Over at the Corner, Marc Thiessen points out that recently released excerpts of the CIA’s Inspector General Report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program further undermine former FBI agent Ali Soufan’s story. Soufan, you will recall, is the former FBI agent who claims that the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA were worthless and that he could have gotten the necessary intelligence out of high-level al Qaeda terrorists, such as Abu Zubaydah, without resorting to these techniques by using the FBI’s standard methods (including rapport-building). One of the principal examples Soufan cites in making his case is the identification of Jose Padilla — an al Qaeda-trained terrorist who intended to commit terrorist attacks in the U.S. before he was arrested in Chicago in 2002. Soufan has said that the FBI learned of Padilla’s identity before any of the CIA’s techniques were employed. As Thiessen explains, a previous account in the Washington Post noted that some of these techniques (forced nudity, sleep deprivation) were used early on during Zubaydah’s detention, and before he gave up Jose Padilla’s identity. That is, those techniques were used prior to Zubaydah giving up Padilla. This directly contradicts Soufan’s claim. Now, newly released excerpts of the CIA Inspector General’s report shed even more light on Soufan’s increasingly shaky claims. For example, Thiessen notes this excerpt from the IG’s report:
“Gibson” is Soufan’s FBI colleague and participated with him in the early questioning of high-value al Qaeda detainees. Whereas Soufan has said he objected to certain parts of the interrogation program, Gibson (according to the IG’s report) had no such misgivings. Moreover, as explained in the quote above, Gibson says that the intelligence on Padilla was gleaned during the CIA’s interrogations — not the FBI’s. This, again, directly contradicts Soufan’s claims. There’s more. Consider this newly-released excerpt (emphasis added):
“Binalshibh” is Ramzi Binalshibh — al Qaeda’s chief point man for the September 11 attacks. Binalshibh acted as an intermediary between the hijackers in Europe and the U.S. and al Qaeda central in Afghanistan. “Thomas” is almost certainly Ali Soufan. He has been identified elsewhere as the “Thomas” referenced in the report and the details provided on Agent Thomas match Soufan. Notice the underlined sentence again with those two facts in mind. It appears that Ali Soufan, the crusader against “torture,” actually questioned Binalshibh while he was “naked and chained to the floor.” This is hardly the FBI’s modus operandi. And whatever “valuable actionable intelligence” Soufan got out of Binalshibh was clearly obtained in circumstances that are drastically different than those used during the FBI’s classic rapport-building sessions. So, did Soufan question al Qaeda suspects that were naked and chained to the floor? And if he did, how does he square this with his claim that the CIA’s interrogation techniques were unnecessary and immoral? The recently-released excerpts of the Inspector General’s report raise even more doubts about Soufan’s increasingly shaky story.
