Tuesday, February 23, 2010


Ali Soufan claims the information obtained from Abu Zubaydah, leading to the arrest of Jose Padilla, was obtained before enhanced interrogation techniques were employed.  His conclusion: these techniques not only didn't work, they were unnecessary.
Marc Thiessen begs to differ:

And what does the DOJ Inspector General's Report say? In the October 2009 Report [PDF], the other agent involved in Abu Zubaydah's interrogation (referred to by the alias "Agent Gibson") explains that it was the CIA — not Soufan — that got the information on Padilla, and did so after applying the first coercive techniques.

...the Report states, "Within a few days, CIA personnel assumed control over the interviews, although they asked Gibson and Thomas [Note: "Thomas" is an alias for Soufan] to observe and assist. . . . Thomas described for the OIG the techniques that he saw the CIA interrogators use on Zubaydah after they took control of the interrogation. [REDACTED]. Thomas said he raised objections to these techniques to the CIA and told the CIA it was 'borderline torture.'"
While the details are redacted, this begs the question: If some form of EITs were not in use at this point, what precisely was Soufan objecting to? The CIA's approach to rapport-building?
The bottom line: According to the Justice Department Inspector General, his own partner, and the Washington Post, Soufan's claims are flat wrong.

No comments: