Top FBI Agent Will Detail Failures Of Enhanced Interrogation, Contradict Claim That It Worked
A top FBI interrogator who witnessed CIA enhanced interrogations firsthand will offer a detailed explanation at a Senate hearing today of the ways the techniques were ineffective and even counterproductive — and will directly contradict claims that they extracted high-value information, according to an advance copy of his testimony.
The testimony by the FBI agent, Ali Soufan, is the most detailed explanation he’s yet offered about the failures of these techniques, and will sharply undercut the claims by Dick Cheney and other torture apologists that they worked.
The use of the techniques “taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the end game, and diminishes our moral high ground in a battle that is impossible to win without first capturing the hearts and minds around the world,” he will say. “It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaeda.”
Soufan, an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005, is set to testify today before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A copy of his testimony is here. The highlights of what he’ll say:
*************************************************
(1) Soufan will describe in unprecedented detail the ways that CIA harsh interrogation techniques were ineffective during the interrogation of terror suspect Abu Zubayda, which he witnessed firsthand during the spring of 2002. Soufan had been sent by the FBI to interrogate Zubaydah, and he used what is known as the “Informed Interrogation Approach,” which doesn’t involve harsh techniques.
Soufan will say that on several occasions his approach elicited high-value information, some involving the role of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in masterminding 9/11. By contrast, when the CIA interrogators arrived and began employing harsh techniques, such as nudity and sleep-deprivation, no information was forthcoming, he’ll testify.
“The new techniques did not produce results as Abu Zubaydah shut down and stopped talking,” Soufan will say, adding that when he resumed interrogating him with softer techniques, he again started volunteering high-value information, though the previous use of torture made him “harder to reengage.”
This is key, because Soufan isn’t merely undercutting the claim that torture works. He’s saying it was counterproductive.
********************************************
* Soufan will directly contradict key claims by torture apologists that the techniques elicited high-value information. He will say flat out that the claim that Abu Zubaydah didn’t start giving up info until August 2002, when he was waterboarded, is false. “The truth is that we got actionable intelligence from him in the first hour of interrogating him,” Soufan will say.
Soufan will also contradict claims that waterboarding got Abu Zubaydah to cough up info leading to the capture of so-called “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla. He will point out that waterboarding wasn’t approved until August of 2002, while Padilla was captured in May of 2002.
And Soufan will deny yet another key claim of torture apologists: That torture revealed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s involvement in 9/11. “That was discovered in April 2002, while waterboarding was not introduced until almost three months later.” Soufan will say.
***********************************************
You can watch his testimony, and the rest of the hearing, right here. More on this soon.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Can he speak to every instance of EIT and it’s efficacy? No.
One witness does not a failed project make.
I witnessed the Challenger explode at take-off. Does that make the entire Shuttle program a failure?
Oh, yummy yummy yummy yummy.
Poop, meet fan. This could be very interesting indeed.
Blargh – as you can see here… http://bernielatham.com/2009/05/12/t-for-torture/ … I’m with ya all the way.
Blargh — the use of these techniques on this particular suspect is one of the ones that’s held up by pro-torture folks as proof that it worked. that’s why this is significant.
Great that Soufan will speak, but as Blargh demonstrates, his testimony pushes the debate into the effectiveness trap. You know what witness I wish could testify before the committee? The Conventions Against Torture treaty we signed. It’s not that this was a successful or “failed project,” it’s that it was illegal.
I’m sure I’ll get the “posting too fast” warning, but Adam Serwer of The American Prospect is live (god, I hate saying this) Tweeting the hearings today: @adamserwer.
Now all we need to do is define “torture” as opposed to treatment of prisoners that isn’t torture. Good luck on finding it.
I don’t agree that he’s falling into the effectiveness trap, because he’s also asking the larger questions about the larger folly of the policy vis a vis America’s image in the world.
I am live blogging it also. Although I don’t know how good of a job I am doing. I will say however that there have already been some haymakers thrown. Senator Feingold basically called Cheney a liar in his opening statement. Senator Graham tried to drag Nancy Pelosi into it. The first witness, a professor of law at Georgetown, just said there is no way Yoo and Bradbury could have written the OLC memos (which he refers to as torture memos) in good faith. This hearing could be a game changer.
Blargh – If a total of three people were waterboarded and Soufan can testify to the inefficacy of doing it with one of the two major ones, that’s a very signficant sample. Your Shuffle example isn’t. And Greg’s point about this being pointed to as a “success” story, is absolutely relevant.
Soufan won’t just be testifying about effectiveness. He will also be testifying as to whether even the OLC memos were being followed and on the professionalism, or lack thereof, of the CIA contractors who did the torturing. Not only that he can give a first hand account of how much pain Zubaydah was in which goes to whether something is torture or not. And as the lawyer just presented the Reagan administration prosecuted police officers for waterboarding yet the OLC lawyers never even mentioned that case, the Lee case, in their memos.
By the way, the Shuttle explosion DID expose it as a failure which is why it took several years for them to redesign the shuttle so as to not have another tragedy and still to this day everyone holds their breath and hopes that foam doesn’t fall off every time a Shuttle is launched.
This just makes the low level war between the FBI and the CIA worse.
The FBI has been trying to get people’s attention about this since they went to Iraq and saw what was going on. I’m no fan of the FBI – can’t stand them. But I can’t stand the CIA worse. Still, the fact that they won’t cooperate hurts us.
This is a mess that is going to create a lot of bigger messes. I hate Commander CooCoo and Cheney and all their henchmen and women so damn much – the damage to this country goes on and on and on…
Everything is ruined – from the SEC to FEMA to Immigration – you name it.
Been there; done that. Just pull up the record of what we and other civilized nations have prosecuted as (and won convictions for) torture. It’s not as if we invented it, ya know.
.
And, of course, nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!
.
“And, of course, nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!”
Thank you for that – I needed a laugh.
We executed Japanese for waterboarding after WWII = how much more specific a definition do you need!?
It’s actually all a non sequiter, since both the Bush administration and lead Democrats knew about what was going on with EITs, and determined there was no legal problem (otherwise, they would have squawked when these things were going on).
.
According to Newsmeat.com, Ali Soufan is an Obama campaign contributor (http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=&zip=10022&last=Soufan&first=Ali). (The TSG reference stands for The Soufan Group, which Soufan is the CEO; http://www.soufangroup.com/Site/Ali_S.html). Any testimony he would give is likely tainted due to his political outlook.
The reason the argument “it works” is very important is because Cheney is using that argument to say that Obama is putting our country in great danger. Cheney is once again using fear on the country, to turn us into scared cowards, which he has been doing for eight years now. So the “it works” argument needs to be examined to disarm Cheney’s fear-mongering because he is scaring a lot of people out there with his statement, “Obama doesn’t seem to care about Americans’ safety.” It needs to be shown that even Rice (and possibly Bush) disagreed with Cheney on these interrogation methods during the last few years of the administration; we do know it ended so Obama is only making it official what Bush and Rice had eventually recognized: the consequences to our country’s reputation worldwide outweighed the effectiveness of the program. Cheney was a lone voice in the administration for continuing this shameful torture policy because he is a craven scared old man.
“According to Newsmeat.com, Ali Soufan is an Obama campaign contributor ”
Yeah, I guess, who wouldn’t be after an experience like that, right?
SteveAR- I know it’s a shock but there are actually people who put principles above partisan preferences. To cynically and completely discount Soufan’s integrity after his years of service to our country in the FBI is just so….typical of what Republicans do these days and what makes Independents like myself shudder at the Republicans’ arrogant and pathetic desperation to return to their “righteous” position of power.
And it is looking likely that the Democrats were not informed that waterboarding was being used, but the truth will come out on this eventually as we sift through the whole filthy mess.
Debra – you go!
“Any testimony he would give is likely tainted due to his political outlook.”
So let me see if I have this straight – everyone who voted for someone is suspect. Where you going to find witnesses, bro, if that’s your criteria?
That doesn’t cut it when it comes to determining witness prejudice. Not even close.
Based on what he has written in the past, Steve would be the first to dismiss the relevance of contributions made to Bush or McCain by military, intel or LE officers who supported these methods.
Funny, I didn’t see belaPelosi’s testimony. I’m certain she was okay wit it.