The Washington Post refers to Abu Zubaydah, a top al Qaeda operative, as an “alleged al-Qaeda operative” and as a “terrorism suspect.” How is it that almost eight years after the September 11 attacks a major U.S. newspaper is still referring to Zubaydah in a such a manner? Is it merely ignorance? Zubaydah’s role within al Qaeda is well-documented by: dozens of books, dozens (if not hundreds) more articles, Zubaydah’s own testimony at Gitmo (even in the context of his hollow denials, Zubaydah has admitted important details about his role), the testimony of convicted al Qaeda terrorists (including Ahmed Ressam, the would-be millennium bomber), the testimony of al Qaeda terrorists before their tribunals and administrative review board hearings at Gitmo, U.S. intelligence officials (only a handful pretend Zubaydah wasn’t important), foreign intelligence officials, the 9/11 Commission Report, intelligence reporting from before the 9/11 attacks, recovered documents and hard drives that were found at al Qaeda safe houses in Pakistan, etc. Even an experienced interrogator who questioned Zubaydah shortly after his capture and who argues that the enhanced interrogation techniques used were not necessary, has reported that Zubaydah gave important details on al Qaeda’s operations — including an alias used by chief 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. There is a mountain of evidence showing that Zubaydah was a top al Qaeda operative prior to his detention. And yet, the Post is pretending there is some legitimate ambiguity on this point. There isn’t.
