For a forthcoming piece, I was combing through the International Committee of the Red Cross’s formerly-confidential 2007 interviews with the 14 detainees who, until September 2006, the CIA kept at its undisclosed "black site" secret prisons. (Mark Danner disclosed the document in a recent New York Review of Books piece.) The first annex to the report is an extended verbatim statement from Abu Zubaydah, the al-Qaeda operative captured in Pakistan in March 2002 who became the first detainee tortured by CIA and contractor interrogators based on a regimen adapted from the SERE program and approved by senior Bush administration officials. While Abu Zubaydah is hardly the most reliable narrator — he has both incentives to lie and he’s recounting events from years ago that took place in disorienting environments — his account appears to conflict with former FBI agent Ali Soufan’s account of an interrogation that took time to become brutal.
The ICRC explains that Abu Zubaydah’s narrative begins in "May 2002," after he had "been held in hospital for what he believes were several weeks" as he convalesced from a gunshot to his leg during his capture. Soufan discusses interrogating Abu Zubaydah from "March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August." I can’t really adjudicate the dispute. It could be that Abu Zubaydah is misremembering and the ICRC is going off what he told them. Or it’s possible that Abu Zubaydah is excluding discussions he had with people like Soufan or the CIA’s John Kiriakou from his hospital bed. (Additionally, the ICRC said the interrogation took place in Afghanistan; I had understood it to take place in a Thai safe house.) I can’t explain it.
Continuing, this is all from stuff that Abu Zubaydah said took place before "the real torturing started." He’s describing being "naked, strapped to a bed, in a very white room" that had "metal bars separating it from a larger room." He was "shackled by hands and feet for what I think was the next 2 to 3 weeks," which led to blistering on his legs.
I was given no solid food during the first two or three weeks, while sitting on the chair. I was only given Ensure [a nutrient supplement] and water to drink. At first the Ensure made me vomit, but this became less with time.
The cell and room were air-conditioned and were very cold. Very loud, shouting type music was constantly playing. It kept repeating about every fifteen minutes twenty-four hours a day. Sometimes the music stopped and was replaced by a loud hissing or crackling noise.
The guards were American, but wore masks to conceal their faces. My interrogators did not wear masks.
During this first two to three week period I was questioned for about one to two hours each day. American interrogators would come to the room and speak to me through the bars of the cell. During the questioning the music was switched off, but was then put back on again afterwards. I could not sleep at all for the first two to three weeks. If I started to fall asleep one of the guards would come and spray water in my face.
Presumably Soufan was one such interrogator. Even if we’re to go by the ICRC’s timetable, we’d still be in either late May or early June at this point, which overlaps with the time Soufan gives for his interrogations of Abu Zubaydah. Anyhow, during this time he "began to receive food, rice, to eat on a daily basis." But he was kept "naked and in shakles," a situation that continued for "another one and a half months." A woman doctor "who asked why I was still naked" examined him after "about one and a half to two months," which by the ICRC’s timetable would be mid June to early July for the period in which he was kept naked. After that he was given clothing. But:
[T]he next day guards came into my cell. They told me to stand up and raise my arms above my head. Then they cut the clothes off of me so that I was again naked and put me back on the chair for several days. I tried to sleep on the chair, but was again kept awake by the guards spraying water in my face.
When my interrogators had the impression I was cooperating and providing the information they required, the clothes were given back to me. When they felt I was being less cooperative the clothes were again removed and I was again put back on the chair. This was repeated several times.
There followed a period of either one month or two months — Abu Zubaydah seems like he’s repeating himself in the narrative — with no questioning. But then, "about two and a half or three months after I arrived in this place… the real torturing started." This would, in either case, be either August or September, going off the May 2002 baseline. What he then describes is consistent with the post-August 2002 OLC approval of techniques like the "confinement box" and "walling":
Two black wooden boxes were brought into the room outside my cell. One was tall, slightly higher than me and narrow. Measuring perhaps in area 1m x 0.75m and 2m in heigh. The other was shorter, perhaps only 1m in height. I was taken out of my cell and one of the interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck, they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against the hard walls of the room. I was also repeatedly slapped in the face. As I was still shackled, the pushing and pulling around meant that the shackles pulled painfully on my ankles.
I was then put into the tall back [I think this should be 'black'] box for what I think was about one and a half to two hours. The box was totally black on the inside as well as the outside…
And it goes on in that fashion, with descriptions of waterboarding, forced shaving and more, including an account that "I was told during this period I was one of the first to receive these interrogation techniques, so no rules applied. It felt like they were experimenting and trying out techniques to be used later on other people."
In outline form, Abu Zubaydah’s account correlates with Soufan’s. There’s a period in which things are a certain way, and then a period where they get much worse for Abu Zubaydah. Examined with greater scrutiny, though, that earlier period is not a nice or pleasant one. Soufan never explicitly says otherwise. But he does say that during the period in which he interrogated Abu Zubaydah, he used "traditional interrogation methods." Yet if Abu Zubaydah is to be believed, during this period he was subjected to a cold cell, prolongued nudity, prolongued shackling, constant noise, and what appears to be the manipulation of his sleep patterns. FBI agents might not recognize that as "traditional."
Again, it could be that Abu Zubaydah is simply misremembering or misrepresenting his experience. But these are discrepancies worth exploring. If I’ve misunderstood something, including the timeline, please let me know and I’ll update/correct.
Crossposted to The Streak.



13 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
I think you have your time line somewhat off. It kind of appears that most of what Soufan was doing probably happened during the time when Zubaydah was still being nursed back to health. But I think maybe its because you might not have read the Newsweek piece on Soufan’s role which is way more indepth than the op ed
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195089/output/print
I appreciate the comment. Just re-read the Newsweek piece, and there aren’t really many dates to judge against there, at least not as well as with Soufan’s op-ed, which gives the “March to June 2002″ time frame. There, at least in the beginning, if we’re to assume that the ICRC dates are correct, overlap between Soufan’s and Abu Zubaydah’s accounts intersect. But it could also easily be that Abu Zubaydah’s dates are off. I’d be kind of stunned if I could perceive time so well years after the fact after such an experience, and that’s assuming I’d be interested in telling the truth.
Incidentally, the most interesting aspect of the Newsweek version is how the “CIA contractor” (presumably James Mitchell) brings in the confinement box before there’s formal approval for it. That box certainly played a large role in how Abu Zubaydah perceived his ordeal.
It wasn’t specific dates in the Newsweek piece but moreso some of the general terms and common threads of the different stories that made me think the timeline was off. Let me compare the op ed to the Newsweek piece first and then I will comment again if it all still looks the same to me.
Ok I think I got it, mostly from the Newsweek article. Im going to try to lay it out.
The article begins with this
Now here is the deal, it would seem that the stuff Zubaydah is describing here
So it seems like he is describing stuff that happened after the CIA took over, at least according to Soufan. So maybe his ability to judge time was off. Makes sense after all since he was being tortured and he didn’t exactly have a calendar. Also from the article
From this part of the article it seems like Soufan stayed on for at least a month after the CIA took over and was in charge. And thats where I think the overlap comes in. One more thing
Now again this is obviously going off primarily Soufan but also some other sources as well. But if this time line is believed then Soufan was gone 3 months before the torture tactics were approved. Bigger than that it puts him leaving at around May/June or so. But again referring to what I blockquoted above that means that its likely that the CIA had taken control sometime in April or so. And going by that timetable that means that most of what Soufan got was about a month and I think that was probably mostly during the time where Zubaydah admits that he can’t remember how long he was bedridden. In fact going back to the Newsweek narrative Soufan was having to help him drink etc and the other guy was cleaning his but. Sounds like bed ridden to me. So it seems like as soon as he was well enough to get out of the bed the CIA took over.
What do you think?
You really need to read the DOJ IG’s Report on all this. Pseudonyms are used but Soufan is Gibson. Based on that report, the differing accounts can be reconciled. Also, check out Marcy’s timeline.
Stipulating that Abu Zubaydah doesn’t have the calendar in front of him while all this is going on, it still seems like the beginning period of his account overlaps with Soufan’s account of the interrogation, temporally. And Abu Zubaydah is still describing stuff that aren’t “traditional interrogation techniques.” Now, a couple things are possible (leaving aside the previously described unreliability/deception concerns re: AZ):
1. Most of the treatment that I highlighted in the post concerned conditions of Abu Zubaydah’s detention. He has no reason to see that as separate from his interrogation, though he does describe his interrogators during this early period distinctly. But Soufan may be compartmentalizing that aspect in his op-ed.
2. There’s a gradation of when the really abusive stuff comes into play. As you point out, the Newsweek account, and Soufan’s op-ed, point to that — SERE contractors and some CIA personnel in the late spring 2002 introducing the prospect of really abusive stuff, Soufan resisting, Mueller pulling the FBI contingent out. And, again, in broad outline, the two accounts — where the techniques become significantly more abusive after several months from capture — merge.
I’m not in any sense “against” Soufan, I’m just trying to sort through what appear, on its face, like discrepancies.
I’ll go back through the DOJ IG report. But looking at Marcy’s timeline, I’m not seeing what, during the period discussed above, settles this question.
I think I might have bolded the wrong parts of one of my block quotes so maybe the point I was getting at didn’t come across.
Third paragraph shouldn’t be blockquoted
I think now we’re saying the same thing.
In the IG report, there are two pseudonymous FBI officials in the AZ interrogation, Thomas and Gibson. “Gibson” stays at the CIA facility until “early June 2002, several weeks after Thomas left.” That would be consistent with Soufan’s given timeline in his NYT op-ed.
Strangely though, the DOG IG report says that “Gibson” did not have a “moral objection” to the CIA/SERE techniques used on AZ, because “Gibson” had gone through SERE training. That doesn’t seem like the Soufan we see in the Newsweek piece or NYT op-ed.
The IG report paints a picture of FBI agents who see CIA techniques introduced after they have some success with “traditional” stuff with AZ, and they’re not comfortable with it. The techniques are introduced with the 2 FBI agents there, supporting everyone’s accounts. Because of redactions it’s difficult to determine anything more specific than that. But it doesn’t really clear up the timeline differences.
Again, the broader the overview you take, the more harmonious the Soufan, Abu Zubaydah and (now) DOJ IG reports appear.
On March 28, 2002, Abu Zubaydah is captured and severely wounded in Pakistan. On March 31, unbeknownst to him because he’s unconscious, he’s flown to a secret CIA facility in Thailand. Soufan and the other FBI agent arrive the same day (or are already there), but Mitchell is delayed because he has to tie up his business affairs (this is in the SASC report). Soufan begins the interrogation and gets AZ to admit his identity. Mitchell shows up and takes charge, but before any rough stuff begins, AZ’s condition worsens and he is taken to a hospital. Mitchell has to wait until AZ gets back from the hospital before he can start the torture, but Soufan can do his thing right in the hospital. Soufan gets AZ to identify KSM’s picture while AZ is still in the hospital. He probably got the Padilla story out of him, too.
Sometime in May, AZ is released from the hospital and is in good enough shape to be tortured. AZ leaves all of the preceding stuff out of his testimony, probably because it’s not of interest to the ICRC and it’s when he coughed up the most intell. Now, AZ’s narrative picks up and he talks about stuff that Soufan leaves out of his Op-Ed (because it doesn’t make Soufan look that good). However, Soufan did tell the IG about what he saw the CIA do. You can fill in the redactions of the IG version with AZ’s narrative from May to June. Soufan’s trying to maintain his relationship with AZ while Mitchell is trying to break AZ. Back in D.C., there’s a bureaucratic battle going on to determine how far Mitchell & Company can go. Soufan gets pulled out by Mueller and somebody in the CIA gets nervous. The two FBI guys are a problem with their talk about ‘borderline torture’ and worrying about being prosecuted. The CIA’s been hung out to dry enough times and somebody at HQ tells them to stop the interrogation until they get that Golden Shield. They know that Tenet can’t protect them. Addington and Yoo cook up the August 1 memos and Mitchell gets to conduct his ’scientific’ torture experiments.
I think that ties up all the narratives nicely…
“traditional interrogation methods”
There are TWO CIA interrogation methods, and the first one has been tolerated for years, i.e., use of isolation, sleep deprivation, sensory overload or deprivation, etc. This is KUBARK. This is APPENDIX M (and still tolerated, so “traditional”… just not the traditional you think).
The second CIA interrogation method is the SERE-formed method, with its “physical” pressures (walling, slapping, cramped boxes, waterboarding, etc.). It overlaps some with KUBARK (sleep deprivation, for instance), but is much more debilitating, and certainly outwardly barbaric (versus the “clean” use of mere isolation and sensory deprivation).
The latter is the “torture”. The former is “traditional [CIA] interrogation methods”. Then there is the OTHER kind of traditional method, rapport-building, which also overlaps the other two, and is supposedly FBI’s modus.
This is why it’s all so hard to understand. The real question is why did CIA allow the Mitchell/Jessen program? I’ve addressed that elsewhere, but I think it was to set them up as fall guys AND get a chance to do some experiments. They also had a formidable opponent in Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith.