PUBLIC bravado aside, the defenders of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are fast running out of classified documents to hide behind. The three that were released recently by the C.I.A. — the 2004 report by the inspector general and two memos from 2004 and 2005 on intelligence gained from detainees — fail to show that the techniques stopped even a single imminent threat of terrorism.
Soufan’s op-ed does for reporters what they refused to do for themselves: read the fucking CIA memos declassified a week ago Monday and discover the judgment they delivered on "enhanced interrogation." He combs through the 2004 and 2005 detainee memos requested by Cheney and makes observations similar to the ones I noted in this piece. For instance:
They show that substantial intelligence was gained from pocket litter (materials found on detainees when they were captured), from playing detainees against one another and from detainees freely giving up information that they assumed their questioners already knew. A computer seized in March 2003 from a Qaeda operative for example, listed names of Qaeda members and money they were to receive.
Soon after Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the 9/11 attacks, was captured in 2003, according to the 2005 memo, he “elaborated on his plan to crash commercial airlines into Heathrow Airport.” The memo speculates that he may have assumed that Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a fellow member of Al Qaeda who had been captured in 2002, had already divulged the plan. The same motivation — the assumption that another detainee had already talked — is offered to explain why Mr. Mohammed provided details about the Hambali-Southeast Asia Qaeda network.
Classic interrogation techniques, found in any FBI session, and now elevated to national policy for the most important interrogations through the new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.
Soufan also breaks some news:
A third top suspected terrorist who was subjected to enhanced interrogation, in 2002, was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the man charged with plotting the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole. I was the lead agent on a team that worked with the Yemenis to thwart a series of plots by Mr. Nashiri’s operatives in the Arabian Peninsula — including planned attacks on Western embassies. In 2004, we helped prosecute 15 of these operatives in a Yemeni court. Not a single piece of evidence that helped us apprehend or convict them came from Mr. Nashiri.
Nothing! Are Yemeni standards of evidence particularly scrupulous in refusing to admit into the record evidence obtained through torture? What possible valuable information could Nashiri’s torture have produced if none of it contributed to the destruction of his organization? This is the information that we can reasonably presume he’d possess even if he possessed nothing else.
You’ll also find Soufan attacking the Washington Post piece on KSM; praising former CIA inspector general John Helgerson for calling the interrogation regimen "inhumane"; praising the CIA operatives and officials whose resistence to the regimen prompted Helgerson’s inquiry; and speculating that the torture "may have given Al Qaeda a second wind."
That point may be somewhat controversial, but I remember an aide to Gen. Petraeus, Col. Douglas Bacon, holding a conference call in 2008 to discuss the results of a comprehensive study he undertook to determine the motivations of foreign fighters who came to Iraq to wage war. Those motivations were the invasion of Iraq and torture:
So what brought Mr. AQI to Iraq? At the mosque, he met a man who could tell Mr. AQI just wanted to belong to something. That man told Mr. AQI he had something Mr. AQI needed to see. Very often, according to Colonel Bacon, it was an image from Abu Ghraib. Or it was a spliced-together propaganda film of Americans killing or abusing Iraqis. The narrative that weighed heavily on Mr. AQI, Colonel Bacon said, was that it was his "religious duty go to Iraq," where he would serve as "an avenger of abused Iraqs."
That Soufan guy, he might know what he’s talking about…
Login Here




14 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
All of America know that if Glenn Beck and Rush run to defend Cheney any prosecution would be a waste of time. The Democrats will cave to the Wingnuts just as quickly as they have to the most important plank of the Democratic Party Platform of 2008, Universal Health Care. It is fast becoming the joke that even while in control of both the Executive branch and Congress the Democrats are just as helpless as they were under Bush.
Kudos to Spencer for pointing me in the direction that I needed and which reinforces my mindset that EIT’s never delivered anything approaching the “newer” and “better” by way of intelligence gathering.
Of course, the Geneva Conventions, still stands against shoddy governmental practices even when approved by those on high, or perhaps, it was all approved by the amorphously unknowns or “methadonically two-fisted” culprits?
Jaango
Real intelligence work takes time ,and more than a few brains to accomplish . Torturing suspects is the easy way out ,a method favored by the less competent agents .
KSM and Abu Zabaida were waterboarded 183 times between them and never revealed a single piece of useful information.
Those that try to justify the use of torture do so to protect themselves from punishment .
The members of the Bush administration that ordered or authorized torture should be locked away in jail for a long time
Everyone here remembers the last time an intelligence professional dared to contradict the DICK in a NY Times editorial.
but, but, but, he has a Muslim name….
It seems we are watching an instant replay in Afghanistan. I’ve mentioned before that we have a problem in trying NOT to occupy a country. It’s also a bad reality that we have more “contract” military there than our own. Those contractors do not have to follow US laws or the Military Code. Will somebody else besides myself and a few others understand they are having a war for the sake of war and it’s profits?
what we have is a complitic,propagandizing treasonous mainstream media. It’s time to boycott them all.
“contractors” need to be subject to the UCMJ ..and .. be under control by a member of the armed forces ..
we should be using the green beret/special forces model developed for use with indigenous troopers ..
as much as the right-wing likes to make us think so .. this ain’t really a game of “cowboys and indians” ..
thank ya spence .. for a fine post on this pre-holiday sunday mornin’ ..
Couldn’t agree more. The bottom line for me was that Soufan effectively said Osama bin Laden would be sitting in Gitmo today reading Dreams of My Father if Dick Cheney hadn’t sicced the sickos on KSM.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
In fact, the EITs cost the US economy hundreds of millions of dollars since the Orange alerts were based on confessions of non-existent plots. If one considers that such “confessions” were a source of the justification for a bin Laden-Saddam link it’s cost us billions, as well as thousands of lives. Further the whole network of torture sites necessitated buy-offs from overseas militaries and corrupt ministers.
Seems to me that the Constitution states that “military contractors” are under the “letters of marque” requirement. These are issued, not by the Executive Branch, but by Congress.
Thanks so much for your extensive reporting on this issue Spencer. Aside from you and Marcy I don’t think anyone in the traditional media nor the blogosphere has done as much to shine a light on the truth in the CIA IG report. But I want to point out a different paragraph in Soufan’s op ed piece that, to me, is really the blockbuster. And although I am going to put my own post up about it, I think you might want to consider expounding on it as your skills dwarf mine.
Ali Soufan here implies with a great deal of credibility that EITs/torture kept us from actually getting to the Al Qaeda leadership. For all the torture advocates out there this two sentence paragraph pretty much destroys every single argument they have tried to put forth. I know a lot of us on the progressive side are loathe to wade into the whether it was effective or not argument, but I think the people of America need to understand that had real interrogators been allowed to do their job its highly likely that Al Qaeda, at least in its present form, would probably not exist anymore. That torture impeded instead of helped us actually get the bastards who planned and helped to carry out 9/11. The more they get that torturing somebody, as much as it may satisfy some primal instinct of revenge, doesn’t actually get the job done when it comes to bringing people to justice, the more likely they are to start actually looking at the details. Then maybe, just maybe they will notice that the people put in charge of torturing the HVDs had never conducted a real interrogation in their lives. Or that torture created a firewall between the CIA and FBI much like the pre 9/11 days which helped contributing to us not stopping 9/11 in the first place. Not that you need me to give you ideas for a story, just throwing it out there for you to consider.
@12
“Ali Soufan here implies with a great deal of credibility that EITs/torture kept us from actually getting to the Al Qaeda leadership.”
MAYBE that was the whole point?
I can’t rule it out.