Three victims of the CIA’s torture program have filed a lawsuit against the program’s two creators. On Monday, a Washington judge ruled that the case can go to trial.

The plaintiffs in this suit are Suleiman Abdullah Salim of Tanzania; Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud of Libya; and the estate of Gul Rhaman of Afghanistan. All three were detainees in a CIA prison in 2003. The first two are now free and living in their home countries. The third died in prison.

The defendants are James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen, former U.S. military psychologists who designed the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” in November 2001. Reportedly, the government paid them between $75 and $81 million for their plans.

This is the first CIA torture lawsuit to survive past the pretrial discovery phase. Prior to this, the Bush and Obama Administrations intervened, arguing that the suits put state secrets at risk.

However, a Senate intelligence committee report published in 2014 provided many details that the administrations had tried to keep secret. It confirmed that the CIA tortured 39 people, including the plaintiffs, at a secret prison codenamed “Cobalt.”

According to the report, Salim and Ben Soud’s torture included beatings, sleep deprivation, shackling in stress positions, and waterboarding. In addition, Rhaman died of hypothermia after his interrogators doused him with water and left him in a freezing room overnight.

In a pretrial hearing on July 28, the defense attorneys argued that providing a memo to the CIA does not count as aiding and abetting torture. It was the U.S. government, not Mitchell and Jessen, who conducted the program.

At one point, the defense team compared their clients to the manufacturers who developed the gas used in Nazi execution chambers. The British military tribunal, the lawyers pointed out, did not try those manufacturers for what the Nazis did.

Judge Justin Quackenbush rejected those arguments, ruling that the evidence indicated that Mitchell and Jessen themselves supported using torture on the CIA prisoners. Not only that, he found it “undisputed” that the psychologists used the techniques themselves on the CIA’s first detainee, Abu Zubaydah. Jessen was “physically involved” in Rhaman’s torture as well.

“Defendants have not established they merely acted at the direction of the government, within the scope of their authority, and that such authority was legally and validly conferred,” he decided.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) first filed the suit on behalf of the three plaintiffs in 2015.

“The court’s ruling means that for the first time, individuals responsible for the brutal and unlawful CIA torture program will face meaningful legal accountability for what they did,” ACLU attorney Dror Ladin told the Guardian. “Our clients have waited a long time for justice.”

The trial will begin on September 5.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CIA Torture Victims Sue Program Designers appeared first on Law Street.

In the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA broadened its torture toolkit. Detainees were stuffed in boxes. They were forced to spend hours holding uncomfortable positions, sometimes barred from sleeping for days at a time. And of course, there was waterboarding. In October 2015, two men who were subjected to the CIA’s interrogations at secret prisons in Afghanistan filed lawsuits against the two CIA contractors who sculpted the agency’s torture program.

The plaintiffs and their lawyers now question whether their quest for justice could be undermined by President-elect Trump, who has expressed support for torture techniques, and will have the power to unilaterally dismiss the suit if he chooses. No government official involved in a torture program has been held accountable, and this suit, backed by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, is the furthest former detainees have gotten.

Suleiman Abdullah Salim of Tanzania, and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud of Libya, along with representatives of a third man who died in the CIA’s secret prison, are the plaintiffs in the case. The defendants are James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, both psychologists and contractors who devised and helped implement the torture program.

If Trump, who recently hinted his position supporting torture might have shifted, decides to invoke the state secrets privilege, the case would be dismissed under the grounds of national security. The Department of Justice under President Obama has blocked civil cases against CIA contractors from proceeding under the same pretense.

But in April, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, where the suit was filed, dismissed a motion that claimed the suit could reveal security-compromising secrets. Under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to sue in U.S. courts for human rights abuses, Judge Justin Quackenbush allowed the case to proceed. The trial is set for June 2017.

On Tuesday, Mitchell, one of the defendants, is set to release a book titled “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying to Destroy America.” According to The New York Times, which obtained an early copy, Mitchell defends his torture program, saying his “unpleasant” techniques “protected detainees from being subjected to unproven and perhaps harsher techniques made up on the fly that could have been much worse.”

The effectiveness of Mitchell and Jessen’s program was questioned in a 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report, however, which concluded the “inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Could Dismiss Lawsuit by CIA Torture Victims appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Intercept released a batch of 166 previously unseen documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The release fulfilled Snowden’s wishes for the classified information, by pairing it with context that makes it accessible and understandable to the general public. The Intercept also attempted to protect the personal welfare of innocent individuals associated with the information.

On its website, the Intercept declared that it will release the documents in batches, starting with the oldest ones from 2003 and going all the way until the most recent documents, from 2012. The documents in question are from the NSA’s internal newsletter called SIDtoday, short for Signals Intelligence Directorate.

On Tuesday, reports came that the CIA “mistakenly” destroyed a 6,700 page U.S. torture report, containing thousands of confidential files about the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation. Something that does sound very fishy, and Snowden said:

I worked @CIA. I wrote the Emergency Destruction Plan for Geneva. When CIA destroys something, it's never a mistake. https://t.co/S1VULfE4NY

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) May 18, 2016

Along with the release of information, the Intercept published four accompanying articles. One went through how closely the NSA was involved in the Guantánamo interrogations, explaining how staff were sent to the military base during the time that the torture-like interrogations took place. It states:

The NSA LNO might pull together intelligence to support an upcoming interrogation, formulate questions and strategies for the interrogation, and observe or participate in the interrogation.

The documents and corresponding articles also account for how the staff spent their free time doing water sports, going to a Tiki bars, or:

Pottery, hiking, nature walks, biking, paintball, martial arts, tennis, racquetball, basketball, softball, and bowling.

This all sounds like a relaxing, enjoyable vacation. But reports from FBI agents who were disturbed by the conditions under which the prisoners were questioned all stem from the same time period. They state that prisoners were questioned while lying chained to the floor in fetal positions, while exposed to aggressive dogs, and while starved as just a few of the examples. The reports also stated that the interrogators claimed to be FBI agents, to avoid later blame for abuse and possible repercussions.

Another article from the Intercept goes through the most intriguing spy stories that have come to light as a result of the documents. For example, it highlights North Korean nuclear plans, Russian mobsters, and information about the rescue of a kidnapped female soldier.

The Intercept was founded in 2014 and is dedicated to fearless reporting. The site is known especially for its coverage of the Snowden documents–editor Glenn Greenwald was one of the original recipients. Batches of more documents are coming shortly, so stay tuned as more of Snowden’s revelations come to light.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Intercept Releases New Snowden Documents, Details About Guantánamo appeared first on Law Street.

At this point, the disbelief that Donald Trump could actually win a primary has worn off. But worry still remains for many, especially after hearing about Trump’s support of waterboarding and other more severe forms of torture. Other candidates such as Cruz and Rubio were also in support of waterboarding in the most recent Republican debate. But these candidates’ desire to be tough on terrorism seems to only be a test of masculinity, leaving basic human rights unrecognized.

At recent debates, Ted Cruz spoke in support of waterboarding in an all-means-necessary approach to interrogation; Rubio took a similar approach. The collective opinions of these three candidates has ignited backlash from their own party, and again raises awareness of the dissonance within the Republican Party as its candidates endorse compromising measures. Senator John McCain had to distance himself from the words of these candidates, and remind them of the severe impact of torture. He responded to their statements in a Senate address, highlighting:

It might be easy to dismiss this bluster as cheap campaign rhetoric, but these statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the American people about the realities of interrogation, how to gather intelligence, what it takes to defend our security, and at the most fundamental level what we are fighting for as a nation.

One American already mislead by these comments is none other than Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump. In defense of his father’s torture stance, the younger Trump actually said that waterboarding was no different from hazing in frat houses across American college campuses.

These comments had several people doing a double take just to ensure he actually said those words. Eric Trump and these candidates want people to see torture as a sign of toughness, and candidates are able to capitalize off the fear and tragedy of Americans after terrorism attacks.

Infighting between the candidates over their toughness has occurred too–Donald Trump actually laughed when one of his supporters called Ted Cruz a pussy during his speech because Cruz’s support of waterboarding did not measure up to the strictness of Trump’s future plans for torture. After laughing, he went on to repeat the words of his supporter to his entire audience after laughing.

This long back and forth over the use of torture begs the question: is this a race for presidency or a contest in masculinity?

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Macho Enough to Torture?: Cruz, Trump, and Rubio All Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

After the CIA’s use of torture in interrogations came to light in a controversial Senate report, few people have been held directly responsible for misconduct. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hopes to change that with a recently filed civil suit against two psychologists who consulted with the CIA to develop and implement the program.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two former CIA prisoners and the estate of another who died while in CIA custody, claims that John “Bruce” Jessen and James Mitchell violated international law for their role in the CIA’s use of torture.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report on the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program reignited the debate about the agency’s use of torture from 2002 to 2009. The so-called “torture report” immediately became controversial, revealing the details of several interrogations and the tactics that were employed by the CIA and its contractors. While the full report, which spans more than 6,000 pages, remains classified, the 512-page executive summary came out last December. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) include waterboarding, physical abuse, sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, nudity, rectal rehydration, mock executions, and isolation in extreme cold and in coffin-shaped boxes for days at a time. Hypothermia is reportedly the cause of Gul Rahman’s death, and according to the ACLU’s complaint:

An autopsy report and internal CIA review found that Mr. Rahman likely died from hypothermia caused ‘in part from being forced to sit on the bare concrete floor without pants,’ with the contributing factors of ‘dehydration, lack of food, and immobility due to ‘short chaining.’

Prior to the Senate report, there was very little available evidence about the CIA’s use of torture in the post-9/11 era. In fact, the ACLU noted that its lawsuit is largely based on the contents of the CIA report. Steven Watt, a lawyer for the ACLU told the Huffington Post that the report is “really why our clients are able to pursue this case.”

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs–Suleiman Abdullah Salim, Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, and now-deceased Gul Rahman–were interrogated at CIA black sites using techniques that constitute torture. It further claims that the two psychologists, Jessen and Mitchell, “designed, implemented, and personally administered an experimental torture program for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.”

The lawsuit seeks relief for the plaintiffs based on the Alien Tort Statute, which enables non-citizens to file lawsuits for violations of international laws and treaties. The ACLU has three specific claims against Jessen and Mitchell, specifically the use of “torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment,” non-consensual human experimentation, and war crimes.

The complaint argues that the defendants’ roles were central to the entire enhanced interrogation program, as they monitored the interrogations, suggested tactics for interrogators, and may have participated themselves. In an interview with Vice, Mitchell admitted to participating in waterboarding a prisoner but has so far refused to give additional details about his involvement.  Their company, Mitchell Jessen and Associates, was contracted by the CIA to oversee and conduct interrogations, for which it received about $80 million. The company also employed 11 of the 13 interrogators used by the CIA. The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Washington state, which is where the company was headquartered.

Prior to their involvement with the CIA, both Mitchell and Jessen worked for the Air Force’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape program, which trained soldiers to resist coercive and violent interrogation tactics. Based on their experience training people to resist harsh interrogation, the CIA asked them to advise and monitor interrogations of high-level suspects in the wake of 9/11.

According to the complaint, the psychologists utilized research from the 1960s to develop their recommendations for the CIA, specifically the work of Dr. Martin Seligman who experimented with dogs to develop an understanding of learned helplessness. Seligman found that repeated abuse eventually put dogs in a state where they became completely compliant, which is what Jessen and Mitchell sought to reproduce in CIA interrogations. Because many of the prisoners had been trained to resist interrogation, these methods were used to break them down in order to retrieve information. This conclusion is a point of much contention–the Senate report concluded that the enhanced techniques proved ineffective and even counterproductive, while Mitchell has maintained that his advice saved lives. The CIA concluded that it is impossible to tell whether or not the CIA torture had intelligence benefits. Ultimately, the answer to that question has become more a product of individual ideology than the available evidence.

The ACLU’s claims and its underpinnings in the Senate’s report are certainly shocking. One of the few relatively undisputed parts of the report is the actual tactics that were used. The lawsuit focuses on the long-term psychological consequences of the torture that the victims are currently dealing with.

The exact culpability of Jessen and Mitchell is difficult to determine based on the information available, which will make this lawsuit particularly challenging. It is unlikely that the CIA will release new evidence and it appears that based on the contract that the psychologists have with the agency, they will not be paying their legal fees. According to the Guardian,

A Spokane-based company the two founded, Mitchell and Jessen Associates, would secure $75m from the CIA in contracts, in addition to a further $6.1m from the agency for legal expenses in the event of criminal or civil action stemming from the contract.

In light of the government’s unwillingness to hold those who committed and authorized torture accountable, the ACLU’s attempt to seek justice is laudable. But securing sufficient evidence to receive compensatory damages will be particularly difficult, as the program has been and will continue to be shrouded in secrecy.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Architects of CIA Torture Program appeared first on Law Street.

The nation, and quite frankly the world, is reeling after the disclosure of an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture practices following September 11, 2001. The report took a long time to come out–there was significant back-and-forth from the Senate, the White House, and the CIA. But now that it has, there’s no doubt–we regularly tortured people, and it didn’t work. The report is revealing, horrifying, and honestly, not entirely unexpected.

It’s an interesting time to be an American. We’re taught, from the youngest possible ages, that if you do something bad you pay the consequences. Our justice system is proof of that–we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. With freedom comes responsibility. Despite that, the CIA operatives, leaders, and anyone else in our government who were involved in this torture will probably never be punished. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle is someone who’s been thrown in jail for a few years for something like well, selling pot, and the pot brutally tortured approximately 100 prisoners.

There’s significant evidence to suggest that legal tracks were covered with regard to how we treated these prisoners. International Law, as grey and ineffectual a field as it is often considered, does exist. The Geneva Conventions dictate how nations behave in war and peace, and the particularly pertinent part is called Common Article 3, which forbids torture of prisoners. Essentially, it says that if someone is no longer an active participant in the conflict because of various reasons–including being detained–they must be treated humanely and the following cannot happen to them:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

In February of 2002, President George W. Bush signed an executive order proclaiming that Common Article 3 did not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners; however, it was ruled four years later by the Supreme Court that Common Article 3 does apply, in a separate case regarding Guantanamo prisoners. The ridiculousness of the fact that Bush decided part of International Law didn’t exist is kind of beyond the point–the Supreme Court has even acknowledged that Common Article 3 can be used in federal court for prisoners’ protection. As The New York Times put it:

Perhaps most significantly, in ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the Guantanamo detainees, the court rejected the administration’s view that the article does not cover followers of Al Qaeda. The decision potentially opened the door to challenges, by those held by the United States anywhere in the world, to treatment that could be regarded under the provision as inhumane.

Furthermore, the Justice Department has authorized at least some of the torture tactics used, although some of that was after the fact. The Justice Department began an inquiry in 2009, but no charges were ever brought against anyone. It has announced that it’s not going to revisit that decision.

Now, with the disclosure of this report, U.N. officials are demanding that the U.S. do something. As the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad al-Huseein, put it while calling for prosecutions:

In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture recognized as a serious international crime they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency.

He also pointed out that the United States did ratify the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994. Other U.N. officials, as well as leading humans rights experts have come forward to condemn the U.S.’s actions and demand some sort of accountability. It would be great if there was that accountability, but at this point I would be shocked. Everything the U.S. has done–Bush and Obama administrations alike–indicate that’s not going to happen. Everything in American history indicates that’s not going to happen. We have consistently shied away from the prospect that we could be held internationally accountable for our crimes.

Now, international law is incredibly complicated; the ways in which it applies to American law even more so. No one has the exact answers about what should or could happen here. But what’s almost certainly not going to happen is any sort of American appearance in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Located in The Hague, the ICC has the ability to prosecute individuals for various violations of international law. The statute that governs that court–the Rome Statute–has never been ratified by the United States. And the United States has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, meaning we can’t be referred.

The torture report indicates a horrifyingly dark time in this country’s recent history. We have the opportunity to make it clear that we recognize that truth, and an obligation to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We have a chance to show that we screwed up and we’re willing to pay the price. A chance to be an example of all of those ideals–freedom, democracy, right and wrong–that we espouse to other nations. Too bad we’re almost certainly not going to take it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture appeared first on Law Street.

Many prisons use solitary confinement as a mechanism to control their prison populations and minimize the threat of danger to other inmates and prison staff. Yet extreme isolation is an unnatural punishment and can cause severe psychological, or sometimes even physical, damage. The effectiveness and methods of solitary confinement has been debated since its modern day inception as a form of punishment in the 1800s, yet it was not until recent years that states began to question the constitutionality of the matter. As convicts, prisoners have little sympathy from the general population; yet there are arguments for the release of prisoners who are placed in solitary confinement for indefinite amounts of time and for non-violent reasons. The argument in favor of regulating or eliminating the age old method is that these people are being placed under “cruel and unusual” circumstances, and are being released back into society in an even worse condition than before they were incarcerated. As of 2013, the United States holds roughly 2.3 million inmates in federal, state, and local jails, 80,000 of which are in solitary confinement.

What is Solitary Confinement?

There are two main types of solitary confinement that are primarily used in the United States. Disciplinary solitary confinement is used to punish an inmate for a violation of minor jail rules or protocol; administrative solitary confinement is used to isolate dangerous prisoners from the rest of the prison population and staff. Often prisoners who are placed in the latter group will remain in Supermax cells for months to years, sometimes for an undetermined length of time.

Typically solitary confinement is reserved for the most threatening and aggressive inmates, so the conditions are not cozy. Cells are typically “80 feet [10 by 8 feet], not much larger than a king-size bed,”  and sometimes even smaller; they do not have any windows and the floors are hard concrete. The door is typically heavy metal and locks with massive bolts.  Prisoners are isolated for 23 hours out of the day, and receive one hour of heavily monitored recreational activity in another slightly larger cell. Meals are slid through a small space in the door so prisoners remain completely isolated even during meal times.The cell is left bare, so prisoners often resort to habitual pacing and sometimes create routines to mimic life outside of prison. Prisoners may receive an early release from the designated amount of time if they practice “good behavior” and attend classes to improve themselves.

 History of Solitary Confinement

Solitary Confinement is thought to have started in a Philadelphia jail in the 1800s. The Quakers felt that by placing criminals in isolation they would have time to read the Bible and repent for their sins. The original idea behind solitary confinement was to reform inmates, as opposed to violently punishing them.

The Invention of Solitary Confinement — The Eastern State Penitentiary:

Another early prison that used a form of solitary confinement was the New York jail, Auburn. There, the “Auburn System,” a method of punishment in which prisoners were required to do manual labor all day in silence before being sent off to solitary confinement for the remainder of the night, was developed. This system gained popularity in prisons across the country. During this time, Auburn and other prisons also used forms of torture as a punishment. One popular method was the “shower bath.” This consisted of placing a prisoner under a constant flow of an excessive and painful amount of water. The flood would beat them over the head, getting into their eyes and mouths, nearly drowning them. Sometimes the shock would cause prisoners to fall dead moments later.

Psychological Effects and Ethics

It is hard to think of people who have committed heinous crimes as actual people, yet putting them under such harsh conditions can be embarrassing, alarming, and disgusting. Many times inmates display suicidal tendencies and harm themselves with makeshift weapons. Others resort to odd and erratic behaviors such as rubbing feces on themselves, pacing mindlessly, or cutting themselves. If solitary confinement is supposed to teach a lesson, it may be counterintuitive to its original purpose. Prisoners who are placed in solitary confinement will experience several psychological and physical effects of being in isolation for an extended period of time. According to Frontiers in Psychology, “One’s own existence is something that one experiences in the kinds of pragmatic projects that one shares with others.” When deprived of the basic human need of socialization for long enough, people begin to display mentally unstable and even insane behaviors.

Prisoners in solitary confinement may begin experiencing:

Visual and auditory hallucinations

Hypersensitivity to noise and touch

Insomnia and paranoia

Uncontrollable feelings of rage and fear

Distortions of time and perception

Increased risk of suicide

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

The development of crippling obsessions

When prisoners do not experience any interactions with other people they begin to lose a sense of reality. Their internal thoughts become a blur with the external world, which they have ceased to experience. Not only is this inhumane, but it also defeats the purpose of punishing the guilty. Integrating the prisoner back into society becomes more challenging, and they become a product of isolation. This is not only detrimental to the individual, but also society.

According to International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, in 1890 the United States Supreme Court  began to note the inhumane and damaging effects that solitary confinement has on the prisoners:

“A considerable number of prisoners […] became violently insane;  other still, committed suicide, while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be any subsequent service to the community.”

ABCNews personality Dan Harris voluntarily spends 48 hours in solitary confinement:

Prisoners’ Rights

The Eighth Amendment includes the cruel and unusual punishment clause and serves as the basis for civil rights advocates’ arguments against the use of solitary confinement in American prisons. The fact that prisoners have little to no human contact, let alone see daylight for months to years, could be considered cruel and unusual. The argument that solitary confinement violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights prevails as the center controversy for advocates and courts. While incarcerated, prisoners are provided with medical and mental services, although whether they are adequate or not is debatable, and many cases regarding health care and general prison conditions have been brought to the forefront within the last 20 years.

To view the document outlining prisoner’s medical, dental, and mental health rights click here.

Case Study: Pelican State Bay Prison  (Ashker v. Brown)

The case Ashker v. Brown was sparked by a  2011 hunger strike led by prisoners at Pelican State Bay Prison in Crescent City, California. The strike drew attention to the unpalatable conditions that prisoners in solitary confinement experience. In an extended effort in May 2012, the  Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against Pelican State Bay Prison for allegedly violating the Eighth Amendment as well as the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Many prisons lack adequate medical care, and prisoners are denied an in-depth review of their cases before being placed in solitary confinement.

Case Study: Nicole Guerrero v. Wichita County

Pregnant inmate Nicole Guerrero was placed in solitary confinement in a Texas jail in 2012. While in ‘the hole’ she began to experience excruciating pain and intense cramps due to labor. The medical staff at the prison reportedly ignored her for hours. She was forced to give birth alone, and when the prison medical staff finally came to the scene the baby was dead due to the umbilical cord being wrapped around its neck. This case supports the argument noting the lack of medical attention prisoners in solitary confinement receive, and brings states closer to regulating the controversial practice.

Peoples v. Fischer

In June 2012, the New York City Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of prisoner Leroy Peoples. Peoples spent three years in solitary confinement for filing false legal documents. Violating any of the codes that the prison regards as against protocol has the potential to send a prisoner into solitary. According to the Civil Liberty Union, “only 16 percent of isolation sentences from 2007 to 2011 were for assault or weapons.” Solitary confinement served the original purpose of protecting staff and other inmates from potentially dangerous prisoners; now prison systems are abusing the extreme form of punishment, and overusing solitary confinement for reasons other than violence. Another issue that the NYCLU addresses is the fact that solitary confinement is used as a source of punishment for juveniles, pregnant inmates, and the mentally ill. The Union argues that this is inhumane and more permanently damaging to these more vulnerable groups of inmates. Currently, the outcome of the case is in reconsideration, and “if the process fails, the NYCLU will resume litigation.”

Click here to see the Institutional Laws of Conduct.

Innovation in the Prison System

Recently Colorado signed into legislation a law that bans prisons from placing mentally ill inmates in long-term solitary confinement. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Maine and New Mexico have taken steps to reduce their use of solitary confinement, and Nevada and Texas are studying the issue.” Similarly in a document, New York has decided to “remove  youth, pregnant inmates and developmentally disabled and intellectually from extreme isolation.”

Click here to see New York’s agreement to reform solitary confinement in the prison system.

Some opponents of the practice suggest alternative methods; instead of placing inmates in solitary confinement,  they could be sent to a mental-health care unit within prison where the individual can be treated instead of punished. Of course, this idea receives strong opposition, yet New York has decided to enact a version of it.

Resources

Journal of Constitutional Law: Prolonged Solitary Confinement and the Constitution

NYCLU: Peoples v. Fischer

Correctional Association of New York: Shining Our Spotlight on Auburn Correctional Facility

CNN: Solitary Confinement: 29 Years in a Box

PBS: Solitary Confinement and the U.S. Prison System

Pennsylvania Prison Society: Violence in the Supermax: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Washington Post: Va. Prisons’ Use of Solitary Confinement is Scrutinized

The New York Times: New York State in Deal to Limit Solitary Confinement

Center for Constitutional Rights: Ashker v. Brown

NYCLU: Lawsuit Secures Historic Reforms to Solitary Confinement

CNN: Texas Wom Claims She Gave Birth Alone in Jail, Baby Died

Wall Street Journal: Colorado Becomes Latest to Back Ban on Solitary Confinement of Mentally Ill

—

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Evolution of Solitary Confinement in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

The NRA Convention happened last weekend, folks! And you know what that means.

LOTS of ridiculousness for us to talk about.

Specifically, the ridiculousness that Sarah Palin was spewing. When she addressed the cheering crowd of gun enthusiasts, she made a wildly offensive comment equating torture with Christian indoctrination.

“They obviously have information on plots to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them. You can’t make them feel uncomfortable. Not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Oh sure, Sarah, that’s great. Let’s torture people and call it baptism. Because that’s not problematic AT ALL.

A lot of people, conservatives included, are pretty scandalized by this latest sound bite from the Conservative Queen of Ridiculous Sound Bites. She’s talked nonsense about President Obama being a socialist, plotting to plunge the U.S. into a quagmire of evil Communism. She’s said some weird and totally untrue things about death panels being a part of the Affordable Care Act. Not to mention, she’s been unable to pinpoint any specific news publications that she reads, or to be completely in control of the English language — “refudiate” and “misunderestimate” are cases in point.

But! Despite the fact that we should all be totally used to Sarah Palin spewing nonsense, she really outdid herself this time.

Even Lucy is shocked.

Let’s start with the most glaring and obvious issue here — Palin is talking about TORTURE. This isn’t an enhanced interrogation method. This isn’t even fucking legal.

Waterboarding is torture.

And she’s talking about it pretty fucking brazenly. She’s blasé about it, really. Palin talks about torturing people with the same folksy, nonchalant charm that won her a spot on the presidential ticket back in 2008. She could be talking about her kid’s hockey game, for cryin’ out loud.

But she’s not. She’s talking about subjecting human beings to the experience of simulated drowning.

And that’s really disturbing. When a person can talk about torturing other people with such ease, it makes you wonder what they’re really capable of. And I’m not the only one who’s wondering.

The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf brings up an important point—what happens if the wrong Republican gets elected? Will the United States revert back to its Bush Era, barbaric ways? Will torture become the norm once again? What else will become the norm?

Potentially, a lot of scary things. Keep in mind, Palin is a self-professed, devout Christian. She’s a woman who claims to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ — a prophet who preached peace and love above all else. I mean, let’s be real. Dude was the original hippy, am I right?

Yup.

So if she can justify torture — even when she follows a religion that, at its core, preaches peace — what else can she justify?

For starters, she can justify a blatant disrespect for the religion that she claims to cling to so tightly. Her conflation of waterboarding with baptism has been received with a lot of insult and outrage by many in the Christian community. Rod Dreher, the editor of the American Conservative, even termed the comparison “sacrilegious.”

So what are we left with? Sarah Palin has proven herself time and time again to be a lightning rod for controversy. She says crazy things. She does weird shit like deviate from her political career to star on reality shows. She gets a lot of flak.

And some of that flak isn’t well deserved. There’s always been an element of misogyny to the criticism hurled at Palin. The world collectively freaked out when she was announced as John McCain’s running mate back in 2008 — and not because she was wildly unqualified — but because she was a woman, a former beauty queen, a mother of five children. How can she be a heartbeat away from the presidency, the country asked, but not always for the right reasons.

But now? We’re left with a woman who talks about violence with reckless abandon. Who preaches her own religious and political views dogmatically, without actually following them herself. Who panders to crowds of gun-enthusiasts who cheer her on when she talks about torture.

That shit’s dangerous. So what’ll happen if the wrong Republican gets elected?

It’s impossible to say — but one thing’s for sure. Nothing good happens when you give people with a penchant for violence and self-righteousness the keys to the kingdom.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can We Maybe Not Condone Torture, Sarah Palin? appeared first on Law Street.