Reisner v. Leso
Accountability for One of the Psychologist Masterminds of the Guantánamo AbusesIN BRIEF | BACKGROUND | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
IN BRIEF
New York, New York – On July 7, 2010, CJA filed a complaint with the New York Office of the Professions (NYOP) on behalf of New York psychologist Dr. Steven Reisner against New York psychologist Dr. John Leso for his role in designing, implementing, and participating in a system of abusive interrogations at United States Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Neither Dr. Leso nor any other U.S. official involved has ever been held accountable for the cruel treatment of detainees at Guantánamo. Thus, CJA’s case marks a crucial step forward in the march toward accountability for human rights abusers of the United States.
On July 28, 2010 the NYOP denied jurisdiction over the complaint under a theory that Dr. Leso's conduct did not constitute the practice of psychology under New York law and thus was not governed by New York rules of professional ethics.
CJA responded in an August 26th letter where we rebutted the notion that Leso's behavior-modification services performed on behalf of an institutional client and under the title of "clinical psychologist" were not as such 'psychology'.
CJA also stepped up the campaign to hold Dr. Leso accountable by drafting a letter to the American Psychological Association calling for the revocation of Dr. Leso's membership.
» Read a note from CJA's founder Gerald Gray on the significance of the case.
BACKGROUND
Documents made public by the United States Senate Armed Services Committee, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense, among others, make clear that prisoners held in U.S. detention facilities in Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in CIA-operated “black sites” around the world were tortured within the meaning of that term under international law. Further, health professionals, and psychologists in particular, played a prominent role at every stage of the development and implementation of the program of torture used at these sites.
Dr. Leso led the first Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) at the United States Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (Guantánamo or GTMO) from June 2002 to January 2003. While at Guantánamo, Dr. Leso co-authored an interrogation policy memorandum that incorporated illegal techniques adapted from methods used by the Chinese and North Korean governments against U.S. prisoners of war. He recommended a series of increasingly psychologically and physically abusive interrogation techniques to be applied against detainees held by the United States. Many of the techniques and conditions that Dr. Leso helped put in place were applied to suspected al-Qaeda member Mohammed al Qahtani under Dr. Leso’s direct supervision, as well as to other men and boys held at Guantánamo. Eventually, similar techniques were also used on prisoners held in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dr. Steven Reisner speaks with Democracy Now on the ethics complaints filed against Maj. Gen. Leso and Col. Larry James.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Filing & Pre-Trial Motions
CJA filed a complaint before the New York Office of the Professions (NYOP) on July 7, 2010. The complaint alleges that Dr. Leso violated the professional standards set forth by New York law for licensed psychologists, specifically New York Education Law section 6509 (2) (practice beyond authorized scope, gross incompetence, gross negligence) and subsection (9) (unprofessional conduct); Rules of Regents section 29.1(b)(5) (conduct exhibiting a moral unfitness to practice the profession) and subsection (b)(11) (unauthorized treatment); and Rules of Regents section 29.2(a)(1) (neglect of a patient in need of immediate care), subsection (a)(2) (willful abuse and harassment), and subsection (a)(7) (unwarranted treatment).
New York Office of the Professions Denies Jurisdiction
On July 28, 2010 the NYOP denied jurisdiction over the complaint under a theory that Dr. Leso's conduct did not constitute the practice of psychology under New York law and thus was not governed by New York rules of professional ethics. In a letter to CJA, the NYOP asserted that the practice of psychology was undefined under New York law prior to 2003. It chose to apply retroactively the definition included in New York Education Law § 7601-1 (Sep. 1, 2003). Under the NYOP's interpretation of this statute, Dr. Leso's conduct did not constitute the practice of psychology because (1) he did not form a therapist-patient relationship with any Guantanamo detainee, (2) his behavior-modification techniques only modified behavior undesirable to third parties and not to the patient, and (3) Dr. Leso's application of specialized psychological knowledge and training to interrogation techniques did not render those techniques psychological practice.
CJA rebutted these arguments in an August 25th letter where we asked the NYOP to reconsider its decision. First, the denial of jurisdiction misstated New York law: prior to 2003, the practice of psychology was defined by the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education 8 NYCRR §72.6. And in any case, both pre- and post-2003 definitions contemplate that psychologists can serve multiple clients, including institutional clients, as Dr. Leso served at the Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, and as correctional psychologists serve in New York State correctional facilities every day. Dr. Leso's conduct falls squarely within either definition of psychology. Moreover, Dr. Leso represented himself as a psychologist, for which New York requires a license.
Second, Dr. Leso established therapist-patient relationships with Guantanamo detainees when he administered psychological treatments to them intended to modify their behavior to obtain compliance with interrogation, much as psychologists in penal institutions modify the behavior of inmates--at times without consent--to the benefit of the institution.
Finally, CJA noted that the NYOP is obligated to investigate allegations of misconduct by licensed psychologists. If it were true that only beneficial or desired treatment constituted the practice of psychology, then the NYOP could not take jurisdiction over any professional conduct that harms rather than benefits the patient, and would be powerless to sanction the worst misconduct. Given the NYOP's mandate, this interpretation cannot possibly be right.
» View notable legal documents and accompanying exhibits here.
» View a chronological list of all pleadings.
