Mohamed Ben Soud is a plaintiff in the ACLU’s lawsuit against the psychologists behind the CIA torture program. The following statement from him was recorded in Arabic and played during a recent ACLU event in Geneva on the sidelines of the 30th U.N. Human Rights Council session. The English translation below has been lightly edited for clarity.
I am Mohamed al Shoreiya Ben Soud, from Libya.
I would very much like to thank the organizers of this event and appreciate their invitation, which makes me very proud. I consider my participation a historic opportunity for me to tell you about my experience and suffering during those difficult days in my life, the year and a half during which I lived in CIA secret prisons — in a dark prison near Bagram in Afghanistan, where the CIA insisted on violating all international conventions of humanity, morality, and legality.
They tried very hard to suppress the violations and facts of these prisons in different ways. But in the words of Tunisian poet Aboul-Qacem Echebbi, “The chain must break and injustice must fade away.” These days, and through this and other events, we live this truth which they tried to suppress and hide.
Ladies and gentlemen:
On April 3, 2003, my home, where I lived with my family in Pakistan, was raided. I was kidnapped after I was shot and my foot broken. I was moved for two weeks between Pakistani jails in Peshawar and Islamabad. I immediately underwent interrogations by agents of the CIA. The interrogators kept threatening to move me to a special place where I would be subjected to interrogations and violent treatment.
I was indeed moved to a “black site” near Bagram, and I was deposited in a narrow, dark, and cold cell. Interrogations and torture started right away. I was forced to leave my cell naked and walk inside the jail once every half hour on average throughout the night, despite the fact that my foot was broken and I had not received any medical treatment. This was followed by continuous psychological and physical torture. I was left naked for several weeks. My hands and feet were shackled to the cell wall by metal shackles. I was kept sitting for very long and tiring periods.
All this continued for several months. I was deprived of sleep by being forced into a sitting position using shackles and by loud music that did not stop at any point during my detention. Guards also forced us to wake up once every hour and throughout the night. We were deprived of light for months. We were refused use of the bathroom, instead forced to use a bucket left in the room. They intentionally took the bucket cover. We were deprived of hygiene for five months, refused a shower or to cut our hair or nails.
%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FV-Wyictntto%3Fautoplay%3D1%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20thumb%3D%22%2Ffiles%2Fweb15-dem-mohamed-580x326.jpg%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22384%22%20width%3D%22580%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
The teams of interrogators used violence that exceeded any kind of humanitarian and moral limits. This included slamming us against the walls, slapping in the face, punching in the stomach, pouring ice water on our naked bodies, creating the illusion of drowning several times, and stuffing us in small boxes. I was hung by my hands to the ceiling of the room for a day and a half. We were deprived of food as part of a methodical program where they sometimes prevented us from eating for 30 hours. The meals were of poor quality and very limited quantity, lacking any nutritional value. We were deprived of medicine and any medical care.
The so-called doctors in that place were not practicing medicine. Rather, they were playing a dirty role as part of the torture machine and investigation teams. Their function was to oversee torture practices and a starvation policy, in addition to supervising the shameful, degrading, and humiliating procedures during the transfer of detainees.
Ladies and gentlemen:
It was a difficult and stressful period, during which the CIA agents tried to find a real charge to use against me. When they failed, rumors started to surface that we would be transferred to the hands of the Qaddafi regime. I explained to them more than once that if I was to be transferred, my life would be endangered. I told them that the Qaddafi regime is an oppressive regime, which would subject us to the worst kinds of torture and oppression, and that we would not receive a fair trial there. However, I was transferred by a special flight, and in a humiliating and degrading manner, to the Libyan regime on August 23, 2004. The transfer was coordinated between the CIA and the Libyan intelligence apparatus, which was headed then by Musa Kusa.
I spent several years in Libyan jails, where I was subjected to different kinds of psychological and physical torture. After a year and a half, my case was referred to the court. The court’s procedures were illegal and unfair. The judge appointed a lawyer to represent me, but I was never allowed to meet or speak with him. The lawyer did not provide any defense and the court sentenced me to life in prison. The suffering extended to my family, who lived in difficult and harsh conditions. My family was deprived of all civil rights, and my daughter was deprived of education.
Ladies and gentlemen:
I hold the government of the United States fully responsible for the suffering and the terrible tragedy that I and my family endured over these eight years. I especially hold the CIA and its agents responsible for their methodical practice of psychological and physical torture. These practices are the result of an official political decision taken by the American administration.
Human Rights Watch has published a shocking , where I spoke about the details of the suffering I went through in these dark sites. The U.S Senate Intelligence Committee also published a report that confirmed beyond any doubt what I described. The Senate report has pushed the United States government to face ethical and legal responsibility.
I take this opportunity, in front of your gathering, to call for the following:
First, reveal the full truth. If the American administration feels ashamed in front of its citizens and the free people of the world, it should endeavor to rectify this wrong, rather than dealing with it by seeking to hide the truth and evade it — a further wrong.
Second, expose all persons who were involved and hold them accountable.
Third, offer an official apology for the victims of these crimes.
Fourth, as I am one of the victims of this criminal conduct and shameful acts, I demand material and moral compensation for all the suffering and oppression endured by me and my family.
Ladies and gentlemen:
There are behaviors and ethics that should bind all humans in dealing with each other, be it people or governments, developed nations or developing nations. This behavior should be based on respect for the humanity of every person. I wish for all the efforts of the free people of the world, human rights activists, and governmental and non-governmental human rights institutions to culminate in an agreement to oblige a complete end to these violations, create real guarantees to prevent a repeat of all the violations, and raise awareness about these issues so the people can pressure their governments to halt such terrible acts.
Ladies and gentlemen:
I thank the organizers of this event, and I am grateful to them for inviting me to speak. I thank the audience. And I wish all the best.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.