DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Legal Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. 187), Plaintiffs hereby submit the following 3 4 set of jury instructions for use at trial. Plaintiffs reserve the right to withdraw, 5 amend and/or add to these instructions at any time before closing argument. 6 Plaintiffs further reserve the right to object to Defendants’ proposed jury 7 instructions. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOUNDATION Page | 2 901 Fifth Ave, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 (No. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ) (206) 624-2184 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No. 247 filed 08/08/17 PageID.9668 Page 3 of 110 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTIONS 3 Instruction No. 1.1 Duty of Jury ........................................................................ 7 4 Instruction No. 1.2 Outline of Trial................................................................... 8 5 Instruction No. 1.3 Conduct of the Jury ........................................................... 9 6 Instruction No. 1.4 Publicity During Trial ..................................................... 11 7 Instruction No. 1.5 What is Evidence .............................................................. 12 8 Instruction No. 1.6 What is Not Evidence ...................................................... 13 9 Instruction No. 1.7 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence .............................. 14 10 Instruction No. 1.8 Ruling on Objections ....................................................... 15 11 Instruction No. 1.9 Bench Conferences and Recesses ................................... 16 12 Instruction No. 1.10 Evidence for Limited Purpose ...................................... 17 13 Instruction No. 1.11 Claims and Defenses ...................................................... 18 14 Instruction No. 1.12 Two or More Parties – Different Legal Rights ........... 21 15 Instruction No. 1.13 All Persons Equal Before the Law – Individuals ........ 22 16 Instruction No. 1.14 No Transcript Available to Jury .................................. 23 17 Instruction No. 1.15 Taking Notes ................................................................... 24 18 Instruction No. 1.16 Questions to Witnesses by Jurors ................................. 25 19 Instruction No. 1.17 Credibility of Witnesses ................................................ 26 20 SECTION 2 – INSTRUCTIONS ON TYPES OF EVIDENCE 21 Instruction No. 2.1 Impeachment Evidence – Witness .................................. 28 22 Instruction No. 2.2 Foreign Language Testimony ......................................... 29 23 Instruction No. 2.3 Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony ............................ 30 24 Instruction No. 2.4 Transcript of Recording in English ............................... 31 25 Instruction No. 2.5 Expert Opinion ................................................................. 32 26 Instruction No. 2.6 Stipulations of Fact .......................................................... 33 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOUNDATION Page | 3 901 Fifth Ave, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 (No. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ) (206) 624-2184 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No. 247 filed 08/08/17 PageID.9669 Page 4 of 110 1 Instruction No. 2.7 Judicial Notice .................................................................. 34 2 Instruction No. 2.8 Charts And Summaries Not Received in Evidence ...... 35 3 Instruction No. 2.9 Charts and Summaries Received in Evidence .............. 36 4 Instruction No. 2.10 Evidence in Electronic Format ..................................... 37 5 SECTION 3 – SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS INSTRUCTION 6 Instruction No. 3.1 Alien Tort Statute ............................................................ 38 7 Instruction No. 3.2 Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment ..................................................................................................... 39 8 Instruction No. 3.3 Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading 9 Treatment – Elements ................................................................................. 40 10 Instruction No. 3.4 Preponderance of the Evidence ...................................... 42 11 Instruction No. 3.5 Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment – First Element .......................................................................... 43 12 Instruction No. 3.6 Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading 13 Treatment – Second Element ...................................................................... 46 14 Instruction No 3.7 Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment – Third Element ........................................................................ 48 15 Instruction No. 3.8 Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading 16 Treatment – Fourth Element ...................................................................... 49 17 Instruction No. 3.9 Non-Consensual Human Experimentation ................... 50 18 Instruction No. 3.10 Nonconsensual Human Experimentation – Elements 51 19 Instruction No. 3.11 Nonconsensual Human Experimentation – First Element ......................................................................................................... 54 20 Instruction No. 3.12 Nonconsensual Human Experimentation – Second 21 Element ......................................................................................................... 57 22 Instruction No. 3.13 Nonconsensual Human Experimentation – Third Element ......................................................................................................... 58 23 Instruction No. 3.14 Nonconsensual Human Experimentation – Fourth 24 Element ......................................................................................................... 59 25 Instruction No. 3.15 Nonconsensual Human Experimentation – Fifth Element ......................................................................................................... 60 26 Instruction No. 3.16 War Crimes .................................................................... 62 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOUNDATION Page | 4 901 Fifth Ave, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 (No. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ) (206) 624-2184 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No. 247 filed 08/08/17 PageID.9670 Page 5 of 110 1 Instruction No. 3.17 War Crimes – Elements ................................................ 63 2 SECTION 4 – THEORIES OF LIABILITY INSTRUCTIONS 3 Instruction No. 4.1 Overview of Liability ....................................................... 66 4 Instruction No. 4.2 Aiding and Abetting ........................................................ 67 5 Instruction No. 4.3 Aiding and Abetting – Elements ..................................... 68 6 Instruction No. 4.5 Aiding and Abetting – Second Element ......................... 70 7 Instruction No. 4.6 Aiding and Abetting – Third Element ........................... 71 8 Instruction No. 4.7 Aiding and Abetting – Fourth Element ......................... 73 9 Instruction No. 4.8 Conspiracy ........................................................................ 75 10 Instruction No. 4.9 Conspiracy - Elements ..................................................... 76 11 Instruction No. 4.10 Conspiracy – First Element .......................................... 77 12 Instruction No. 4.11 Conspiracy – Second Element ...................................... 78 13 Instruction No. 4.12 Conspiracy – Third Element ........................................ 80 14 Instruction No. 4.13 Joint Criminal Enterprise ............................................. 81 15 Instruction No. 4.14 Joint Criminal Enterprise – Elements ......................... 82 16 Instruction No. 4.15 Joint Criminal Enterprise – First Element ................. 83 17 Instruction No. 4.16 Joint Criminal Enterprise – Second Element ............. 84 18 Instruction No. 4.17 Joint Criminal Enterprise – Third Element ............... 85 19 Instruction No. 4.18 Planning .......................................................................... 87 20 Instruction No. 4.19 Planning – Elements .....................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forensic Mental Health Evaluations in the Guantánamo Military Commissions System: an Analysis of All Detainee Cases from Inception to 2018 T ⁎ Neil Krishan Aggarwal
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 64 (2019) 34–39 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Law and Psychiatry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijlawpsy Forensic mental health evaluations in the Guantánamo military commissions system: An analysis of all detainee cases from inception to 2018 T ⁎ Neil Krishan Aggarwal Clinical Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, Committee on Global Thought, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, United States ABSTRACT Even though the Bush Administration opened the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, little remains known about how forensic mental health evaluations relate to the process of detainees who are charged before military commissions. This article discusses the laws governing Guantánamo's military commissions system and mental health evaluations. Notably, the US government initially treated detaineesas“unlawful enemy combatants” who were not protected under the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, allowing for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In subsequent legal documents, however, the US government has excluded evidence obtained through torture, as defined by the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Using open-source document analysis, this article describes the reasons and outcomes of all forensic mental health evaluations from Guantánamo's opening to 2018. Only thirty of 779 detainees (~3.85%) have ever had charges referred against them to the military commissions, and only nine detainees (~1.16%) have ever received forensic mental health evaluations pertaining to their case.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified//For Public Release Unclassified//For Public Release
    UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE --SESR-Efll-N0F0RN-­ Final Dispositions as of January 22, 2010 Guantanamo Review Dispositions Country ISN Name Decision of Origin AF 4 Abdul Haq Wasiq Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 6 Mullah Norullah Noori Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 7 Mullah Mohammed Fazl Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 560 Haji Wali Muhammed Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war, subject to further review by the Principals prior to the detainee's transfer to a detention facility in the United States. AF 579 Khairullah Said Wali Khairkhwa Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 753 Abdul Sahir Referred for prosecution. AF 762 Obaidullah Referred for prosecution. AF 782 Awai Gui Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 832 Mohammad Nabi Omari Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 850 Mohammed Hashim Transfer to a country outside the United States that will implement appropriate security measures. AF 899 Shawali Khan Transfer to • subject to appropriate security measures.
    [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]
  • The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: an Empirical Study
    © Reuters/HO Old – Detainees at XRay Camp in Guantanamo. The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empirical Study Benjamin Wittes and Zaahira Wyne with Erin Miller, Julia Pilcer, and Georgina Druce December 16, 2008 The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empiricial Study Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 The Public Record about Guantánamo 4 Demographic Overview 6 Government Allegations 9 Detainee Statements 13 Conclusion 22 Note on Sources and Methods 23 About the Authors 28 Endnotes 29 Appendix I: Detainees at Guantánamo 46 Appendix II: Detainees Not at Guantánamo 66 Appendix III: Sample Habeas Records 89 Sample 1 90 Sample 2 93 Sample 3 96 The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empiricial Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he following report represents an effort both to document and to describe in as much detail as the public record will permit the current detainee population in American T military custody at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba. Since the military brought the first detainees to Guantánamo in January 2002, the Pentagon has consistently refused to comprehensively identify those it holds. While it has, at various times, released information about individuals who have been detained at Guantánamo, it has always maintained ambiguity about the population of the facility at any given moment, declining even to specify precisely the number of detainees held at the base. We have sought to identify the detainee population using a variety of records, mostly from habeas corpus litigation, and we have sorted the current population into subgroups using both the government’s allegations against detainees and detainee statements about their own affiliations and conduct.
    [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]
  • The Constitutional and Political Clash Over Detainees and the Closure of Guantanamo
    UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW Vol. 74 ● Winter 2012 PRISONERS OF CONGRESS: THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL CLASH OVER DETAINEES AND THE CLOSURE OF GUANTANAMO David J.R. Frakt ISSN 0041-9915 (print) 1942-8405 (online) ● DOI 10.5195/lawreview.2012.195 http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This site is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D- Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. PRISONERS OF CONGRESS: THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL CLASH OVER DETAINEES AND THE CLOSURE OF GUANTANAMO David J.R. Frakt Table of Contents Prologue ............................................................................................................... 181 I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 183 A. A Brief Constitutional History of Guantanamo ................................... 183 1. The Bush Years (January 2002 to January 2009) ....................... 183 2. The Obama Years (January 2009 to the Present) ........................ 192 a. 2009 ................................................................................... 192 b. 2010 to the Present ............................................................. 199 II. Legislative Restrictions and Their Impact ................................................... 205 A. Restrictions on Transfer and/or Release
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:15-Cv-00286-JLQ Document 204 Filed 06/26/17
    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 204 Filed 06/26/17 1 Emily Chiang, WSBA No. 50517 2 [email protected] AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 3 OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 4 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 5 Phone: 206-624-2184 6 Dror Ladin (admitted pro hac vice) 7 Steven M. Watt (admitted pro hac vice) 8 Hina Shamsi (admitted pro hac vice) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 9 10 Lawrence S. Lustberg (admitted pro hac vice) Kate E. Janukowicz (admitted pro hac vice) 11 Daniel J. McGrady (admitted pro hac vice) 12 Avram D. Frey (admitted pro hac vice) GIBBONS P.C. 13 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 17 SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, No. 15-CV -0286-JLQ 18 MOHAMED AHMED BEN SOUD, PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO OBAIDULLAH (AS PERSONAL 19 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE REPRESENTATIVE OF GUL RAHMAN), TO PLAINTIFFS’ 20 STATEMENT OF Plaintiffs, 21 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 22 v. NOTE ON MOTION 23 JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN CALENDAR: 24 “BRUCE” JESSEN JULY 28, 2017, 9:30 A.M., AT 25 Defendants. SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 26 27 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUMF FOUNDATION No. 15-CV-286 (JLQ) 901 Fifth Ave, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 Page | 1 (206) 624-2184 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 204 Filed 06/26/17 1 Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim, Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, and 2 ObaidUllah (as personal representative of Gul Rahman), pursuant to Rule 56 of 3 4 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 7.1 and 56.1 of the Local Rules 5 for the United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, file this 6 reply to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Material 7 Facts (“Defendants’ Response”).
    [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]
  • 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]