ACLU-Obtained Emails Prove That the Federal Bureau of Prisons Covered Up Its Visit to the CIA’s Torture Site
The U.S. agency responsible for managing the federal prison system sent personnel to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan where detainees were tortured during the Bush administration’s “war on terror” and covered its involvement up, according to emails obtained by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
As a result of our lawsuit, which we agreed to end yesterday, the Federal Bureau of Prisons confirmed not only that it had sent two employees to assist CIA officials at the secret prison, but that they had been instructed to take extraordinary measures to hide their involvement. As one email revealed in our lawsuit put it, “We were not even allowed to speak with our supervisor about what was going on.”
Nicknamed “the Salt Pit” and codenamed “COBALT” in the Senate torture report, this CIA “black site” was an integral part of the CIA’s post-9/11 torture program. The CIA’s own chief interrogator later described the Salt Pit as being like a “.” According to the Senate torture report, detainees were kept in total darkness, shackled to the floors or walls of their cells, and given only buckets to dispose of their own waste.
The Senate torture report also revealed that early in the Salt Pit’s operation, in November 2002, the CIA invited officials from the Federal Bureau of Prisons — which runs the civilian federal prison system and provides technical assistance to state prison systems — to join them at the Salt Pit. The purpose of the visit was to evaluate the CIA’s management practices and provide technical assistance, much as the bureau does for civilian prison agencies.
But instead of raising alarms, bureau officials praised this dungeon. At one follow-up meeting described in the Senate torture report, they told CIA officials they were “WOW’d” by the extreme levels of sensory deprivation at the Salt Pit and had “never been in a facility where individuals are so sensory deprived.” Nevertheless, they told the CIA officers that in their judgment, and taking into account “the mission” of the Salt Pit, “the detainees were not being treated in humanely [sic],” the facility was “sanitary” and provided medical care, and “staff did not mistreat the detainee[s].”
Shortly after the Senate torture report was released, the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the bureau to find out more about this civilian agency’s potential involvement in CIA torture. At first, the bureau stonewalled, replying that no records of its CIA relationship existed and , “We will not be providing any information regarding your inquiry.” They continued to stonewall us in an administrative appeal. It was not until the ACLU sued that the bureau reluctantly conducted new searches. These searches resulted in the production of several email messages and led the bureau’s attorneys to sign a remarkable sworn declaration describing the cover-up.
The emails confirm that two bureau officials traveled to both Guantanamo and an undisclosed location to provide training on, in the words of one of the two officials, “basic correctional techniques, correctional duties, abnormal inmate behavior etc.” They were instructed to keep the entire engagement secret, and “[w]e were not even allowed to speak with our supervisor about what was going on.” In subsequent years, they also were interviewed twice by the FBI about the engagement.
The bureau’s sworn declaration confirms that the undisclosed location was a CIA detention site, that the dates of their visit to this site match those described in the Senate torture report, and that the CIA took extraordinary measures to prevent the bureau from generating any records of its involvement with this work. According to an interview described in the declaration, the two bureau officials (one of whom was based in bureau headquarters in Washington, D.C., and the other of whom was based in an unnamed state in the Midwest) were not told why the other had been selected. There is no record of anyone in the bureau making the decision to select them for this assignment, and it is not clear whether the bureau or the CIA carried out that selection. They did not receive any written materials regarding the engagement. They were instructed not to discuss their participation with anyone and not to create or retain any records of it.
And although our lawsuit forced the bureau’s attorneys to search the travel records of both bureau employees, neither of their travel histories contained any records of international travel during the time when they visited the CIA black site together. Indeed, even though their travel histories did reflect travel to Guantanamo for similar training work for the Defense Department, their work for the CIA was even more secretive and off-the-books.
The ACLU originally filed this lawsuit to expose past wrongs. The Bureau of Prisons’ work at the Salt Pit illustrates how torture — and the secrecy surrounding it — corrupts every institution it touches. This is more important than ever to remember when the man who will soon occupy the Oval Office has stated publicly the he “love[s] waterboarding” and “would absolutely authorize something beyond waterboarding.” Now is the time for federal officials to ask themselves: If torture once again becomes policy, will I have the courage to do the right thing and blow the whistle?
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.