CIA Renewed Contract With Psychologists Who Endorsed Waterboarding Weeks After Obama Took Office Before Firing Them

Amid the headlines about CIA director Leon Panetta's comments on Dick Cheney's motivations for his criticism of Obama, a much-bigger revelation was tucked into Jane Mayer's new story in the New Yorker.

Weeks after Obama took office, the CIA extended its contract with the former military psychologists who have been called the architects of waterboarding before eventually firing them:

In April, Panetta fired all the C.I.A.'s contract interrogators, including the former military psychologists who appear to have designed the most brutal interrogation techniques: James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen. The two men, who ran a consulting company, Mitchell, Jessen & Associates, had recommended that interrogators apply to detainees theories of "learned helplessness" that were based on experiments with abused dogs. The firm's principals reportedly billed the agency a thousand dollars a day for their services. "We saved some money in the deal, too!" Panetta said. (Remarkably, a month after Obama took office the C.I.A. had signed a fresh contract with the firm.)

James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen were paid $1,000 a day by the agency to oversee harsh interrogation techniques used on terror suspects, reported ABC News.

"The whole intense interrogation concept that we hear about, is essentially their concepts," according to Col. Steven Kleinman, an Air Force interrogator.

Mitchell and Jessen appear to have closed down their business, which was located in Spokane, Washington.

Mayer also reports that "most of the individuals who managed the secret interrogation program have since left the agency" except for CIA Deputy Director Stephen R. Kappes.

Kappes was previously the deputy director for operations from 2002 to 2004, where he was responsible for the counterterrorism division that directed the interrogation program.

Comments

[sino1985]

These people that you all are defending are TERRORIST, they did not think of all those people who jumped out of the twin towers in a vain attempt to save their lives, or of all of those who died sufficated in smoke and debri. My opinion, torture them until they are nearly dead and then torture them some more, it is the least they deserve. They can hardly be considered human beings after what they did, and if we treat them like princes asking them if "they could pretty please tell us why they did it" what type of message those that send to the hundreds of terrosist out there who are willing to kill thousands of hard working AMERICANS. Next thing you know 9/11 is a myth just like he Holocaust.

[milman1]

Well then convict them already and quit hidding. Come on 7 1/2 years and nothing, if it were your kid in GTMO I guess you would say the same thing.

The DOJ is losing the Habeas cases 3 out of 4 times trying to simply provide evidence for detention. You think they can go beyond a reasonable doubt then get on with it.

[andycan]

Mitchell and Jessen should be forced to write hundreds of thousands of times: "Don't do to others what you don't like to be done to yourself!"

[sino1985]

How about what the people they tortured did to others? If what goes around comes around those people only got their due.

[dax49]

let me guess, this enabled them to get even more government money when their contracts were bought out?

[MikeRdg]

To answer your question CigarGod
” And the best part: Mitchell and Jessen’s methods were so controversial that, among colleagues, the reaction to their names alone became a litmus test of one’s attitude toward coercion and human rights. Their critics called them the “Mormon mafia” (a reference to their shared religion) and the “poster boys” (referring to the F.B.I.’s “most wanted” posters, which are where some thought their http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/22/your-home-teacher-tortures-inmates/

“ The modest banquet was well earned, say O. Lane McCotter and Gary DeLand, friends from Utah and former business associates who were living what they describe today as a dream adventure, complete with body armor, M16s and suitcases stuffed with $100 bills.”“ Iraq was to be an international coup for the U.S. prison industry. And Abu Ghraib, Iraq's most secure maximum-security prison was to be DeLand and McCotter's crowning achievement.” --- SLC Tribune Source: Salt Lake Tribune (UT) Author: Greg Burton Published: Sunday, May 16, 2002 ----- Ahhhhhhhhh, the Utah prison administration, check the abuse that went on there! Not to mention the LDS Bishop was a prison administrator and sexually assaulting LDS children in his ward!

Flannery drafted the first memos is Mormon as well as Bybee.
Woo worked for Orrin Hatch

[MikeRdg]

Reference to Yoo working for Orrin Hatch

http://zfacts.com/p/103.html

"Mr. Yoo says, helped him obtain a top staff job with Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. While on Sen. Hatch's staff, Mr. Yoo clashed with Democrats over Clinton judicial nominees. In 2000, he aided the Republican legal contingent that helped win the decisive electoral brawl in Florida."

[ebanks84]

Now what does that tell you about Romney? We know which way he would have gone that's for sure.

[sino1985]

Shall we judge all Christians for what a few have done? Maybe judge all Catholics based on the Spanish Inquisition (for all of those that don't know it inbolved worst torture than waterbording)? Say all Muslims are terrorist based on 9/11?

[sol2009]

Let's ask these two who designed the torture if they ever "waterboarded" themselves before they recommended it. If they didn't, let's ask for our money back.

[fishingriver]

They can keep the money. I am demanding that they return our good name. I want America's soul back. We have lost it through tortured logic and debates intended to distract us from the real issue of crimes committed from the highest office in our name.

[fcsakes]

Experiments with abused dogs? These people are lower than snake sh*t. The 'experiments' should have been conducted on each other. I want my tax dollars back that supported these monsters and all the years they tortured people (and animals) - I want it all back, it makes me a criminal as it was aiding and abetting, albeit under duress.

[fishingriver]

I agree with you. Because Obama refused to hold Bush accountable for illegally authorizing torture, we the people are left with the responsibility of demanding justice. With only two parties having enough power to self correct, and both being complicit in the others crime, we have become the last line in defense of justice. The only way now for us to avoid personal responsibility is to take action in reversing this. Call your senator and congress person. Demand action. Call the white house. Pressure from the public is already waning. The right wing defends torture and the left defends Obama. It is a recipe for unfettered corruption. It isn't about partisan politics or Dems vs Reps, it is about protecting our nation from whoever would turn us into depravity.

[StillAmused]

Even Drano takes a little while to clear out the sludge.

[mathme]

So, um, did they have to buy the contract out? Was this just a scheme to give a huge payout?

[fishingriver]

I don't think the contracts are the real issue here. The issue is that the Obama administration failed to take any serious action to correct what amounts to war crimes. These articles are a distraction IMO. The law was broken and the president of the United States sanctioned torture in our name. The president we elected to change this turned his back on justice. We are a torture state until justice is sought and a legal ruling sets a precedent to avoid this ever happening again. Simply saying we no longer torture is not enough. The door is still open. Future presidents will have the inaction of this administration to point to in justifying future acts of state sanctioned torture.

[Genep34]

Good question - are these guys laughing on the way to the bank.

And I know there are larger issues.

[mathme]

Yes, as you and fishingriver point out, this is not the biggest potential problem, but if there was a huge payout, it shows an even lower, scummier level of collusion than previously thought. "Look, you're going to have to lose this contract, but because of all of the meth you shared with me, I'm going to try to get you locked into a new contract with a buy-out clause. Oh, that hooker you got for me was a great kisser, too! I asked her to marry me..."

[MikeRdg]

Luziannagirl not cowboy movies:

The ones, who came up with this torture stuff, were Mitchell and Jessen along with their other fellow priesthood holders. The stories which influenced them no doubt, where the stories which they were spoon fed all their lives on their important “missions” in life”, how elect above others they are, and the great mission the church has to “save the constitution as it hangs by a thread”--- then to top it off, the chit chat of mindless LDS people during their meetings on how wonderful they all are.

They were spoon fed anything they do in the name of LDS Inc. to make it great and assist in exalting their chosen Brothern they will be blessed. Mitchell and Jessen extract from ( meaning come from) the group of people who gave this nation The Mountains Meadows Massacre, the first act of terrorism of Americans ---- and it was done by Mormons. – But in their minds they have justified their barbaric acts, all for the glory of their prophet.

They believe they are to rule the United States, as a theocracy, it is God’s calling to LDS Inc.

“saving the constitution as it hangs by a thread”--- strange isn’t it, and they are the ones which would stomp all over it --- typical of the violations of rights, typical of the abuse found with that group of people.

[CigarGod]

I didn't know these guys were mormon's. Source?
Seems to be a lot of mormons in the repression business.
btw, they didn't come up with the "stuff"....I'm sure you know it has been around forever.

[RationalityPlease]

Seems they are Mormons:

http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=19164

[bdaved]

I would hardly call Mountain Meadows "the first act of terrorism of Americans." If it was terrorism it wasn't without precedent.

[CigarGod]

These kind of people are like gophers. You smoke 'em, flood 'em, and they seem to be gone.....until they pop up again later....healthier than ever.

[fishingriver]

Historically, the circumstances for what constituted "war crimes" haven't been from barbarism that happened on the battle field. They were from the treatment of those captured. Once a man is taken and under the complete control of his captors. The United States pushed for and successfully got global cooperation for setting standards of humane treatment after the second world war. This was primarily the result of brutality practiced by Japanese and Germans. The world had slipped into a state of depravity and the idea was that through the Geneva Conventions a code of conduct would set a standard during war or peace time. It was also designed to identify circumstances where prosecution for war crimes could be sought.
Not only did the Bush administration knowingly and willingly break this code and international agreement, they re-established a precedent for the world to do the same. Fostering a new era of global depravity was compounded by actually employing foreign countries to take part in the illegal interrogation of captors on behalf of the United States of America. In each circumstance where powerless captives were whisked away to be tortured, we essentially endorsed torture on a global basis.
If Obama is using foreign countries to torture, he is as guilty as Bush. If we as citizens do not demand accountability and an immediate reversal, we are as guilty as the glazed eyed Germans who followed Hitler into depravity.

[RationalityPlease]

Well said.

[fishingriver]

Thank you. I am distressed about this. The debate surrounding this issue never gets to the root of the problem or the solution. I went to see Obama in KC and he was asked what he would do (if elected) about illegal torture. His response was "We will not have two forms of justice", and "no one is above the law". He lied. He turned his back on this offense and now the right wing is winning the debate. More than half the American public now feels that torture is acceptable under certain circumstances. The sentiment against torture was greater before Obama was elected. By not pursuing justice and avoiding the legal question, the debate was allowed to drift into whether or not "torture is effective". It is like debating the nutritional value of cannibalism.

[bronceye]

Death or organ failure define torture, now. So, N. Korea can do anything short of that to those two lady journalists that they incarcerated and we can say zilch about it. Gone around, coming back around.

[mesmerised]

We could not allow Los Angeles to have been blown up because we wouldn’t water board the Sheik, who we knew had information about that attack. The water boarding was successful. Only 3 people were water boarded, and it is all documented and photographed. For God’s sake, do you think the CIA operatives would have done that if they were simply torturing people for revenge, or for fun? And don’t lump Lyndie England et al in with the CIA interrogations. That was separate, wrong and evil, and those people deserve to be in prison.

The reason people are going after Bush on this issue is not because they’re worried that he committed war crimes, it is because they hate conservatives/Republicans and want to see to it that only “progressives”/Democrats have any power in America.

Obama’s a lawyer. His whole administration is filled with defense attorneys who wouldn’t be happier than to hang their political opponents. But they don’t have a case, and making this all public, describing step-by-step how and why it was done, would only educate the world and weaken the “progressives” position. It would add new details to the Geneva Convention, covering ground that had not been covered before.

[Tom Payned]

I guess cutting off limbs must be on the table just as long has you don't bleed out.

I can hear the justification now.

"We are not doing anything that we haven't done to our own brave soldiers. During the civil war it saved lives as it was 'medical' treatment. So now we can't provide the same treatment to the detainees that we used to on our own soldiers to safe their lives?"

[mesmerised]

There are people who are taken captive but who are not “under the complete control of their captors.” If such prisoners can be shown, through strict legal scrutiny, to have information about their comrades still in the field who have plans to attack (kill) Americans, those prisoners are still active combatants. They remain active through their silence. This would have to be closely monitored, with legal people on hand to evaluate the evidence. Someone legally charged with acting as a judge would have to make the decision as to when water boarding would be allowed.

Simple: Your child has been kidnapped and hidden away, and you have the kidnapper in your custody. Do you use “enhanced interrogation” to get information about your child?

The Geneva Convention would not stand in the way of that type of scenario. The Geneva Convention dealt with willful mistreatment of prisoners for no other reason than because they’d been captured. If this ever went to a trial, and it won’t because Obama knows he can’t win, the reasons for water boarding would be laid out, and not only understood to be correct, but would be understood to have been an obligation.

[fishingriver]

Your tortured logic overlooks the obvious. The idea that we could limit state sanctioned torture to situations of absolute desperation was already proven false with the abuses at Abu Grahib prison. There has never been a documented account of a terrorist sitting on an imminent attack and torture having saved lives. People who justify torture should be placed on a neighborhood watch list. So that the immoral behavior they have revealed to agree with would never be used on children. To approve of torture is no less despicable than to approve of cannibalism. If one confesses to approve or torture, there is no depraved act of which they are incapable.

[bdaved]

There is no such exception in the Geneva Conventions. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution has no exceptions, either. And to manufacture a distinction based on the question of intent, whether to punish or to interrogate, would be despicable.

[Tom Payned]

Mesmerised:

I seriously doubt by your posting you have any legal training other than what you might have picked up from some jail house lawyer (i.e convict)

Under your "simple" example let's first determine a few facts. How do you know he's the kidnapper? Evidence shows torture gives you answers, not necessarily the truth. How would you know he was telling the truth?

Wouldn't it make more sense to offer him something like a life sentence, rather than the death penalty & only if his information brings the child back alive?

Cite me one Supreme Court case that allows this?

2nd, your first line contradicts your example. The kidnapper is "under the complete control of their captors."

Expanding that 1st scenario, (as well as the 2nd) show me that exception in the U.S. code CHAPTER 113C—TORTURE, subsections:

§ 2340. Definitions
§ 2340A. Torture
§ 2340B. Exclusive remedies

Take your time. I've been awaiting a response from the Supreme Ct, & US Code for years. Surprise me.

[Tom Payned]

"If this ever went to a trial, and it won"t because Obama knows he can"t win, the reasons for water boarding would be laid out, and not only understood to be correct, but would be understood to have been an obligation."

"Inaction in the face of evidence has been properly labeled as the banality of evil."

So, James von Brunn, alleged killer of Dr. Tiller, who is "murdering life" is a hero & he shouldn't be under arrest. Continuing your logic, anyone would be fool to try him because as a life saver a DA "can't win".

Really?

Here's another one for you.

I see you as a threat to the American public's well being as you support a policy our adversaries claim allows them to kill Americans. Does that mean I get to capture you (though not have you under complete control) and waterboard you, or as under your kidnap scenario get to do whatever it takes to stop you from aiding our enemies by your support of their greatest recruitment tool. That would save countless American lives.

Or do we just leave it to you to determine when & how much force is appropriate for any given situation?

Back to the kidnap issue. If someone is holding your child hostage, and demands you kill a family you don't know, are you justified in taking their lives?

I'm sure glad you weren't around when the Constitution & Bill of rights were written. We'd never had survived as a country.

[scotuswatcher]

"Not only did the Bush administration knowingly and willingly break this code and international agreement, they re-established a precedent for the world to do the same. "

Not only that but Cheney has been advertising - is there any other word for it? - the effectiveness of tort ure to the rest of the world. He should be tried for war crimes.

[fishingriver]

By the time we find ourselves debating the "effectivness of torture" we are already knee deep in barbarism. You are so right!

[Grunty1]

Certainly fits the Bush Adminstrations MO: pay big money for no work.

[cobobs]

American Psychological Association suffered a severe split because of disagreement over the ethics of participating in things like this. If I recall correctly, the APA refined and defended the ethics and dissidents resigned from the association. Psychiatrists were more unanimous about wanting no part of it. This is their simple, straight forward letter to the New York Times:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E5DA1039F935A35756C0A96F9C8B63

What that means is that if any psychiatrist participates, he or she is on his own, and is likely to have his or her license come under review if the facts should emerge.

[MikeRdg]

Good hope they have their license revoked, but more should happen to them than that.

[Molly Martinez]

These jerks probably weren't licensed...if they were they'd be facing malpractice charges for violating the APA Code of Ethics and could not only have their licenses revoked, they could (I hope would) face criminal charges.

[MikeRdg]

maybe they were not licensed. LDS Inc, keeps LDS social service unlicensed so they can cover up a heck of a lot of abuse, of course the Bishops get their fingers into the pie also,

[Tom Payned]

Malpractice has to be filed by a patient.

Ethical violations are something the state boards can use to strip licensed health care of their licenses.

[Molly Martinez]

I just followed your link and that is actually a letter from the American Psychiatric Associate (MDs not PhDs/mental health clinicians). Here is the official resolution by the American Psychological Association from its own webpage: http://www.apa.org/releases/petition0908.html

[Meggie]

Since Obama had already articulated that his administration would not tolerate continued torture, then whomever authorized this new contract and signed it needs to be escorted to a jailcell. What did it cost taxpayers to bail on this contract? That money should come directly from the signer's pocket.

[bronceye]

The CIA rakes in billions from those poppy fields in Afghanistan. It doesn't necesarily cost taxpayers anything for CIA ops.

[luziannagirl]

This torture thing all goes back to stories----the ones we tell to each other, and to ourselves.

Humans have sustained their family structure, tribal cohesiveness, and entire societies on storytelling for millennia. It's hard-wired into our biology. Our stories are a way to remind us of who we are, and what we aspire to be. We become our stories.

The people who came up with and pushed what amounts to official United States torture methods were no doubt influenced by the stories they heard. I'm guessing, "action" movies, episodes of "24". Maybe they never saw "It's A Wonderful Life", even once.

So, if we must tell ourselves stories, then perhaps a lot more of them should be good stories.