

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Three former Central Intelligence Agency prisoners represented by the American Civil Liberties Union are filing a lawsuit today against the two psychologists who designed and implemented the CIA's torture program.
Three former Central Intelligence Agency prisoners represented by the American Civil Liberties Union are filing a lawsuit today against the two psychologists who designed and implemented the CIA's torture program.
The CIA-contracted psychologists, James Mitchell and John "Bruce" Jessen, helped convince the agency to adopt torture as official policy, making millions of dollars in the process. The two men, who had previously worked for the U.S. military, designed the torture methods and performed illegal human experimentation on CIA prisoners to test and refine the program. They personally took part in torture sessions and oversaw the program's implementation for the CIA.
The lawsuit is being brought on behalf of three men -- Gul Rahman, Suleiman Abdullah Salim, and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud -- who were tortured using methods developed by Mitchell and Jessen, as detailed in the Senate Intelligence Committee's landmark report on CIA torture. The U.S. has never charged or accused the victims of any crime. One of them was tortured to death, and the other two are now free.
"Mitchell and Jessen conspired with the CIA to torture these three men and many others," said Steven Watt, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. "They claimed that their program was scientifically based, safe, and proven, when in fact it was none of those things. The program was unlawful and its methods barbaric. Psychology is a healing profession, but Mitchell and Jessen violated the ethical code of 'do no harm' in some of the most abhorrent ways imaginable."
Torture methods devised by Mitchell and Jessen and inflicted on the three men include slamming them into walls, stuffing them inside coffin-like boxes, exposing them to extreme temperatures and ear-splitting levels of music, starving them, inflicting various kinds of water torture, depriving them of sleep for days, and chaining them in stress positions designed for pain and to keep them awake for days on end. The two victims who survived still suffer physically and psychologically from the effects of their torture.
The plaintiffs include the family of Gul Rahman, who died because of torture. He was an Afghan refugee living in Pakistan with his wife and their four daughters, making a living selling wood to fellow residents of their refugee camp. While in Islamabad for a medical checkup in 2002, Rahman was abducted in a joint U.S.-Pakistani operation and rendered to a CIA "black site" in Afghanistan. According to the Senate report, Rahman was tortured by a team of CIA interrogators that included Jessen and died in his cell. An autopsy and internal CIA review found the cause of death to be hypothermia caused "in part by 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.'" The family has never been officially notified of his death, and his body has never been returned to them for burial.
Another plaintiff is Suleiman Abdullah Salim, a fisherman from Tanzania. He had recently married a Somali woman and was doing business in Somalia when he was abducted by the CIA. He was then rendered to two of the agency's black site prisons in Afghanistan, where he was held and tortured for over a year before being transferred to Bagram Air Force Base. The U.S. military released him over five years after his abduction with a letter acknowledging that he poses no threat to the United States. He now lives in Zanzibar with his wife and three-year-old daughter.
"The terrible torture I suffered at the hands of the CIA still haunts me. I still have flashbacks, but I've learned to deal with them with a psychologist who tries to help people, not hurt them." said Salim. "This lawsuit is about achieving justice. No person should ever have to endure the horrors that these two men inflicted."
The third plaintiff is Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud. He fled his native Libya in 1991, fearing persecution for his opposition to Muammar Qaddafi's dictatorship. In 2003, Ben Soud was captured in a joint U.S.-Pakistani raid on his home and sent to two secret CIA prisons in Afghanistan, where he was held and tortured for over two years. Ben Soud saw Mitchell in the first of these prisons, later identifying him as a man present in a room where CIA interrogators were torturing him by forcibly submerging him in ice water. In 2005, the CIA sent him to Libya, where he was tortured and sentenced to life imprisonment after a sham trial. Ben Soud was freed in 2011 after Gaddafi was deposed, and he now lives with his wife and three children.
In addition to torturing prisoners themselves, Mitchell and Jessen trained and supervised other CIA personnel in their methods. In 2005, they founded a company -- Mitchell, Jessen & Associates -- that the CIA contracted with to run its entire torture program, including supplying interrogators and security for black sites and rendition operations. According to the Senate report, the government paid the company $81 million over several years. The CIA let Mitchell and Jessen themselves evaluate the effectiveness of their torture in "breaking" detainees, and the agency has since admitted that this was a mistake.
Citing experiments conducted on dogs in the 1960s, Mitchell and Jessen proposed to the CIA a program based on the intentional infliction of intense pain and suffering, both physical and mental. In the 1960s' experiments, dogs were subjected to random electric shocks, and they eventually collapsed into a passive state termed "learned helplessness." According to Mitchell and Jessen's theory, if humans were psychologically destroyed through torture and abuse, they would become totally unable to resist demands for information. Mitchell and Jessen invented different "phases" of the torture process with the aim of breaking down prisoners into a state of "learned helplessness" in a systematized fashion.
"These psychologists devised and supervised an experiment to degrade human beings and break their bodies and minds," said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "It was cruel and unethical, and it violated a prohibition against human experimentation that has been in place since World War II."
The CIA adopted Mitchell and Jessen's proposals, and in August of 2002, the agency secured Justice Department authorization in the so-called "torture memos," which were later rescinded by the Justice Department.
The lawsuit is being filed in federal court in Washington State, where Mitchell, Jessen & Associates was based and where Jessen still lives. The plaintiffs are suing Mitchell and Jessen under the Alien Tort Statute -- which allows federal lawsuits for gross human rights violations -- for their commission of torture; cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; non-consensual human experimentation; and war crimes.
The attorneys on the case are Steven Watt, Dror Ladin, Hina Shamsi, and Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU, and Emily Chiang and La Rond Baker of the ACLU of Washington.
A short documentary featuring interviews with a plaintiff and a psychology expert, plus graphics and more information, are at:
https://www.aclu.org/darkness
Today's complaint is at:
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/salim-v-mitchell-complaint
Photos of the plaintiffs for press use are at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1u48invqaxeji5t/AACtreHhompyNo4uEQTopS2fa
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666“We don’t expect the truth from the Department of Justice or from the FBI," said the president of a legal group advocating for the family of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo. "We expect a whitewash.”
The family of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo is demanding a full, independent investigation into his killing by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Houston earlier this week, as they and their lawyers warn that the government is being dishonest about the incident.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said the agent shot Salgado, a 52-year-old construction worker from Mexico who has lived in the US for over three decades, in self-defense on Tuesday after he attempted to ram them with his vehicle while trying to evade arrest, though it has not provided evidence to corroborate this account.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Salgado's 29-year-old son, Ronaldo, a teacher in Houston, described coming to the harrowing realization that his father had been shot when he saw video of the incident as it circulated on social media.
"I recognized him immediately," Ronaldo said, beginning to tear up. "Not from his appearance, but from his voice crying for help as he lay on the street, bleeding out."
After hearing rumors that "something bad" had happened to his father, Ronaldo said it took hours for him to figure out what had happened—after going to the scene of the shooting, he found that nobody could give him any answers.
He did not find out where his father was until he approached Conchita Reyes, a representative from the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), who contacted Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) and informed Ronaldo that his father was in the hospital.
"I learned of my father's passing from a news report on social media, not the hospital, not law enforcement," he said.
Ronaldo described his father as a "family man" who "dedicated his life in the United States to giving his family the American dream."
DHS described Lorenzo Salgado as an "illegal alien" who was living and working in the US without legal status. Ronaldo said he had lived in the US for 35 years, had no criminal record, and was in the process of obtaining a legal work permit when he was killed.
"We dotted every I, crossed every T, filled every document, attended every appointment," Ronaldo said. "He was close to obtaining his legal status."
He added that his father "worked the last 30 years of his life building homes in the Houston suburbs" and that "part of his dream was to build a house for himself and his family, just like the hundreds he had built for himself over his career."
"And he did, after he built his own house with his crew composed of family members and other loved ones," Ronaldo said. "You could find him every evening after work, resting on his porch, listening to music, petting his dog."
"I am deeply heartbroken to see that the man who taught me the value of hard work, family values, and education will no longer spend an evening on that porch," Ronaldo said.
Ronaldo said he was "calling for a full investigation into the events that transpired yesterday, July 7."
"He did not deserve to die," Ronaldo said. "He deserved to live a quiet life as Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a husband, a father, and a job creator for dozens of men who also wanted the American dream."
Ronaldo noted that three other men, including his uncle, were also "rounded up" by ICE at the scene.
“I have not heard from them,” Ronaldo said, “but I hope that they are able to provide their own statements to prove that my father feared for his life as unmarked cars followed my dad, who only wanted to get back to work and back to us.”
Security cameras near the scene of the incident have captured some footage of Salgado’s white van appearing to be followed by unmarked ICE vehicles, but none captured the events leading up to the shooting, and there is no publicly available visual evidence of ICE’s claim that Salgado attacked officers.
The lawyers representing Salgado's family have called for DHS to release body camera footage of the incident. LULAC leaders called into question ICE's official account, noting that there had been no damage to Salgado's vehicle.
Ronaldo said his father has "always been aware of what to do in the event that he got pulled over" by ICE agents and that "he wasn’t supposed to give them a hard time.”
The legal team representing his family has said Salgado likely panicked when he saw he was being followed by masked men in unmarked cars and feared that criminals were attempting to steal his van and work equipment.
"One of his worst fears is that someone took away his work tools because that is how he made his livelihood," Ronaldo said.
So far, the federal government has not announced plans for a public, independent investigation into the agents involved in Salgado's shooting. The FBI has said it is investigating the alleged assault on the ICE agent, while the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General is conducting an internal investigation.
DHS has not publicly released the name of the ICE agent who shot Salgado, citing what it said were rising threats to federal agents.
“We want a full and transparent investigation," said Juan Proaño, the CEO of LULAC. "Every piece of evidence, body camera footage, dash cam footage, bystander video, dispatch records must all be preserved and released to an independent investigator and to the public.”
In several cases over the past year, DHS and other law enforcement agencies under the Trump administration have claimed that people shot by ICE agents had attempted to harm them, only for video evidence to later prove those assertions to have been exaggerated or outright fabricated.
LULAC national president Domingo Garcia told The Texas Tribune, “We don’t expect the truth from the Department of Justice or from the FBI. We expect a whitewash.”
Garcia and other Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to DHS and ICE on Wednesday calling for an "immediate, fully independent, and transparent investigation" into Salgado's killing.
"This is not the first time ICE agents have used unnecessary, deadly force," she wrote, referencing the killings of US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti during a surge of immigration agents to Minneapolis in January.
"ICE shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in our community. His family deserves answers," she said in a public statement. "ICE cannot investigate itself."
The head of the group behind the analysis called the report "a damning indictment of tariffs’ impact on the US economy."
A US small business coalition on Wednesday released a state-by-state analysis detailing how President Donald Trump's capricious tariffs have cost American businesses and consumers upward of $317 billion since March 2025.
We Pay the Tariffs launched an interactive map, which uses data compiled by the international research firm Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC to show the costs from additional tariffs the Trump administration has imposed by illegally invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—a move blocked by the US Supreme Court in February—and by using Sections 122, 232, and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
With Section 122 tariffs—which impose a 10% surcharge on imports from almost all countries—set to expire on July 24, the Trump administration has said it will replace them with permanent Section 301 tariffs, which, according to We Pay the Tariffs will add "new costs on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars businesses have already paid."
"The latest figures are a damning indictment of tariffs’ impact on the US economy, with lots of pain but little gains for American workers, businesses, and families," We Pay the Tariffs executive director Dan Anthony said on Wednesday. "The trade deficit is up, goods exports and manufacturing jobs are down, and inflation is at its highest level in years. It’s disappointing that the administration is barreling ahead with a flurry of new tariffs despite the results to date."
In an open letter to members of Congress signed by small businesses across the country, the coalition noted that "once new tariffs take effect, history shows they are rarely undone."
"The Section 301 statute says tariffs should terminate after four years. Yet Section 301 tariffs imposed by the first Trump administration in 2018 were continued by the Biden administration, and remain in effect today," the letter states. "So do many Section 232 tariffs imposed in 2018 and expanded upon in 2025. There is no reason to expect this pattern to change."
The coalition argued that this is why "Congress must act before more Section 301 and 232 tariffs take effect."
"This is not a partisan issue. Tariffs are deeply and broadly unpopular with American voters," the letter asserts. "They are hurting small businesses in every state. Tariffs are taxes, and no president should be able to unilaterally impose hundreds of billions in permanent new taxes without a vote of Congress."
Progressive economists and consumer advocates argue that tariffs function as a regressive tax, falling disproportionately on working-class families who spend a larger share of their income on consumer goods. They warn that Trump administration tariff policies have also aided large corporations at the expense of smaller competitors.
Critics also note that the tariffs have failed to deliver the manufacturing renaissance promised by Trump, noting that the sector has still shed tens of thousands of jobs even as output increases due to automation, and that workers have seen few benefits from the hundreds of billions of dollars in additional import taxes paid by businesses and consumers.
"We paid—and will be forced to keep paying—the tariffs," the coalition letter concludes. "We need Congress to act now, before a permanent tariff regime is imposed on small businesses across America."
"We may both be from Aroostook County, but we’re not the same," Jackson said of Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
Troy Jackson, a fifth-generation logger from northern Maine who previously served as the state's Senate president, is making the case that he has the best shot at unseating Republican Sen. Susan Collins in November following Graham Platner's exit from the race on Wednesday.
"There is a powerful movement of working class people in the state of Maine, and millions more across America who are ready to send a progressive fighter to the Senate," Jackson wrote in a social media post on Wednesday, formally announcing his Senate run. "I’ve been fighting for that movement my whole life—and I’m sure as hell not backing down now, when this fight is needed most."
"I’m in," he added. "And we're going to defeat Susan Collins. Maine deserves a senator that will fight for working families."
Jackson, who filed federal paperwork earlier this week to explore a US Senate bid as the Maine Democratic Party scrambled to construct a process to choose Platner's replacement ahead of the July 27 deadline, recently fell short in a highly competitive race for the Maine Democratic Party's gubernatorial nomination.
But those who are rallying behind Jackson argue his economic populist messaging, union backing, support for Medicare for All, and appeal across broad swaths of Maine—including rural counties—make him the most sensible choice to take on Collins, who is running for a sixth term in the US Senate.
"Troy has spent his life fighting for working people," said the national progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, which rescinded its endorsement of Platner following the sexual assault allegation against him, which he denied.
Our Revolution noted that Jackson led Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) presidential campaigns in Maine in both 2016 and 2020. Jackson also appeared alongside Sanders and Platner at "Fighting Oligarchy" rallies during his gubernatorial bid.
"Long before this Senate seat became available, Troy had built a record of standing with workers, unions, and rural communities across Maine," said Our Revolution, which announced Wednesday that it is mobilizing volunteers across Maine to "ensure voters are represented by a candidate who reflects the agenda they overwhelmingly supported" during the Democratic primary process—a contest that Platner won handily.
I’ll be a vote for Medicare For All in the U.S. Senate.
Susan Collins, on the other hand, recently helped advance $990 billion in Medicaid cuts so the richest Americans could get another tax break.
We may both be from Aroostook County, but we’re not the same.
— Troy Jackson (@TroyJackson207) July 9, 2026
Jackson is one of several Democrats jumping at the opportunity to challenge Collins, who has enabled President Donald Trump's destructive legislative agenda and helped pave the way for the gutting of reproductive rights nationwide.
Nirav Shah, former director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, formally announced on Thursday that he is launching a bid to replace Platner. Shenna Bellows, Maine's secretary of state, said Tuesday that she is "seriously considering" entering the Senate race. (Like Jackson, both Shah and Bellows unsuccessfully ran for Maine's Democratic gubernatorial nomination.)
A flash poll commissioned by the Platner campaign earlier this week found that Jackson performed better than Shah and Bellows in hypothetical match-ups against Collins.
Christine Kirby, a spokeswoman for Jackson, told Drop Site on Tuesday that since the sexual assault allegation against Platner was made public, Jackson's team has received a torrent of calls and messages urging him to run for the Senate nomination.
“He is clearly the strongest option to replace Graham Platner and take on Susan Collins in the general election,” said Kirby. “This movement is greater than any one person, it’s about a coalition of Maine people fighting for a future that doesn’t have to belong only to the wealthy and powerful. And Troy is up for the fight.”