Lots of good posts lately from the authors about the interrogation of Zubaydah, the latest being Word’s post on the book The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack by Ronald Kessler.
It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.
Of course the left is hanging their hats on this one. Why use harsher interrogation techniques when the others were working. Problem is, the Inspector General (pg 100-111) says those harsher techniques were NOT introduced in August but Late March/Early April.
So we have a informer for the left who is doing his best to damn the CIA and the Bush administration for waterboarding scum like Zubaydah….but is either lying about the timeframe or his memory is faulty. And if his memory is faulty then how can the rest of his story be believed? Is he telling this tale to get the most bang for his buck while this story is in the headlines?
Bottom line, if the CIA was using enhanced techniques in April, Soufan’s assertion that those techniques did not need to be used because they were already getting valuable intelligence without resorting to those techniques is baloney.
As Tom notes the:
“traditional technique was not employed up to June, as Soufan claims, nor were harsh techniques only applied beginning in August. Per the IG, the CIA assumed control of the Zubaydah interrogation within “a few days” and made a quick judgment that they needed to “diminish his capacity to resist”.
And while the FBI did learn of the identity of KSM using the “traditional” techniques….what techniques were employed to learn the whereabouts of KSM so we could capture him and stop the Liberty Towers attack?