Showing posts with label cia torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cia torture. Show all posts

22 January 2020

CIA Torturer James E. Mitchell "Bloody Gina" Jessen Pal Testifies Guantanamo Gina Haspel CIA Code Name "Wicked Witch Of The West Without The Charm"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/us/politics/guantanamo-bay-interrogation.html?

Architect of C.I.A. Interrogation Program Testifies at Guantánamo Bay

Appearing for the first time at the military war court, James Mitchell was defiant, saying he was there for the benefit of the victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families.


Credit...Angel Valentin for The New York Times



This article was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — On the witness stand was James E. Mitchell, a psychologist and architect of the Bush-era interrogation program that had inflicted torture on prisoners held in secret C.I.A. prisons after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Defiantly, he described how the program came about and why in his view it was necessary, growing emotional only when recounting how he came to the conclusion that it was his patriotic duty to personally implement the techniques he had devised.
Sitting yards from him in the military courtroom built specifically for their death-penalty trial were the five men accused of helping plot the attacks. All of them had been subject to the methods developed by Dr. Mitchell. Their alleged leader, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 by a team including Dr. Mitchell. They sat impassively as he testified at a pretrial hearing in their case.
It was an extraordinary moment in the slow-moving justice system set up to try foreign prisoners of the war on terror, with American lawyers for defendants who were tortured more than a decade and a half ago flipping the script to question an interrogator from the so-called black sites.
Dr. Mitchell, a former contract psychologist for the C.I.A., expressed no regrets or contrition, tearfully saying he did it for the American people at a time when President George W. Bush’s administration feared a follow-on attack by airplane or nuclear bomb to the Sept. 11 hijackings that killed 2,976 people.
“I’d get up today and do it again,” he said.
“I thought my moral duty,” he said, choking up, “to protect American lives outweighed the feelings of discomfort of terrorists who voluntarily took up arms against us. To me it just seemed like it would be dereliction of my moral responsibilities.”
He was talking about the first man he waterboarded, a Palestinian known as Abu Zubaydah. In 2002, Mr. Zubaydah was the first known C.I.A. prisoner subjected to the full range of interrogation techniques, which also included sleep deprivation and being crammed inside a coffin-size box and slammed into a wall. He has never been charged with a crime and has never been to the war court but is held at Guantánamo as an indefinite detainee.
But the five men charged as conspirators in the Sept. 11 attacks were present. It was the first time they had seen Dr. Mitchell since their transfer to Guantánamo from the black sites in 2007. Lawyers for Mr. Mohammed and another defendant, Walid bin Attash, asked the judge to clear two thick binders of materials off the witness stand that had obstructed their view of him.
None of the defendants expressed any visible emotion, although defense lawyers had a psychologist and a psychiatrist with experience treating torture survivors in court to sit with two of them.
Lawyers for Mr. Mohammed’s nephew, Ammar al-Baluchi, called Dr. Mitchell to testify in a long-running defense effort to show the interrogation program was a Bush administration-wide effort and persuade the judge to exclude subsequent F.B.I. interrogations of the defendants at Guantánamo in 2007 from their trial. It is scheduled to get underway next January.
By law, prosecutors cannot use what the men told Dr. Mitchell and other interrogators in the C.I.A. prison as evidence in the death-penalty trial. Prosecutors consider the F.B.I. interrogations to be crucial case evidence.
Dr. Mitchell described the decision to use waterboarding and other “coercive physical pressure” as born of a climate that feared Al Qaeda was plotting a nuclear attack on the United States, or plotting to crash another plane somewhere, “and the gloves were off.” Until that point, C.I.A. and F.B.I. agents were taking turns interrogating Mr. Zubaydah, who had stopped cooperating, in a secret prison that has since been revealed to have been in Thailand.
“C.I.A. was never interested in prosecutions,” Dr. Mitchell said. “The C.I.A. was not going to let them set off another catastrophic attack in the United States. They were going to go right up to the line of what was legal, put their toes on it and lean forward.”
Dr. Mitchell opened what is expected to be two weeks of testimony by telling defense lawyers that the only reason he had come to Guantánamo was to testify in person in front of families of the Sept. 11 victims.
“You folks have been saying untrue and malicious things about me and Dr. Jessen for years,” Dr. Mitchell said, referring to John Bruce Jessen, another psychologist who worked with him to devise the interrogation system. They went on to set up a business that provided guards and interrogators to work at the secret overseas prisons set up after the 2001 attacks and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. They received $81 million for the contract.
Had Dr. Mitchell refused to come, the Air Force colonel presiding in the case could have ordered him to testify by video teleconference from Washington.
“I actually did it for the victims and families. Not you,” Dr. Mitchell said under questioning by James G. Connell III, a lawyer for Mr. al-Baluchi. About 12 relatives of victims and their companions were observing the hearing, one wearing a necktie with the Statue of Liberty on it.
They were sequestered behind a blue curtain in the spectator’s gallery of the court, hidden from the troops, journalists, legal observers and court staff also watching what is expected to be the most dramatic testimony so far since arraignment of the five men in the case in May 2012.
Dr. Mitchell, with a full snow-white beard and thinning white hair, wore a charcoal suit to court with a crisp white button-down shirt and a red tie. Mr. Mohammed was in his typical court attire: a green camouflage hunting jacket atop white flowing clothes, a black and silver scarf fashioned into a turban and black orthopedic shoes.
Dr. Mitchell adopted an aggressive approach as a witness. After a prosecutor provided him with a top secret guide to the codes the United States government had assigned to interrogators whose names cannot be used in court, he declared the list flawed. He said it gave a “false and misleading impression that these men were interrogated during their entire time in custody. And they were not.”
He said some of the code-named people identified as interrogators were actually “debriefers, targeters and analysts.”
Drs. Mitchell and Jessen were called to testify by lawyers for Mr. al-Baluchi. But all five defense teams are expected to question them about what went on in the clandestine overseas prisons, including one in Thailand that for a time was run by Gina Haspel, now the C.I.A. director. . . .





27 December 2019

GTMO Death Penalty Trial Five Prisoners' Attire And That Of Military Courtroom





Inside America’s War Court: Clothing and Culture at Guantánamo Bay

What the 9/11 case defendants, lawyers and others wear at the war court, like all fashion, has meaning. It evokes emotions, stirs controversy and, above all, sends messages.

Credit...




This article was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — Cheryl Bormann, a lawyer for one of the men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, had made it through the two security checks necessary to enter the maximum-security courtroom when the hem on her black abaya began unraveling.
“Wardrobe problem,” she called out in the court vestibule. “Duct tape!”
Ms. Bormann, a civilian who has devoted her career to death penalty cases, had recently purchased the $50 Saudi-style robe at a shop near the Pentagon but had not had time to hem it properly. The staples she had used as a stopgap solution were coming out.
Once the robe was fixed, she pulled it shut, covered her strawberry blond hair and stepped inside the military courtroom at Guantánamo Bay where eight other women, mostly defense team lawyers and paralegals, were also hiding their hair in deference to their clients — the five men accused of plotting the worst terrorist attack in United States history.




ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
The choice of the women to do so demonstrates how, even after more than a decade of war court proceedings at the isolated United States naval base, the culture clash is still raw. Courtrooms are always stages, and even though few people see the hearings unfold, it is still a setting for an especially difficult mix of ideas and perspectives.








Image




Image




Image
The lawyers say they need to respect the religious sensibilities of their clients in order to defend them. Families of the 9/11 victims say they are offended by Western women covering themselves and embracing the cultural norms of men accused of mass murder.
To spend time at the military court as it moves toward the trial of the accused 9/11 conspirators — a proceeding years in the making — is to see those conflicts and others in a variety of ways, including through the clothes they wear and the messages they send.




ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
There are prosecutors in suits and ties and soldiers in olive drab camouflage and combat boots. There is a judge in a traditional black robe.
There are the prisoners, notably the man accused of being the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who wear traditional Muslim attire and accessorize in ways that convey political messages.
And most controversially there are the women on the legal defense teams who come to court in modest, culturally sensitive attire — part of an effort, they say, to develop trusting, respectful relationships with the defendants, men whom the C.I.A. tortured before they were brought to Guantánamo Bay for their death penalty trials. What they wear offends relatives of some of the 2,976 victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
No photography is allowed of proceedings at the court, where jury selection in the case is scheduled to begin in January 2021. So The New York Times brought an illustrator to Guantánamo to show how what started as an unmistakably military proceeding when the defendants were arraigned in 2012 has evolved, not least in choices of clothing.








Image
Legal defense teams that seven years ago were dominated by members of the United States military are now overwhelmingly made up of civilians. Two military prosecutors who started as Marine Corps and Navy officers remain on the government team as civilians and come to court in business attire.
Entire days can go by without a lawyer in uniform delivering an argument, unless the chief war crimes prosecutor, Brig. Gen. Mark S. Martins, rises in his Army dress blues to speak.




ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
By far the most decorated person in court, he has eight rows of ribbons, parachute and expert infantry badges, a ranger tab and other medals and badges that stretch from his left shoulder to his rib cage. It is a uniform of accomplishment that could be on display when the case gets to a jury of United States military officers.
The defendants’ clothing has also changed. Troops brought them to their arraignments seven years ago in loose white clothing, skullcaps and canvas slippers, all issued by the prison. Now the five men accusing of conspiring with the hijackers come to court in tunics and trousers or gowns topped by vests. They cover their heads in caps, hoods and scarves.








Image




Image




Image
Mr. Mohammed dyes his beard orange, like the Prophet Muhammad. Some days he twists a black striped scarf into a turban atop his white skullcap. On others he wears a Sindh cap from Baluchistan, showing an affinity with his tribal homeland.
For the week that The Times had an illustrator in court, he wore a gray paneled vest his family sent him. Once the artist was gone, he pulled on a jungle green hunting jacket atop his traditional garments.




ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Mr. Mohammed’s lawyers argued for his right to wear camouflage as “culturally appropriate attire” in 2012. It has the woodland pattern, like jihadis wore in the 1980s in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden wore the same pattern in public appearances.
Two of Mr. Mohammed’s co-defendants also sometimes add a military-style top to their traditional Muslim attire, often a desert pattern that United States forces wore in the invasion of Iraq.








Image




Image




Image
All five defendants wore fringed scarves decorated with Palestinian flags in the summer of 2014, symbolizing their solidarity with Gaza during an Israeli offensive. The scarves still appear in court, sometimes on a defense table.
The court itself, as seen by the public through triple-pane glass, has many of the trappings of a typical courtroom. The judge wears a black robe. American flags are to his right and a witness stand to his left, near the jury box.




ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
But this is a national security court. The public hears the proceedings on a 40-second delay, long enough for a security officer to mute the feed if somebody says something classified.








Image




Image




Image




Image
Sketching is permitted but with restrictions. An artist, for example, cannot draw the guards. They are soldiers on nine-month tours who come to court in camouflage and combat boots.
Family members of those who were killed in the attacks get their own section in the gallery behind the prosecution.




ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Some of the family members grumble about the accommodations the military affords the terrorism suspects. Guards clear the spectator gallery at Muslim prayer time to provide privacy to the defendants and legal team members who pray with them.








Image
But the thing that most animates some family members is how the women on the defense teams dress when their clients are in court.
“It wouldn’t bother me if it was actually their religion and they believed in it,” said Kathleen Vigiano, whose husband, Joseph, a police detective, and brother-in-law John Jr., a firefighter, were killed trying to rescue people at the World Trade Center.
She called their attire “disrespectful,” and noted that when she traveled to Guantánamo this summer on the same plane as the lawyers, none of them were covering their hair.
“They don’t wear it around the plane,” Ms. Vigiano said. “They don’t wear it around the base. Business attire is business attire.”
Women on Mr. Mohammed’s team mostly wear long skirts and other loosefitting clothes topped by a variety of colorful scarves, shawls, head coverings and, in at least one instance, a one-piece, pull-on hijab.




ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
“I honestly believe that some of the discomfort is rooted in Islamophobia,” said Rita Radostitz, one of five lawyers who represents Mr. Mohammed in court. She said defense lawyers who specialize in death penalty work, such has herself, instinctively make accommodations to their clients to build and maintain professional relationships.








Image




Image




Image
The legal team of Walid bin Attash, led by Ms. Bormann, favors the austere black abaya of their client’s native Saudi Arabia.
It represents “the culture he comes from,” Ms. Bormann said. “It’s the thing that makes him most comfortable. When you’re having a conversation with somebody, you want them to be comfortable.”
During a news conference at Guantánamo in 2017, one family member, Jean Winter, pointedly called the choice of attire by women on the defense team “hurtful” and “an insult to all American women.”




ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Ms. Winter was representing her nephew Carl E. Molinaro, a firefighter, who was killed at the World Trade Center, and her husband, Richard, a New York City Police inspector, who died in 2008 of the toxic fumes he inhaled at the site. She called it “embarrassing to see other accomplished American women garbed in ancient, archaic, demeaning, humiliating wear.”
On the defendants’ side of the room, the only women who show their hair are the lawyers and paralegals from the military services who, like their male counterparts, wear uniforms to court. The military regulates precisely what they wear, and they typically turn up in court with their hair twisted into a tight bun.








Image
Darlissa M. Leatherwood, a paralegal, started off on a defense team in 2015 as a Marine Corps sergeant and came to court in uniform with her hair uncovered.
She transitioned to a civilian position, and came back to court a month or two later with a scarf flawlessly fastened in place. “For me, it was about trying to relate and make them comfortable,” she said. “I’ve never felt pressure to be one way or the other.”
She became so proficient with the scarf, she said, that she can put it on in five minutes, the same amount of time it would take her “to pull my hair back in a bun” while in uniform.
“You learn how to do things very quickly in the Marine Corps,” she said.
In death penalty cases in particular, the defense lawyers say, they have a duty to find common ground by respecting their clients’ traditions.




ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story




Image




Image
Ms. Bormann bought the new abaya, the one with the duct-taped hem, to replace a plain black one that became caked in mold in her office at the war court compound atop an idle, obsolete Navy airstrip.
Given the cracked tarmac, occasional mud puddles and tricky four-step climb to a latrine at the court, Ms. Bormann gave up wearing her Christian Louboutin heels at Guantánamo years ago. Still, her new abaya is decorated with rhinestones, a splash of style she chose to recently spruce up with some knockoff Valentino shoes.
Ms. Bormann said she has worn the robe every time she has been in the company of Mr. bin Attash and has no plans to change the practice once the jury is chosen.
“I would certainly hope that nobody who is sworn to uphold justice,” she said, “is going to hold it against me because I wear a black robe and scarf.”








Image
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/politics/guantanamo-bay-court-clothing.html?





Copyright 2019 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved (fair comment; educational; partial example; no claim to The New York Times In Partnership With The Pulitzer Center For Crisis Reporting content)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                fffffff