17 Elmer Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen (collectively, “Defendants”) when they 18 were detained by the CIA in connection with the United States’ War on Terror in 19 the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. ECF No. 1. CIA documents 20 produced in response to subpoenas
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessing Non-Consensual Human Experimentation During the War on Terror
    ACEVES_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 11/26/2018 9:05 AM INTERROGATION OR EXPERIMENTATION? ASSESSING NON-CONSENSUAL HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION DURING THE WAR ON TERROR WILLIAM J. ACEVES* The prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation has long been considered sacrosanct. It traces its legal roots to the Nuremberg trials although the ethical foundations dig much deeper. It prohibits all forms of medical and scientific experimentation on non-consenting individuals. The prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation is now well established in both national and international law. Despite its status as a fundamental and non-derogable norm, the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation was called into question during the War on Terror by the CIA’s treatment of “high-value detainees.” Seeking to acquire actionable intelligence, the CIA tested the “theory of learned helplessness” on these detainees by subjecting them to a series of enhanced interrogation techniques. This Article revisits the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation to determine whether the CIA’s treatment of detainees violated international law. It examines the historical record that gave rise to the prohibition and its eventual codification in international law. It then considers the application of this norm to the CIA’s treatment of high-value detainees by examining Salim v. Mitchell, a lawsuit brought by detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. This Article concludes that the CIA breached the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation when it conducted systematic studies on these detainees to validate the theory of learned helplessness. Copyright © 2018 William J. Aceves *Dean Steven R. Smith Professor of Law at California Western School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Eastern District Of
    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No. 239 filed 08/07/17 PageID.9393 Page 1 of 43 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 5 SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, et al., ) ) 6 ) No. CV-15-0286-JLQ Plaintiffs, ) 7 ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 8 vs. ) JUDGMENT ) 9 ) JAMES E. MITCHELL and JOHN ) 10 JESSEN, ) ) 11 Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) 12 BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13 169), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 178), and Defendants’ 14 Motion to Exclude (ECF No. 198). Response and Reply briefs have been filed and 15 considered. The parties have submitted a voluminous record of over 4,000 pages of 16 evidentiary exhibits. The court heard oral argument on the Motions on July 28, 2017. 17 James Smith, Henry Schuelke, III, Brian Paszamant, and Christopher Tompkins appeared 18 for Defendants James Mitchell and John Jessen. Hina Shamsi, Steven Watt, Dror Ladin, 19 Lawrence Lustberg, and Jeffry Finer appeared for Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim, 20 Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, and Obaid Ullah. The court issued its preliminary oral 21 ruling. This Opinion memorializes and supplements the court’s oral ruling. 22 I. Introduction and Factual Allegations from Complaint 23 The Complaint in this matter alleges Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim (“Salim”), 24 Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud (“Soud”), and Gul Rahman (“Rahman”)1(collectively herein 25 Plaintiffs) were the victims of psychological and physical torture. Plaintiffs are all 26 27 1Obaid Ullah is the personal representative of the Estate of Gul Rahman. 28 ORDER - 1 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitchell James 01.16.17.Ptx
    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 176-1 Filed 05/22/17 Exhibit 1 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 176-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE - - - SULEIMAN ABDULLAH : SALIM, MOHOMED AHMED : DOCKET NO. BEN SOUD, OBAID ULLAH : (as personal : 2:15-CV-286-JLQ representative of GUL : RAHMAN), : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : JAMES ELMER MITCHELL : and JOHN "BRUCE" : JESSEN, : : Defendants. : - - - Monday, January 16, 2017 - - - Videotaped deposition of JAMES E. MITCHELL taken pursuant to notice, was held at the law offices of Blank Rome, 130 N. 18th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, beginning at 10:13 AM, on the above date, before Constance S. Kent, a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. * * * MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES (866) 624-6221 www.MagnaLS.com Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 176-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 6 Page 8 1 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are 2 Exhibit 20 Fax, Generic Description 321 of the Process, Bates 2 now on the record. 3 DOJ OLC 1126 through 3 This begins DVD No. 1 in the 1144 4 4 deposition of James Elmer Mitchell Exhibit 21 CIA Comments on the 323 5 in the matter of Salim versus 5 Senate Select Committee James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce -- on Intelligence Report 6 6 on the Rendition, 7 John Bruce Jessen in the United Detention and 8 States District Court for the 7 Interrogation Program 8 Exhibit 22 Document, Bates USA 1629 335 9 Eastern District of Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • True and False Confessions: the Efficacy of Torture and Brutal
    Chapter 7 True and False Confessions The Efficacy of Torture and Brutal Interrogations Central to the debate on the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques is the question of whether those techniques are effective in gaining intelligence. If the techniques are the only way to get actionable intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks, their use presents a moral dilemma for some. On the other hand, if brutality does not produce useful intelligence — that is, it is not better at getting information than other methods — the debate is moot. This chapter focuses on the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation technique program. There are far fewer people who defend brutal interrogations by the military. Most of the military’s mistreatment of captives was not authorized in detail at high levels, and some was entirely unauthorized. Many military captives were either foot soldiers or were entirely innocent, and had no valuable intelligence to reveal. Many of the perpetrators of abuse in the military were young interrogators with limited training and experience, or were not interrogators at all. The officials who authorized the CIA’s interrogation program have consistently maintained that it produced useful intelligence, led to the capture of terrorist suspects, disrupted terrorist attacks, and saved American lives. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a 2009 speech, stated that the enhanced interrogation of captives “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” President George W. Bush similarly stated in his memoirs that “[t]he CIA interrogation program saved lives,” and “helped break up plots to attack military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.” John Brennan, President Obama’s recent nominee for CIA director, said, of the CIA’s program in a televised interview in 2007, “[t]here [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • MMCCS Public Lecture, Pugliese V2
    MMCCS Public Lecture: “Black Sites, Redacted Bodies: The Torture and Death of Gul Rahman in the CIA Salt Pit” Date: Wednesday 19 October Time: 6:00pm-8:00pm Venue: Macquarie University, Y3A.212 Speaker: Associate Professor Joseph Pugliese About the Topic: In this paper, I examine the torture and death of Gul Rahman in the CIA secret prison/black site known as the Salt Pit, located in northern Kabul, Afghanistan. Virtually excised from the public record, his name and death are mentioned in a footnote of the Classified Response to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Classified Report (2009). This report, prepared by Counsel for Jay S. Bybee, is a detailed and lengthy repost to the accusation made by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that Judge Bybee’s memo (August 1, 2002) to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, authorised some forms of torture that contravened the U.S. Torture Statute, which defines torture and declares it to be a federal crime. In the course of my paper, I proceed to discuss the details of Gul Rahman’s torture and death in the CIA Salt Pit (in the context of the Bybee memo and his Counsel’s response to the OPR’s condemnatory report) in order to flesh out the relations of legal and governmental power that were instrumental in establishing U.S. regimes of torture and death in the CIA secret prisons. In delineating the forces that were operative in the torture and death of Rahman, I proceed to identify two intersecting modalities of violence – instrumental and gratuitous.
    [Show full text]
  • “THE REPORT” Viewer Information and Discussion Guide
    “THE REPORT” Viewer Information and Discussion Guide PAGE 1 ​ TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 2 ​ ​ CHARACTER DETAILS Daniel J. Jones --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 3 Dianne Feinstein ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ page 4 Denis McDonough ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 5 John Owen Brennan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 6 James Elmer Mitchell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 7 Martin Heinrich --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 7 George Tenet ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 8 Sheldon Whitehouse ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 9 John A. Rizzo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics Abandoned: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the “War on Terror”
    Ethics AbAndonEd: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the “War on Terror” A task force report funded by IMAP/OSF November 2013 Copyright © 2013 Institute on Medicine as a Profession Table of Contents All rights reserved. this book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the AboUt iMAP And osF v publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review. AcknoWlEdgMEnts vii Printed in the United states of America First Printing, 2013 ExEcUtivE sUMMArY xi institUtE on MEdicinE As A ProFEssion Findings And rEcoMMEndAtions xxxi columbia University, college of Physicians and surgeons 630 West 168th street P&s box 11, new York, nY 10032 introdUction 1 www.imapny.org chAPtEr 1: The role of health professionals in abuse of 11 prisoners in U.S. custody chAPtEr 2: Organizational structures and policies that 55 directed the role of health professionals in detainee abuse chAPtEr 3: Hunger strikes and force-feeding 83 chAPtEr 4: Education and training of military physicians on 121 treatment of prisoners chAPtEr 5: Health professional accountability for acts of 135 torture through state licensing and discipline tAsk ForcE MEMbEr biogrAPhiEs 157 APPEndicEs 1. Istanbul Protocol Guidelines for Medical Evaluations of 169 Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Annex 4 2. World Medical Association Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikes 175 3. Ethics Statements and Opinions of Professional Associations on 181 Interrogation and Torture 4. Professional Misconduct Complaints Filed 201 notEs 215 About IMAP and OSF Funding for this report was provided by: thE institUtE on MEdicinE As A ProFEssion (iMAP) aims to make medical professionalism a field and a force.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Legal Document
    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No. 247 filed 08/08/17 PageID.9666 Page 1 of 110 1 Emily Chiang, WSBA No. 50517 2 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 3 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 4 Seattle, WA 98164 Phone: 206-624-2184 5 6 Dror Ladin (admitted pro hac vice) Steven M. Watt (admitted pro hac vice) 7 Hina Shamsi (admitted pro hac vice) 8 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 9 Lawrence S. Lustberg (admitted pro hac vice) 10 Kate E. Janukowicz (admitted pro hac vice) Daniel J. McGrady (admitted pro hac vice) 11 Avram D. Frey (admitted pro hac vice) 12 GIBBONS P.C. 13 Jeffry K. Finer, WSBA #14610 14 Finer & Winn 35 West Maine Ave, Suite 300 15 Spokane, WA 99201 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 19 SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, No. 15-cv-0286 (JLQ) 20 MOHAMED AHMED BEN SOUD, OBAIDULLAH (AS PERSONAL 21 PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED REPRESENTATIVE OF GUL RAHMAN), JURY INSTRUCTIONS 22 IN ACCORDANCE WITH Plaintiffs, LR 51.1 23 24 v. 25 JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN 26 “BRUCE” JESSEN Defendants. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION Page | 1 901 Fifth Ave, Suite 630 (No. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ) Seattle, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No. 247 filed 08/08/17 PageID.9667 Page 2 of 110 1 In accordance with the Court’s May 30, 2017 Order re: Pretrial Filings 2 and Extending Deadlines (ECF No.
    [Show full text]
  • Suleiman Complaint
    1 La Rond Baker, WSBA No. 43610 2 [email protected] AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 3 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 4 Seattle, WA 98164 Phone: 206-624-2184 5 6 Steven M. Watt (pro hac vice pending) Dror Ladin (pro hac vice pending) 7 Hina Shamsi (pro hac vice pending) 8 Jameel Jaffer (pro hac vice pending) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 9 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 10 New York, New York 10004 11 Paul Hoffman (pro hac vice pending) 12 Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk, Suite 100 13 Venice, CA 90291 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 17 18 SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, MOHAMED AHMED BEN SOUD, OBAID 19 ULLAH (AS PERSONAL 20 REPRESENTATIVE OF GUL RAHMAN), Civil Action No. 21 Plaintiffs, 22 v. COMPLAINT AND 23 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 24 JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN “BRUCE” JESSEN 25 26 Defendants. 27 COMPLAINT AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Page | 1 UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 Fifth Ave, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 1. Defendants James Elmer Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen are 3 4 psychologists who designed, implemented, and personally 5 administered an experimental torture program for the U.S. Central 6 Intelligence Agency (“CIA”). 7 8 2. To create a torture program with a scientific veneer, Defendants drew 9 on experiments from the 1960s in which researchers taught dogs 10 “helplessness” by subjecting them to uncontrollable pain. Defendants 11 12 theorized that if human beings were subjected to systematic abuse, the 13 victims would become helpless and unable to resist an interrogator’s 14 demand for information.
    [Show full text]
  • ICC-02/17 Date: 20 November 2017 PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER III Before
    ICC-02/17-7-Red 20-11-2017 1/181 NM PT ras Original: English No.: ICC-02/17 Date: 20 November 2017 PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER III Before: Judge Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua, Presiding Judge Judge Chang-ho Chung Judge Raul C. Pangalangan SITUATION IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN PUBLIC with confidential, EX PARTE, Annexes 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C, 6, public Annexes 4, 5 and 7, and public redacted version of Annex 1-Conf-Exp Public redacted version of “Request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to article 15”, 20 November 2017, ICC-02/17-7-Conf-Exp Source: Office of the Prosecutor ICC-02/17-7-Red 20-11-2017 2/181 NM PT Document to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to: The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Mrs Fatou Bensouda Mr James Stewart Mr Benjamin Gumpert Legal Representatives of the Victims Legal Representatives of the Applicants Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants (Participation/Reparation) The Office of Public Counsel for The Office of Public Counsel for the Victims Defence States’ Representatives Amicus Curiae REGISTRY Registrar Defence Support Section Mr Herman von Hebel Victims and Witnesses Unit Detention Section Mr Nigel Verrill No. ICC- 02/17 2/181 20 November 2017 ICC-02/17-7-Red 20-11-2017 3/181 NM PT I. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6 II. Confidentiality .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • JAMES E. MITCHELL Taken Pursuant to Notice, Was Held at the Law Offices of Blank Rome, 130 N
    Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE - - - SULEIMAN ABDULLAH : SALIM, MOHOMED AHMED : DOCKET NO. BEN SOUD, OBAID ULLAH : (as personal : 2:15-CV-286-JLQ representative of GUL : RAHMAN), : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : JAMES ELMER MITCHELL : and JOHN "BRUCE" : JESSEN, : : Defendants. : - - - Monday, January 16, 2017 - - - Videotaped deposition of JAMES E. MITCHELL taken pursuant to notice, was held at the law offices of Blank Rome, 130 N. 18th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, beginning at 10:13 AM, on the above date, before Constance S. Kent, a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. * * * MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES (866) 624-6221 www.MagnaLS.com Page 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 GIBBONS, PC BY: LAWRENCE LUSTBERG, ESQUIRE 3 DANIEL McGRADY, ESQUIRE AVRAM D. FREY, ESQUIRE 4 KATE E. JANUKOWICZ, ESQUIRE One Gateway Center 5 Newark, New Jersey 07102 973.596.4731 6 Counsel for Plaintiffs 7 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION BY: STEVEN M. WATT, ESQUIRE 8 DROR LADIN, ESQUIRE 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 9 New York, New York 10004 212.519.7870 10 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs 11 BLANK ROME, LLP 12 BY: JAMES T. SMITH, ESQUIRE JEFFREY ROSENTHAL, ESQUIRE 13 One Logan Square 18th and Cherry Streets 14 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.569.5550 15 [email protected] [email protected] 16 Counsel for Defendants 17 BLANK ROME BY: HENRY F. SCHUELKE, III, ESQUIRE 18 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-5403 19 202.772.5815 [email protected] 20 Counsel for Defendants 21 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter- Terrorism Operations
    International Center for Transitional Justice CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL POLICY: Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter- terrorism Operations An ICTJ Policy Paper November 2009 Carolyn Patty Blum, Lisa Magarrell, Marieke Wierda Cover Image: Redacted page (52) from Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001-October 2003), a May 2004 Special Review by the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General. Portions of that report have been declassified through litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations under the Freedom of Information Act. The Bush administration released a few paragraphs and lines of the report in May 2008 and the Obama administration went considerably further in an August 2009 reclassification. Regardless, this page and many others, including all of the In- spector General’s recommendations, remain classified as of this writing. Ques- tions persist about the full scope of abuses under U.S. policies on rendition, de- tention and interrogation. ICTJ’s policy paper relies on declassified information and other reporting to make the case for a thorough criminal investigation of abuses in counterterrorism policy and operations. Such an investigation must include those parts of the “dark side” still hidden from public view. CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL POLICY: Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter- terrorism Operations November 2009 An ICTJ Policy Paper Carolyn Patty Blum, Lisa Magarrell, Marieke Wierda International Center for Transitional Justice ICTJ New York 5 Hanover Square, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel + 1 917 637 3800 Fax + 1 917 637 3900 About ICTJ About the U.S. Accountability Project The International Center for Transitional Justice works The U.S.
    [Show full text]