By Margot Williams
January 22, 2020 "Information
Clearing House" -
A psychologist
who helped to design and execute the
CIA’s “enhanced interrogation
techniques” testified in open court for
the first time on Tuesday in connection
with the trial of five men accused of
planning the 9/11 attacks.
“I suspected from the beginning that
I would end up here,” James Mitchell
told a Guantánamo Bay courtroom. Dressed
in a charcoal suit and bright red tie,
Mitchell stated that although he could
have testified over a video link, he had
chosen to come in person. “I did it for
the victims and families,” he told James
G. Connell III, an attorney for Ammar
al-Baluchi, one of the accused plotters.
“Not for you.”
He added: “You folks have been saying
untrue and malicious things about me and
Dr. [Bruce] Jessen for years.”
Mitchell and his colleague Jessen
were previously questioned in
videotaped depositions in a civil
case, but the proceedings underway at
the military court complex in Guantánamo
represent the first courtroom
appearances by the two psychologists as
witnesses. On Tuesday, the accused
architect of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, sat just yards from the
men who waterboarded him 183 times in a
CIA black site in Poland in March 2003.
The topic of Tuesday’s hearing was a
motion to suppress statements made by
the 9/11 defendants while they were
being held in detention, even after they
were brought from the CIA’s black sites
to Guantánamo. The defense attorneys
allege that the statements the men made
at Guantánamo were not voluntary because
of the profound impact of
their prior torture, which was
overseen by Mitchell and Jessen.
The torture techniques, approved by
the George W. Bush administration, were
used by the CIA as part of the
rendition, detention, and interrogation
program from 2002 to 2008. These
methods, including waterboarding, were
designed to “condition” prisoners to
provide information to interrogators and
debriefers.
The CIA renounced the harsh
interrogation techniques in 2009, and
the Senate’s torture report later
found that the program was a violation
of U.S. and international law that
failed to generate usable information
for counterterrorism operations.