FBI Agent Who Interrogated Abu Zubaydah: The Torture Advocates Are Lying to You

[NNN0LHI]

http://washingtonindependent.com/40140/fbi-agent-who-interrogated-abu-zubaydah-the-torture-advocates-are-lying-to-you

Spencer Ackerman 4/23/09 9:20 AM

You know an op-ed’s going to be good when it starts out like this:

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.

This is the account of Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent — and superstar — whom Lawrence Wright profiled in a riveting New Yorker piece in 2006. Soufan was part of the original team that interrogated Abu Zubaydah from March to June 2002, “before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August” thanks to the go-ahead from the Office of Legal Counsel’s Jay Bybee and John Yoo. He says that an iterative, rapport-building approach yielded “important actionable intelligence,” including the imminent arrival of Jose Padilla, the so-called “dirty bomber” (that one didn’t work out so well), to the United States; and the role of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the architect of the 9/11 attacks. “This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.”

And people like former Vice President Dick Cheney are lying when they say that the torture of Abu Zubaydah was necessary to extract crucial data points:

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

[malaise]

1. KO just discussed the time line lies

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! These liars don't have good memories.

[aquart]

3. To be a liar, you MUST have a good memory.

[liberalmuse]

2. They're coming out of the woodwork.

And I'm glad. To the Hague!

[malaise]

14. The spigot is open

and they can't turn it off. Pity their PR Joe isn't a plumber.
Expect a flood of people willing to expose these criminals now that they are no longer in power.

Justice is coming and they are scared shitless. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[seemslikeadream]

4. And people like former Vice President Dick Cheney are lying

[bottomtheweaver]

5. Padilla's case is sickening on every level.

Depraved to the point of insanity in fact. A complete travesty of every important rule of law and common decency. And the poor guy is still locked up in some South Carolina "brig." It's enough to make you think the whole damn thing is hopeless.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[stillcool]

6. Good to see in the New York Times....

hopefully there will be many more..

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=3&ref=opinion
My Tortured Decision

By ALI SOUFAN
Published: April 22, 2009

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.
-----------------
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.
----------------

Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).

My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)

[MannyGoldstein]

8. It Always Puzzles Me That So Many Here Denounce The NY Times As Rightest

Here's yet another example that they are right down the middle.

[stillcool]

10. It's an Opinion Piece..

not reporting.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. They Chose To Run It

And they chose to investigate and blow the cover on warrantless wiretapping - although I suppose that warrantless wiretapping is now cool because Obama wants to do it.

[stillcool]

15. wow..you can't help yourself can you?

Every media outlet has had some good reporting you can point to. Doesn't negate all their attempts to sway public opinion through bullshit reporting.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Which Bullshit Reporting Is That?

Can you point to specific reporting that was bullshit? Anything from today, perhaps?

And, yes, I can't help but defend the NY Times - it's a national treasure.

[stillcool]

17. Oh now..you know that is not what I was..

referring to. I read an article either yesterday or today that used part of a statement by Dennis Blair. They conveniently left off the qualifier..obviously altering the intent of the Dennis Blair's memo. I saw another piece recently...actually I see this alot..where the headline makes a statement that the reporting doesn't support. I do not wish to see the New York Times fade to black, nor any other print media. The New York Times particularly has had some of the best opinion pieces I've ever read.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. I Read The Time Article And The Blair Memo - I Don't See What You See

In an article about whether torture produced results, Blair's written opinion was cited. In the memo, he justifies torture,

"It is important to remember the context of these past events. All of us remember the horror of 9/11. For months afterwards we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al Qaida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods.""

and wrote he might authorize that war crime himself:

"I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given."

What is it that the Times gets wrong here?

[stillcool]

25. I was referring to this:

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Not Part Of Blair's Memo

That was a statement made two days ago, and I don't think it helps Blair at all - he's still saying that we know that war crimes helped us, but we don't know if legal processes would help. Why couldn't he say the truth: which is that we know that legal processes produced incredibly important information, while it's unclear if anything whatsoever useful was obtained through war crimes?

Don't you find this timeline troubling:

Jan 22 (confirmation hearing), Blair said “I believe strongly that torture is not moral, legal or effective.”

On his memo excerpt released April 16: "Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." Why were these left out?

I may be more sensitive than most on this issue because a good part of my family tree was obliterated by the Nazis, but war crimes need to be prosecuted - there should be zero doubt as to their legality.

[stillcool]

27. True. What bothers me..

is the use of a person's words who was not involved in the decision making process being used to defend the practice. The 'he said it too' defense is very disturbing and apparently the only topic worthy of discussion. When caveats to the sources statement are deliberately not included, I have to assume the reason is because they take away from the intent of the article. And that is what bothers me about articles written to provide a sense of agreement in order to alter public opinion. Rather than inform of the facts of what was done by who, and the blatant illegality, the only story being reported is about varying personal opinions by those not involved in ordering these interrogation methods.

[Forkboy]

11. I think a lot of that goes back to the start of the war.

The Times was hardly a shining beacon in those months leading up to the war.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. They Fired All But One Of The Scumbags Who Did That

Most important was Howell Raines, who ran the paper then. Those were dark days!

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. "Contractors"... not a lot of talk about them being involved.

Theuse of contractors for torture needs more coverage.

[stillcool]

19. Aren't they under the employ of the military?...

I would think they would be taught the techniques just like the military personnel were. Of course using a private army is always preferable when legal issues arise.

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. Contractors have been hired by State Dept,, actually.

Maybe the CIA hired the torture guys...
tho why the CIA should be involved in military enemy treatment is beyond me.
and, as you say, the private army thing does come in handy when the fickle finger of blame is being pointed.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Why Is Anyone Debating This? How Utterly Fucked Up Is That?

We have confessions to war crimes, and evidence out the wazoo. Why on Earth haven't indictments been handed down? Is there no rule of law in the US?

[spanone]

9. it's fucking sad we have 'torture advocates'

who are these people?

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

20. .

http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?Link=/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.htm

206. At its worst, the torture involved stripping Binyam naked and using a doctor’s scalpel to make incisions all over his chest and other parts of his body: “One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once and they stood for a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony, crying, trying desperately to suppress myself, but I was screaming. They must have done this 20 to 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over. They cut all over my private parts. One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists.”

207. Eventually Binyam began to co-operate in his interrogation sessions in an effort to prevent being tortured: “They said if you say this story as we read it, you will just go to court as a witness and all this torture will stop. I could not take any more… and I eventually repeated what they read out to me. They told me to say I was with bin Laden five or six times. Of course that was false. They continued with two or three interrogations a month. They weren’t really interrogations – more like trainings, training me what to say.”

208. Binyam says he was subjected to a second rendition on the night from 21 to 22 January 2004. After being cuffed, blindfolded and driven for about 30 minutes in a van, he was offloaded at what he believes was an airport. Again, Binyam’s description matches the ‘methodology’ of rendition described earlier in this report: “They did not talk to me. They cut off my clothes. There was a white female with glasses – she took the pictures. One of them held my penis and she took digital pictures. When she saw the injuries I had, she gasped. She said: ‘oh my God, look at that’.”

209. The second rendition of Binyam Mohamed took place within the ’rendition circuit’ that I have identified for this first time in this inquiry. The aircraft N313P, operated on behalf of the CIA, is shown in my official data to have flown from Rabat to Kabul in the early hours of 22 January 2004. I regard this flight as an unlawful detainee transfer, transporting Binyam Mohamed from one secret detention facility to another. Two days later, as part of the same circuit, the same plane had flown back to Europe and was used in the rendition of Khaled El-Masri176.

210. Binyam Mohamed’s ordeal continued in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was held in the facility he refers to as “The Prison of Darkness”177 for four months. Detention conditions in this prison themselves amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. In addition, forced stress positions, sleep alteration, sensory deprivation and other recognised "enhanced interrogation techniques"178 are known to be deployed there routinely by the United States military and its partners. At various times, Binyam was chained to the floor with his arms suspended above his head, had his head knocked against the wall and describes “torture by music”, involving the sounds of loud rap and heavy metal, thunder, planes taking off, cackling laughter and horror sounds that amounted to a “perpetual nightmare”.

211. Up until his transfer by helicopter to Bagram at the end of May 2004, Binyam was not allowed to see daylight. He was persistently interrogated and told about terrorist plots and activities in which he was accused of involvement. He was subjected to irregular eating patterns and ”weird” sessions with psychiatrists.

212. In a detention facility at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, Binyam was forced to write out a lengthy statement prepared by the Americans. The content of the statement is unknown to us. Binyam has told his lawyers that he wrote and signed this document in a state of complete mental disarray: “I don’t really remember , because by then I just did what they told me. Of course, by the time I was in Bagram I was telling them whatever they wanted to hear.”

[eridani]

22. Some of the stuff Abu Zubaydah talked about BEFORE he was tortured

Bush flies Saudi racehorse owner with prior knowledge of the 9-11 attack out of the country

Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, owner of War Emblem (who won the first two of three Triple Crown races in 2002) was at the top of the list of a group of well-connected Saudis who left the country from Lexington, KY in a luxurious customized 727 shortly after 9-11. According to one of bin Laden’s top operatives, Aziz knew well beforehand that a major attack was to take place in the US on 9-11. And the Bush administration let the bastard fly the coop. The very fact that a couple of hundred Saudis were flying around within the US to central pickup points like Lexington, while US citizens were prohibited from flying from Minneapolis to Chicago is totally outrageous.

On March 30, 2002, Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan and questioned by two teams of intelligence agents. One of the teams consisted of Arab Americans posing as Saudi agents, who hoped to scare Zubaydah into thinking he would be turned over to the Saudis for the usual torture and beheading. Far from being intimidated, Zubaydah was relieved, and told them that a call to Prince Ahmed would explain all—and he knew all the phone numbers from memory. He also told them to call Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud and Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, members of the House of Saud related to King Fahd.

He said that several years earlier the royal family had made a deal with Al Qaeda in which the House of Saud would aid them as long as they kept terrorism out of Saudi Arabia. The interrogators insisted that 9-11 changed everything—the House of Saud would not stand behind them after that.

Zubaydah said that 9-11 changed nothing, because Ahmed and the others knew beforehand that an attack was scheduled for America that day. They didn’t know exactly what it would be, and they didn’t want to know. Bin Laden knew the Saudis couldn’t stop it without the specifics, and also that they couldn’t turn on him without disclosing their foreknowledge.

Bush helped Ahmed leave the country right after 9-11, unmolested until June 22, 2002, when he supposedly died of a heart attack in his sleep. On June 23, Prince Sultan died in a car wreck. On July 30, Prince Fahd died in the desert of thirst. None was older than 43, and all are beyond questioning now. That these three were named by Zubaydah and then died young a couple of months later is extremely suspicious.

Deliberately facilitating the movement of people who knew anything about 9-11 out of the country before they could be questioned makes the Bush administration accessories after the fact.

Sources: Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, Scribner, 2004
Gerald Posner, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, Random House, 2003

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

23. in other words

in other words,
[e-mail]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/Saudi%20Docs%202.pdf

Judicial Watch Release:

The document states: “ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN…THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND.” The plane was allowed to depart the United States after making four stops to pick up passengers, ultimately landing in Paris where all passengers disembarked on 9/20/01, according to the document.

http://www.flyryan.com/services.html#US_Govt._Authorized_Carrier:_

US Govt. Authorized Carrier
Ryan is a Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) carrier authorized to carry US personnel all over the world. We have provided services to the Department of Justice, US Marshals Service, Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland Security and Immigration & Naturalization Services (INS).