FBI Interrogator: Info Widely Cited By Torture Defenders Is False
A key moment from today’s Senate torture hearing: A few moments ago, Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator who was present for the CIA interrogations of Abu Zubaydah during the spring of 2002, just flatly contradicted a claim from the torture memos that torture apologists have widely cited as proof the harsh techniques worked.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who’s presiding over the hearing, read aloud a key passage in the May 30th, 2005 torture memo that credited “enhanced techniques” with getting Abu Zubaydah to reveal “detailed information regarding Al Qaeda’s organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi.”
The passage Whitehouse read also said the techniques had gotten the suspect to identify Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the September 11th mastermind.
Whitehouse then asked Soufan if, based on what he witnessed, he knew that statement “not to be true.”
“Yes, sir,” Soufan replied.
As I noted below, in Soufan’s opening statement, he actually credited his own use of non-torture interrogation techniques to extract that information.
This is a key moment, because this passage in the torture memo has been held up again and again as proof that torture did extract key info. Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, for instance, cited this passage in a widely read Washington Post Op ed last month.
But Soufan is saying it’s false. And he was there.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Ali Soufan wants a movie deal, and is trying to follw in Bob Baer’s footprints.
As for the horror photos of prisoner abuse–Obama now says he will NOT release them, and that the abusers have been punished.
Move along, nothing to see here.
If you haven’t gotten the so unsubtle message–ixnay the errortay.
Another person giving testimony today Professor Jeffrey of St. Mary’s University. Early in his testimony (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7905 ), he said this:
.
“Allegations of “torture” role off the tongue with ease. Recognizing that not every alleged incident of interrogation or mistreatment necessarily satisfies the legal definition of torture, it is imperative that one view such allegations with a clear understanding of the applicable legal standards set out in law and judicial precedent.”
.
His testimony also touches on waterboarding:
.
“For example, one would be hard pressed to argue that the reported use of female interrogators, trickery, or a day long interrogation session would constitute a prima facie case of torture or even ill-treatment as some have suggested. Further, based on the majority decision in the Ireland case, one cannot simply conclude that the use of waterboarding, or bugs, or positioning of a particular detainee violates legal norms. In short, in my legal opinion, the subject waterboarding technique used on the al-Qa’eda operatives did not constitute torture and requires no binding obligation to prosecute.”
.
Read all of the testimony.
.
It takes a lot more than calling enhanced interrogation techniques “torture” to prove they were torture. People obviously disagree on this, but that doesn’t mean those who say EITs are torture are right. Anyone who is reporting on EITs as torture, then, is not actually reporting but editorializing.
1. The acts at issue in the Ireland case did not involve the threat of death as waterboarding does. Thus the Ireland case does not support the proposition that waterboarding is not torture.
2. The citation of the Ireland case, inapposite as it is, for the proposition that waterboarding is not torture is every bit as unethical as OLC’s recitation that a Medicare regulation stands for the proposition that waterboarding is not torture.
3. The trolls on this thread are of a particularly poor quality. SteveAR’s link does not go where he says it does and the witness he cites is not named Professor Jeffrey.
If waterboarding involves the threat of death, then why have over 20,000 military service men and women been waterboarded?
Face it honey, it’s nothing more than your OPINION that EI is torture–others have a different one. Scream and shout all you like.
By the way, did you catch president Obama’s quotes about the “torture ” pics? Seems Obama feels that the issue of “prisoner abuse” was adequately investigated, and the wrongdoers prosecuted by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION long before he took office.
Let’s just add, since the Pelosi revelations, even the NYT and AP are referring to EIT as “rough interrogation techniques.” That’s what I call a Lackoff U turn.
You people just crack me up.
Soufan’s testimony that Zubaydah was cooperating before the “enhanced” methods tends to get Bybee off the hook in one way, but it implicates the CIA officials who provided Bybee with the factual predicate on which the OLC opinion was based. Soufan directly contradicts that predicate.
To understand the implication of that contradiction, revisit Bybee’s Aug. 1 2002 memo to the CIA:
“Our advice is based upon the following facts, which you have provided to us. We also understand that you do not have any facts in your possession contrary to the facts outlined here, and the opinion is limited to these facts. If these facts were to change, this advice would not necessarily apply. Zubaydah is currently being held by the United States. The interrogation team is certain that he has additional information that he refuses to divulge. Specifically, he is withholding information regarding terrorist networks in the United States or in Saudi Arabia and information regarding plans to conduct attacks within the United States or against our interests overseas. Zubaydah has become accustomed to a certain level of treatment and displays no signs or willingness to disclsose further information.”
Now recall the statements of Holder and Obama, promising only that CIA officials would not be prosecuted if they stayed withing the “four corners” of the OLC advice and acted in “good faith.”
JaO, Bybee is off the hook, but the CIA interrogators are not? But Obama said he would not prosecute the CIA agents involved.
Trust me sweet thing. The last thing Obama wants right now is a major spit fight with the CIA. This so called “torture” investigation of three A-Q murderous scum bag mass murderers is going no where. Because you forget–Cheney’s memo is still sitting there waiting to see the light of day. And if Obama goes after CIA personnel, it will.
With things heating up in Pak/Afghanistan, Obama needs this to go away, NOW. Who knows, he might be needing to use EIT in a few months. Cause, despite what you holier than thous think, it works.
Michelle’slanvinsneakers,
I was analyizing the law, not the politics.
.
But in that regard, even many of us with sympathy for real CIA officers who did rely on the memos in good faith would have less sympathy for anyone who had lied or withheld information from the Department of Justice to get that legal permission.
.
And there would be even less sympathy for those who were not CIA officers at all, but rather for-profit mercenary contractors making big bucks off the torture.
Purporting that there exists a memo (”Cheney’s memo”) which somehow verifies the collection of information which led to the saving of American lives doesn’t make the memo real. It may be real, but until it’s produced its existance is far from clear. Certainly Cheney would have reason to want people to know about a memo or memos that vindicate the use of EITs – whether or not it exists.
Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t exist, merely that the only evidence we have thus far is Cheney’s say so, and he’s a biased source.
According to what I’ve read from Human rights groups, contractors have only been implicated in 1 death in the WOT. Not that it matters anymore, because the POTUS just said that ALL THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, AND PROPER JUSTICE HAS ALREADY BEEN METED OUT.
Y’all need to get with the program here. Game OVER. Move ON.
As far as Cheney’s memos go, why don’t we get the ACLU to issue a FOI lawsuit so we’ll all know! Come on now, they always say they don’t have a partisan ax to grind, let’s see if it’s true!
And those meeting notes that Hoekstra wants that they refuse to declassify too. Let it ALL HANG OUT.
According to Jesse Ventura, who was waterboarded in the service, in Vietnam, waterboarding is torture. He experienced it, unlike Cheney, and the posters here. If you want to declare waterboarding as not torture, try it.
So what Chris. I have two friends who were waterboarded in SERE school who say it is NOT torture. So, by your logic, I’m twice as correct as you are.
We prosecuted Japanese soldiers in World War 2 for waterboarding as a war crime.. so by our definition, it’s a war crime.
Andy, the Left is pure Deception. Waterborading was merely part of a littany of interrogation techniques cited as being used by the Japanese. It was only one method cited in addition to the many and varied sadistic and brutal tortues and bodily mutilations for which the Japanese were prosecuted. Please show the proof where prosecutions for waterboarding alone were pursued.