DOCSLIB.ORG

Betts, Patterson & Mines Ps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Betts, Patterson & Mines Ps Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 191 Filed 06/12/17 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 1825 Eye St. NW 8 Washington, DC 20006 9 James T. Smith (admitted pro hac vice) 10 [email protected] Brian S. Paszamant (admitted pro hac vice) 11 [email protected] 12 One Logan Square, 130 N. 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 13 14 Attorneys for Defendants 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE 17 18 SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, NO. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ MOHAMED AHMED BEN SOUD, 19 OBAID ULLAH (as personal DECLARATION OF BRIAN S. PASZAMANT IN SUPPORT OF 20 representative of GUL RAHMAN), DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN 21 Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL 22 vs. SUMMARY JUDGMENT 23 JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and 24 JOHN "BRUCE" JESSEN, 25 Defendants. DECLARATION OF BRIAN S. Betts Patterson PASZAMANT IN SUPPORT OF Mines DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN - 1 - One Convention Place Suite 1400 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 701 Pike Street FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Seattle, Washington 98101-3927 (206) 292-9988 139114.00602/105793971v.1 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 191 Filed 06/12/17 1 I, Brian S. Paszamant, hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the 2 following is true and correct and within my personal knowledge: 3 I am over the age of 18, have personal knowledge of all facts 4 contained in this declaration, and am competent to testify as a witness to those 5 6 facts. 7 I am one of the attorneys representing Defendants James Elmer 8 Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen (collectively, “Defendants”) in the above- 9 captioned action. 10 Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of testimony 11 excerpts taken from the deposition of John “Bruce” Jessen dated January 20, 12 2017. 13 Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of testimony 14 excerpts taken from the deposition of James Elmer Mitchell dated January 16, 15 2017. 16 Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of testimony 17 excerpts taken from the deposition of John Rizzo dated March 20, 2017. 18 19 Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of testimony 20 excerpts taken from Volume II of the deposition of Suleiman Abdullah Salim 21 dated March 15, 2017. 22 Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of testimony 23 excerpts taken from Volume II of the deposition of Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud 24 dated February 1, 2017. 25 DECLARATION OF BRIAN S. Betts Patterson PASZAMANT IN SUPPORT OF Mines DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN - 2 - One Convention Place Suite 1400 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 701 Pike Street FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Seattle, Washington 98101-3927 (206) 292-9988 139114.00602/105793971v.1 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 191 Filed 06/12/17 1 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Defendant 2 Soud's Response to Plaintiff Jessen's Request for Admissions No. 7. 3 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of documents 4 produced by the CIA in response to subpoenas issued by Defendants pursuant to 5 5 6 U.S.C. § 301 and the procedures outlined in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 7 340 U.S. 462 (1951), with the identifier US Bates 001629-30. 8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State o 9 Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. 10 DATED this 12th day of June, 2017, at Phila,y,i....i,.~~ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF BRJAN S. Betts Patterson PASZAMANT IN SUPPORT OF Mines DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE IN - 3 - One Convention Place Suite 1400 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 701 Pike Street FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Seal!le, Washington 98101·3927 (206) 292-9988 139114.00602/105793971 v.1 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 191 Filed 06/12/17 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on the 12th day of June, 2017, I electronically filed the 3 foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which 4 will send notification of such filing to the following: 5 6 Emily Chiang Paul Hoffman [email protected] [email protected] 7 ACLU of Washington Foundation Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP 8 901 Fifth Ave, Suite 630 723 Ocean Front Walk, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98164 Venice, CA 90291 9 Andrew I. Warden Steven M. Watt, admitted pro hac vice 10 [email protected] [email protected] Senior Trial Counsel Dror Ladin, admitted pro hac vice 11 Timothy A. Johnson [email protected] [email protected] Hina Shamsi, admitted pro hac vice 12 Trial Attorney [email protected] 13 United States Department of Justice ACLU Foundation Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 14 20 Massachusetts Ave NW New York, NY 10007 Washington, DC 20530 15 Avram D. Frey, admitted pro hac vice Anthony DiCaprio, admitted pro hac vice 16 [email protected] [email protected] Daniel J. McGrady, admitted pro hac vice Law Office of Anthony DiCaprio 17 [email protected] 64 Purchase Street 18 Kate E. Janukowicz, admitted pro hac vice Rye, NY 10580 [email protected] 19 Lawrence S. Lustberg, admitted pro hac vice [email protected] 20 Gibbons PC One Gateway Center 21 Newark, NJ 07102 22 23 By s/ Karen L. Pritchard Karen L. Pritchard 24 [email protected] 25 Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S. Betts DECLARATION OF BRIAN Patterson PASZAMANT ISO DEFS.’ Mines - 4 - One Convention Place RESPONSE TO PLTFS.’ MPSJ Suite 1400 701 Pike Street NO. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ Seattle, Washington 98101-3927 (206) 292-9988 139114.00602/105754497v.5 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 191 Filed 06/12/17 EXHIBIT 1 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 191 Filed 06/12/17 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. : - - - Friday, January 20, 2017 - - - Videotaped deposition of JOHN BRUCE JESSEN, taken pursuant to notice, was held at the law offices of Blank Rome, 130 N. 18th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, beginning at 10:07 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 191 Filed 06/12/17 Page 6 Page 8 1 NO. DESCRIPTION NO. 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are 2 Exhibit 23 Email dated 5/28/03, 248 2 now on the record. Bates USA 1588 3 3 This begins DVD No. 1 in the Exhibit 35 Email, Subject: EIT 260 4 deposition of John Bruce Jessen in 4 briefing for Sec State, 5 the matter of Salim versus James labeled US Bates 1175 6 Elmer Mitchell and John Bruce 5 Exhibit 21 CIA Comments on the 274 7 Jessen in the United States 6 Senate Select Committee 8 District Court, Eastern District on Intelligence Report 9 of Washington. 7 on the Rendition, Today is January 20th, 2017, Detention and 10 8 Interrogation Program 11 and the time is 10:07 AM. 9 12 This deposition is being 10 13 taken at 130 North 18th Street, 11 14 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at the 12 13 15 request of Gibbons, PC. 14 16 The videographer is Benjamin 15 17 Neate of Magna Legal Services, and 16 the court reporter is Connie Kent 17 18 18 19 of Magna Legal Services. 19 20 All counsel and parties 20 21 present will be noted on the 21 stenographic record. 22 22 23 23 Will the court reporter 24 24 please swear in the witness. Page 7 Page 9 1 - - - 1 JOHN BRUCE JESSEN, having 2 DEPOSITION SUPPORT INDEX 2 been first duly sworn, was 3 - - - 3 examined and testified as follows: 4 4 MR. WARDEN: Good morning, 5 Direction to Witness Not to Answer 5 I'm Andrew Warden from the US 6 Page Line Page Line Page Line 6 Department of Justice and I 7 None 7 represent the United States 8 8 Government. 9 9 On behalf of the United 10 Request for Production of Documents 10 States Government, I have with me 11 Page Line Page Line Page Line 11 here today Joseph Sweeney, 12 None 12 attorney with the CIA Office of 13 13 General Counsel, Cody Smith, an 14 14 attorney with the CIA Office of 15 Stipulations 15 General Counsel, Heather Walcott, 16 Page Line Page Line Page Line 16 an attorney with the CIA Office of 17 None 17 General Counsel, Megan Beckman, 18 18 paralegal with the CIA Office of 19 19 the General Counsel, Antoinette 20 Question Marked 20 Shiner, Information Review Officer 21 Page Line Page Line Page Line 21 with the CIA. 22 None 22 And on behalf of the 23 23 Department of Defense, Richard 24 24 Hatch, an attorney with the DOD, 3 (Pages 6 to 9) Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 191 Filed 06/12/17 Page 34 Page 36 1 government and themselves.
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]
  • 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]
  • United States District Court Eastern District Of
    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No. 40 filed 04/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 19 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 ) AND ORDER DENYING 8 vs. ) MOTION TO DISMISS ) 9 ) JAMES E. MITCHELL and JOHN ) 10 JESSEN, ) ) 11 Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) 12 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27), which 13 seeks dismissal of the action with prejudice. Response and Reply briefs have been filed 14 and considered. Oral argument was held on April 22, 2016. James Smith, Henry 15 Schuelke, III, and Christopher Tompkins appeared for Defendants James Mitchell and 16 John Jessen, with Mr. Smith taking the lead on argument. Hina Shamsi, La Rond Baker, 17 Steven Watt, and Dror Ladin appeared for Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim, Mohamed 18 Ahmed Ben Soud, and Obaid Ullah, with Mr. Ladin taking the lead on argument. The 19 court issued its oral ruling denying the Motion to Dismiss. This Opinion memorializes 20 and supplements the court’s oral ruling. 21 I. Introduction and Factual Background 22 The Complaint in this matter alleges Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim (“Salim”), 23 Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud (“Soud”), and Obaid Ullah (“Ullah”)1(collectively herein 24 25 1Ullah is the personal representative of the Estate of Gul Rahman who allegedly “died as a result 26 of hypothermia caused by his exposure to extreme cold, exacerbated by dehydration, lack of food, and 27 his immobility in a stress position.” (Complaint ¶ 3).
    [Show full text]
  • ACLU-RDI 6808 P.1 Page 2 1 2 January 31, 2017 3 12:19 P.M
    Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ -----------------------------------) SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, MOHAMED AHMED BEN SOUD, OBAID ULLAH (AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF GUL RAHMAN), Plaintiffs, vs. JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN "BRUCE" JESSEN, Defendants. -----------------------------------) DEPOSITION OF OBAIDULLAH New York, New York January 31, 2017 Reported by: Linda Salzman, RPR Job No. 17896 TransPerfect Legal Solutions 212-400-8845 - [email protected] ACLU-RDI 6808 p.1 Page 2 1 2 January 31, 2017 3 12:19 p.m. 4 5 Deposition of OBAIDULLAH, the 6 witness herein, held at the offices 7 of American Civil Liberties Union, 8 125 Broad Street, New York, New 9 York, pursuant to Notice, before 10 Linda Salzman, a Notary Public of 11 the State of New York. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TransPerfect Legal Solutions 212-400-8845 - [email protected] ACLU-RDI 6808 p.2 Page 3 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: 3 4 On Behalf of Plaintiffs: 5 Gibbons, PC 6 One Gateway Center 7 Newark, New Jersey 07102-5310 8 (973) 596-4731 9 BY: LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG, ESQ. [email protected] 10 KATE JANUKOWICZ, ESQ. 11 [email protected] 12 DANIEL MCGRADY, ESQ. [email protected] 13 - and - 14 15 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 16 125 Broad Street 17 18th Floor 18 New York, New York 10004-2400 19 BY: DROR LADIN, ESQ. [email protected] 20 21 22 23 24 (Continued) 25 TransPerfect Legal Solutions 212-400-8845 - [email protected] ACLU-RDI 6808 p.3 Page 4 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued) 3 4 On Behalf of Defendants: 5 BLANK ROME LLP 6 One Logan Square 7 130 North 18th Street 8 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-6998 9 (215) 569-5791 10 BY: BRIAN S.
    [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]
  • 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 175 Filed 05/22/17
    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 175 Filed 05/22/17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, et al., NO. 2: l 5-cv-286-JLQ Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF JOSE RODRIGUEZ VS. JAMES E. MITCHELL and JOHN JESSEN, Defendants. I, Jose Rodriguez, hereby declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, that the following is true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief to the best of my recollection, and while I have no specific recollection of all the exhibits, I have no reason to dispute their accuracy or authenticity: A. BACKGROUND 1. I am over the age of 18, have personal know ledge of all facts contained in this declaration, and am competent to testify as a witness to those facts. 2. I began working for the United States Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") in 1976, shortly after graduating from law school. 3. As of September 11, 2001, I had achieved the rank of SIS 4 within the CIA. This is equivalent to the rank of a three-star general. 4. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, I served as the CIA's Counterterrorism Center's ("CTC") Chief Operating Officer/Deputy Director. The CTC is a division of the CIA's National Clandestine Service. 5. From May 2002 until November 2004, I served as the Director of the CTC. Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 175 Filed 05/22/17 6. From November 2004 until October 2005, I served as the Deputy Director of Operations for the CIA.
    [Show full text]
  • In CIA Torture Case
    افغانستان آزاد – آزاد افغانستان AA-AA چو کشور نباشـد تن من مبـــــــاد بدین بوم وبر زنده یک تن مــــباد همه سر به سر تن به کشتن دهیم از آن به که کشور به دشمن دهیم www.afgazad.com [email protected] زبان های اروپائی European Languages http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/03/11/tort-m11.html Trump administration invokes “state secrets” in CIA torture case By Barry Grey 11 March 2017 On Wednesday, the Trump administration filed a brief invoking the "state secrets" privilege in an attempt to block current and former Central Intelligence Agency officials from testifying in a civil suit brought by former detainees who were subjected to torture at a secret CIA interrogation center, or "black site," in Afghanistan. The motion, filed by the Trump Justice Department based on an affidavit by CIA Director Mike Pompeo, also seeks to quash the release of portions of 172 internal CIA documents. Among the CIA officials the government is seeking to shield from being forced to testify is Gina Haspel, named by President Trump to the post of deputy CIA director and confirmed by the US Senate. Haspel, a 32-year veteran of the agency, ran a CIA torture site in Thailand in 2002, during the Bush administration, where she oversaw the torture of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al- Rahim al-Nashiri, both of whom were repeatedly waterboarded. She also gave the order in 2005 to destroy videotapes of the interrogation sessions at the Thai site. The administration, headed by a man who boasts of his enthusiasm for torture, including waterboarding, intervened in the case of Salim v.
    [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]
  • How Procedure Defeats Civil Liberties in the “War on Terror”
    Ab(ju)dication: How Procedure Defeats Civil Liberties in the “War on Terror” Susan N. Herman* Terrorism poses many kinds of challenges. One of the most wrenching is the question of how far we are willing to go in our quest for security. Will we sacrifice our ideals? What should we accept as the moral, constitutional, and international limitations on practices like detention, interrogation, and mass surveillance? An equally compelling question under our constitutional structure is who will make these society-defining decisions. What should be the relative involvement of Congress, the President, and the courts? In a series of historic cases, the Supreme Court undertook providing a check against antiterrorism detention policies designed by the executive branch to avoid judicial oversight. Many of these cases involved non-U.S. citizens held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp.1 The petitioner in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld2 was a U.S. citizen detained within the United States.3 In the course of the decision, finding that Yaser Hamdi had a right to due process in connection with his detention, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor observed: In so holding, we necessarily reject the Government’s assertion that separation of powers principles mandate a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.4 Even a state of war, O’Connor said, would not be a “blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.”5 While the cases involving Guantánamo detainees did not declare that those detainees enjoyed all the constitutional rights of U.S.
    [Show full text]