James
Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, two psychologists and former U.S. Air Force
trainers, are being held accountable for their design and oversight of a CIA
interrogation program that allegedly tortured al Qaeda suspects. Mitchell and
Jessen were experts teaching members of the military methods to avoid
interrogations through a technique called learned helplessness.
The
lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three men
(Gul Rahman, Suleiman Abdullah Salim, and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud) who were all
held captive by the CIA. Mitchell and Jessen were accused of violating human
rights by committing torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, and war crimes.
A500-page executive summary of the Senate report discusses the CIA’s
involvement with utilizing enhanced interrogation techniques for members
suspected of al Qaeda activity after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the
United States. The CIA claims that enhanced interrogation techniques were a
mistake in the past, but the program did effectively obtain vital details that
protected the national security of the U.S.
The
Senate report stated that Rahman was tortured at a CIA site known as the Salt
Pit in Afghanistan by Jessen and CIA employees and died due to hypothermia.
Salim was also taken to the Salt Pit where he endured torture techniques that
included sleep deprivation, being soaked in cold water while nude, being
dressed in a diaper, and being restrained in small boxes. Salim said, “The
terrible torture I suffered at the hands of the CIA still haunts me,” and
continued by saying, "This lawsuit is about achieving justice.” Ben Soud was
taken to black sites in Afghanistan and claimed that Mitchell was involved with
his interrogations. The Justice Department has investigated this CIA
interrogation program three times, but a prosecution never ensued because doing
so would expose classified information.
The
big controversial question portrayed in this article is whether or not torture
is lawful if the intent is to protect national security and potentially prevent
future terrorist attacks. Discussion in the last few weeks of classes has
focused on detention and interrogation. The Torture Victims Protection Act
defines torture to include “any act,
directed against an individual in the offender’s custody or physical control,
by which severe pain or suffering…whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted…” By this definition, the three men in the article who were held
captive at CIA black sites were indeed tortured. Did torturing these men
contribute the future safety of the United States? Was torture the only way to
get the necessary information out of them? These are some questions that were
raised in my mind after reading this article. El Maseri v Macedonia and Mohamed
v UK Secretary of State are two related cases that were also discussed in class
and that both involved extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation
techniques. Similar to the article, both cases were dismissed on grounds of state’s
secret privilege. I can see both sides to this argument about the use of
torture and state’s secret privilege. On one side, it is important that the
United States do everything they can to protect the citizens and not cause
panic. On the other side, it is difficult to determine if what the CIA is doing
is actually lawful if we cannot hear the full story in court because the state’s
secret privilege has been enacted.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment