ShareThis Page
Nation

'Research' post at root of CIA torture program

| Wednesday, July 13, 2016, 11:00 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The architect of the CIA's brutal interrogation program was hired for the job through a secret contract in late 2001 that outlined the assignment with Orwellian euphemism.

The agency “has the need for someone familiar with conducting applied research in high-risk operational settings,” the document said. The consultant would be in a unique position to “help guide and shape the future” of a vaguely described research project “in the area of counter-terrorism and special operations.”

In fact, the CIA already had a specific consultant in mind, and the agreement to pay $1,000 a day to psychologist James Mitchell subsequently expanded into an $81 million arrangement to oversee the use of water-boarding, sleep deprivation and other harrowing techniques against al-Qaida suspects in secret agency prisons overseas.

The abuses of that program have been documented extensively over the past decade, but the initial contracts between the CIA and the psychologists it hired to design the torturous interrogation regimen were surrendered by the agency for the first time this month as part of an ACLU lawsuit.

The documents trace the origins of a clandestine program that became one of the most controversial in CIA history, one that was dismantled by President Obama in 2009 and widely condemned as torture.

The contracts, copies of which were obtained by the Post, show how Mitchell and his partner Bruce Jessen — Air Force veterans with no significant expertise in interrogation — were given wide rein to design punishing interrogation regimens for dozens of detainees and then evaluate whether their methods worked, all while securing increasingly lucrative follow-on contracts.

The contracts “substantiate that these guys had significant latitude in the design and implementation of the program,” said Steven Watt, a senior attorney with the ACLU's human rights program. “The CIA incentivized these guys to profit from torture.”

Henry Schuelke, an attorney for Mitchell and Jessen, declined to comment. The men are defendants in a lawsuit filed on behalf of former CIA detainees alleging that they were subjected to torture in violation of international laws against war crimes and the cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

The newly released files show that Mitchell had been hired by the agency months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for an assignment that had nothing to do with face-to-face interrogation methods. Instead, the CIA sought to enlist his help developing psychological profiles in cases when the agency had “limited access to the individual being assessed.”

The nature of the work isn't specified, though CIA analysts are frequently asked to assemble profiles of foreign leaders and U.S. adversaries.

But within weeks of 9/11, Mitchell's assignment was morphing and expanding through a series of escalating contracts. Instead of innocuous profiles, he would serve as “a consultant to CTC special programs,” a reference to the agency's Counterterrorism Center.

One of Mitchell's objectives would be to “adapt and modify the Bandura social cognitive theory for application in operational settings,” a cryptic reference to a theory that learning is largely driven by rewards and punishments.

The methods embraced by Mitchell and Jessen were adapted from training programs designed to enable U.S. Special Operations forces to withstand torture if they were taken prisoner. A principal aim of the CIA program was to reduce detainees to a state of “learned helplessness.”

The contracts repeatedly describe the work as a form of “research” even though the objective was far from academic. At the time, the CIA was desperately seeking any intelligence that might help avert other al-Qaida plots, and Mitchell was in some cases directly involved in subjecting prisoners to water-boarding sessions to induce the panic of near-drowning.

By 2005, Mitchell and Jessen had formed a company based in Spokane, Wash., to handle the expanding workload. They hired dozens of employees, including former CIA officers.

In 2006, Mitchell Jessen and Associates had secured a CIA contract worth $180 million, according to an extensive investigation of the interrogation program by the Senate Intelligence Committee, although the firm ultimately collected about half that amount.

As early as 2003, CIA employees had expressed concerns about the ethical conflicts of an arrangement in which Mitchell and Jessen were administering harsh interrogation measures and repeatedly affirming their “effectiveness.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me