Ali Soufan Interview: FBI Interrogator Of Zubaydah Breaks Silence, Condemns Torture Tactics

Newsweek:

"I've kept my mouth shut about all this for seven years," Soufan says. But now, with the declassification of Justice memos and the public assertions by Cheney and others that "enhanced" techniques worked, Soufan feels compelled to speak out. "I was in the middle of this, and it's not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective," he says. "We were able to get the information about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a couple of days. We didn't have to do any of this [torture]. We could have done this the right way."

Read the whole story: Newsweek

Comments

[rschop]

Part 1

Let me post what I am sure is a slightly different view on the ticking time bomb scenario and torture. The ticking time bomb in fact was the attacks on 9/11. It turns out these attacks could have been prevented using torture; the torture had to be applied on the right people. But the FBI had the names of the right people to torture, they just did not know it.

On November 2000 FBI Agent Ali Soufan made an official request to FBI director Louis Freeh to ask he would ask the CIA and Director Tenet for any information on any al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, or on Walid bin Attash, known to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing. Soufan was told that the CIA had none of the information.

But according to page 181 of the 9/11 Commission report and page 238-239 of the DOJ IG report, Freeh had been given all of this information in December 1999 by the NSA and in January 2000 by the CIA. This information appeared in his daily briefing papers on January 4, 2000 with the name Khalid al-Mihdhar, known to be traveling to an important al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000. If Soufan had tortured Director Freeh he would have had all of the information needed to prevent the attacks on 9/11. But this might possibly have had a deleterious effect on Soufan"s next job performance review.

[rschop]

Part 2

According to the DOJ IG report FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi told FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, FBI Agent Ali Soufan"s assistant on the Cole bombing investigation, on August 28, 2001, that he could not take part in any investigation of Khalid al-Mihdhar or Nawaf al-Hazmi, in spite of the fact they were known to be inside of the US and were thought to be preparing to take part in massive al Qaeda attack. Had Bongardt tortured FBI HQ Agent Corsi he would have found out:

That Corsi knew the CIA had been hiding from the Cole investigators the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting that connected Attash to both Mihdhar and Hazmi and the planning of the Cole bombing at that meeting. See DOJ IG Report on the attacks on 9/11, page 301.

That Corsi had been working directly with CIA Deputy Chief of the Bin Laden unit Tom Wilshire, who knew on August 22, 2001 that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside the US in order to take part in massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans. See email July 23, 2001, in "Substitution for the testimony of John", aka Tom Wilshire, at www.eventson911.com.

[rschop]

Part 3

That when FBI HQ Corsi told Bongardt on August 28, 200, his investigation of Mihdhar had to be shut down because it would require information from the NSA he was not allowed to have, she already had been given written permission by the NSA on August 27, 2001 to give this NSA information to him and his team. See NSA release of information to Cole investigators, DE #448 at www.eventson911.com

That when Corsi told Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that the NSLU has ruled he could not be part of any investigation of Mihdhar, the DOJ IG investigators were told, later on November 7, 2002, by the attorney Corsi contacted, Sherry Sabol, that this was the opposite of the advice she had given to Corsi, and that she had in fact ruled the exact opposite and had ruled that Bongardt could be part of any investigation of Mihdhar since the NSA information had no connection with a FISA warrant. See page 538 9/11 Commission report, footnote 81.

It is now clear that the lives of 3000 people could have been saved with a little torture of the right people. Perhaps in addition to water boarding FBI Agent Corsi, CIA officer Wilshire and FBI Director Freeh, and even CIA Director Tenet, they could have used pliers to pull out their finger nails, after all what are a few finger nails compared to the lives of 3000.

[azriel]

what's even more creepy is while the Bush clan fumbeled about with torture in our name, they would routinely-­-publicly-­-raise the color coded terror threat level. All under the fog of war and the haze of fear. Remember that. That sh*t scared the hell out of NY'ers who used tunnels, bridges and rode the subways. I repeat, the Bush admin is the most corrupt and incompetent admin ever. I'm still trying to figure out who those 28% of Americans were that thought Bush was doing a good job? There arent enough negative adjectives known to describe their level of ineptness

[Amunaka]

It's not torture ...It's not torture ...It's not torture...But Clinton did it ...Clinton did it ....Clinton did it ....Sorry bunch of whacked out wingers .....

[dems08]

msnbc 'reporting' that some dems don't want to move forward because some of them were briefed on torture techniques BEING USED.

pub crapola....

where's the proof Pelosi was told torture had been approved for use and was BEING USED?

[v eyepete]

I have always felt that Bush/Cheney were certainly caught with their pants down when the twin towers came down and the pentagon got hit. Everything they did there after was to keep the nation from coming to the one conclusion it didn't, which would have made normal thinking people ask, "Why were we so unprepared?" The fact is the administration was paying more attention to how they could manipulate to the system to favor the rich, than it was caring about national security. They stole that 1st election, then did not have to smarts to do the job they stole. Everything after was done to cover up huge holes in the way they were running things. The mess we are in now is a result of their inability to do the job they greedily grabbed with lies and tricks. Gore got the popular vote in the first election. The majority of the people spoke then, but no one listened. Now look what has happened. People are just waking up and coming out of a dumbfounded silence. The war in Iraq and torture was a huge mistake. The people who screwed things up should be held accountable.

[Growup22]

I loved this country because it had a set of ideals that were uncompromising. We stood for human rights, the rule of law and represented a dream that all could attain through hard work and perseverance. We talked the talk and walked the walk. I loved America as if it was a living and breathing person and over the last eight years she has disappointed me but I stood with her because I always knew she would heal her wounds and start anew. To do so we must own up to the wrong that has been done in our name. We should be able to say that America does not TORTURE without irony or our fingers crossed. We are a moral country and should not stand by while atrocities are committed in our name, or under the pretense of our safety. The terrorist do not win by fighting wars against us, they would not stand a chance. However they will win by destroying our image. Sometimes your reputation is all you have. We should be better than this. We must do better.

[DMSmith]

Most are missing the real point here.
Terrorism is best handled by police techniques - not military action.
The FBI withdrew from all of this - rightly so. as they didn't partake in war crimes.
By forcing the FBI our and misleading us with false information and the use of torture, and taking us into a war based on these lies, the Bush administration put America at great risk, cost us dearly and destroyed our image world-wide. To say nothing of about 4,000 Americans dead and possibly as many as 100,000 Iraqis dead.
Never have leaders been so deserving of war crimes trials and severe punishment.
The more we know, the more horrendous this all becomes.
And WE LET THEM DO IT!!

[dems08]

Exactly!

[AliMB]

Part I

I believe Ali Soufan is misleading the public. In his original NYT Op-ed piece he stated the following:

"Along with another FBI agent, and with several CIA officers present, I questioned [AZ] from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interr0gation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence."

This comment is flagrantly false as even the NY Times reported in 2006 that "within days" AZ was quickly subjected to harsh techniques, including being "stri.pped, held in an icy room and jar.red by earspli.tti.ngly loud music". The DOJ's 2008 Inspector General Report confirms that harsh treatment began almost from the onset.

Soufan could be defining "harsh technique" as one of the 10 items approved in the August OLC Memo (including waterb0arding, which was not applied prior to August). However, such an equivocation is atr0ciously misleading (if not a flagrant l ie ) given that SOME harsh techniques were applied during Soufan's presence. In fact, at the time he described it to CIA personnel as "borderline t0rture".

It is important to note that Soufan and his colleague were specifically instructed by a superior to "leave the facility and call Headquarters if the CIA began using techniques that gave the agents disc0mfort". How long did Soufan wait until informing superiors, given that within days of the CIA interr0gation team's arrival "borderline t0rture" was applied, and particularly given that he allegedly interr0gated AZ for over 3 months?

[AliMB]

Part II

Another misleading aspect of Soufan's commentary relates to his eventual departure:

"After I 0bjected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D'Amuro, an FBI assistant director that "we don't do that," and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the FBI director"

Let us assume that by "enhanced techniques" Soufan is referring to the waterb0arding-set and not the aforementioned sens0ry b0mbardment. Regardless, a quick analysis of the IG report exposes a serious timeline discrepancy. While Soufan was pulled, the other FBI agent REMAINED on-site for significant more time (a point conveniently left out by Newsweek). Yet, according to Soufan, "I questioned" AZ up until "June 2002". That is impossible considering that the other FBI agent remained at the interrogation "for several weeks after Thomas left", eventually leaving "around early June" to attend a meeting (FYI, "Thomas" is surely Soufan in the report). Is Soufan prepared to claim that he questioned AZ by phone?

I find it a failure of honesty to not discuss his colleague who was also present for AZ's interr0gation. While Soufan was apparently outraged over the CIA's methods, the other FBI agent WAS NOT. According to the IG report, this agent had "no moral objections" to the CIA's treatment of AZ and believed that CIA personnel "acted professionally".

In sum, Soufan's account is misleading and hurts his credibility. This is important given his self-presentation as a neutral expert capable of analyzing the efficacy of the CIA's interr0gation techniques.

[kimleehan]

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, It realy does'nt bother me that were torturing these right-wing extremist that are running around their country with their assault weapons, its just that its ruining our image around the world.

[aturner18]

Good to see former president Bill Clinton was on board (pardon the pun) with these techniques.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/19/audio-clinton-endorses-torture-in-special-cases/

[postman606]

Then that makes him an as@hole too.

[Durango]

i thought we left all that misdirection nonsense behind us after last November?

Bush/Chene­y/Rumsfeld are guilty of War Crimes.

And even worse. They threatened our national security by commiotting those crimes.

Clintons opinion is irrelevant.

[Badfickle]

If Clinton authorized them and used them then he committed a war crime.

[kasinca]

hotair.com? When will wingers quit their childish blaming of Clinton to avoid the realities of the Bush Administration? Ask yourself this question: If the republicans were in office for eight years and they didn't try to go after Clinton then, why would they want to blame him now that they have been caught commiting crimes? Also take into account, the Busheviks summoned their ambulance chasing lawyers to write bogus memos to give them the right to break the law.

[dems08]

hotair.com is exactly that

[JePense]

COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY - Sometimes referred to as the Yamashita standard or the Medina standard, is the doctrine of hierarchical accountability in cases of war crimes.

The doctrine of “command responsibility” was established by the Hague Conventions IV (1907) and X (1907) and applied for the first time by the German Supreme Court in Leipzig after World War I, in the trial of Emil Muller.

The "Yamashita standard" is based upon the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita. He was prosecuted, in a still controversial trial, for atrocities committed by troops under his command in the Philippines. Yamashita was charged with "unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes."

The "Medina standard" is based upon the prosecution of US Army Captain Ernest Medina in connection with the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War.[9] It holds that a commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable when he does not take action. (Medina was, however, acquitted of all charges.)

Thanks to wikipedia

[10SNE1]

International Red Cross Report regarding US Torture program:

http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf

[grey sells]

Well, some people are feeling guilty, some are feeling afraid of possible reprecussions down the road, some are possibly wanting to get out in front of this issue before the house of cards starts to collapse around them. Whatever! Expect more leaks of documents, official and unofficial. Expect more people to speak out more and more. The trouble has only just begun. As all of this information becomes public, the climate in America will become more favorable than now to investigate further.

[nomobull]

exactly