FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan has an important op-ed in the NYT

[BlueJessamine]

Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator described in the DOJ IG report on interrogation as the interrogator, has an important op-ed in the NYT. He writes,

FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

The op-ed continues here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

h/t to Marcy who has more:


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/23/abu-zubaydahs-fbi-interrogator-removes-the-legal-cornerstone-of-the-torture-regime/#more-4007

[Flabbergasted]

1. K R

[SlingBlade]

2. Another witness against Cheney and company

[Flabbergasted]

3. Kick

[yodermon]

4. "Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence."

Key sentence.

[MasonJar]

5. Not only a witness, but a very qualified witness, with personal insight

into interrogation techniques and with personal knowledge of this particular suspect and his treatment and testimony before and after torture. Take that Dick-less et al.